Sup't. Granger claims that the school had previously forbidden "pro-choice" students to wear THEIR T shirts in 02. He said it wasn't that the school disagreed officially with their statement. The rationale: the shirts could cause "disruption" to the school day. Because one student had already complained and a teacher took some time to deal with it. Goodness knows, it would provoke discussion on a controversial topic on an infamous day in history --when the Supreme Court legislated from the bench. It would be a good day for history teachers to note this history-making event --when abortion became justifiable, and state's rights were usurped, under the constitutional "right to privacy." (Never mind that privacy had never justified the crime of abortion or any other crime behind closed doors previous to 1973.)
We wouldn't want that historical marker noted in our schools, would we? We wouldn't want them to hear how this Jane Roe in the case was said to be pregnant by rape --when she actually was not. Nor that the daughter born because the decision came too late for an abortion, became a pro-life activist herself because she was, in fact, NOT aborted. What a difference a birth makes!
The outcome: Sup't Granger is looking at a new dress code, and notes that Springfield disallows ALL lettering on shirts other than spirit shirts (I assume that means sports team advocacy.)
I remember when my children wore pro-life and Christian t-shirts to school without any fuss --and at the time, the faculstration was smart enough to see the difference between political or religious statement t-shirts and the drug and beer and nudity t-shirts that were disallowed. Dusney World also disallowed drug and alcohol-promoting t-shirts during those days and may still do so. (I didn't notice any political or religious statement t-shirts there either.)
The irony, in my view, is that the A.W. girls are allowed to dress like "Girls Gone Wild" at the football games. Someone I knew went to the alumni game and had to teach her children that what they were seeing was inappropriate and not right --as the teen girls were exposing their midriffs from below the navel to their sports bras --which is all they wore on top. Must've been a warm evening. So the mother wrote to Jim Connors, the school principal, and complained and got a very less than satisfactory response. He saw nothing wrong with that attire at a school event.
I say, Sup't. Granger, get more strict as you said you did not mind doing. Don't let the girls dress like trollops at any school events --require a belt and pants that aren't falling off of the boys --and disallow all statements on shirts --except support for the team --or school club identification --including religious clubs, drama club, advertising the school musical, choir and band t-shirts, teams, colleges, etc.
It's the fights over such trivia --people trying to dress any way they please --girls in shorts and skirts that barely cover their fannies --that drive a school to embrace school uniforms. It would eliminate the lawsuits and the administrators who won't enforce modesty but will restrict free speech on t-shirts.
I remember with fondness and humor a time when the A.W. school board was asked to approve a committee-created dress code --a committee with a board member, students, faculty and administrators on it --and the board member got the school board to change the skirt length from 4 inches above the knee to 2, reasoning that on short people 4 inches didn't leave much to the imagination. Some were furious whenever the school board actually did what the parents expected them to do and what they were elected to do --set policy --and not just rubber-stamp everything put in front of us.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible