Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

L.O.A.S. · 01-25-2006, 12:13 PM

Has the ACLU done anything usefull in the recent past? I only seem to come across ridiculous stories like this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182730,00.html

The ACLU announced the deal Tuesday. It will allow a Hasbrouck Heights School senior to wear a skirt to protest the school's no-shorts policy.

The district's dress code bans shorts between Oct. 1 and April 15, but allows skirts, a policy 17-year-old Michael Coviello believes is discriminatory.

"I'm happy to be able to wear skirts again to bring attention to the fact that the ban on shorts doesn't make sense," Coviello said in a statement.

The Hasbrouck Heights superintendent, Joseph C. Luongo, did not return telephone messages left Tuesday seeking comment.

Coviello first wore a costume-style dress but high school officials told him to go home and change. The district's superintendent then advised the Coviello to purchase everyday dresses and skirts at a retail store, which Coviello did, the ACLU said.

But after a few days, he was sent home with a note from his principal saying if he wore a dress, kilt or skirt, he could no longer attend school.

Philistine · 01-25-2006, 12:37 PM

It depends on what you consider "useful."

Even in the article you cited--I don't have a problem with it. The ACLU (and other special-interest organizations) often get involved in cases like this where schools enforce arbitrary rules to shut down protest.

In most cases--like this one--the protest is over some minor issue (no shorts), and is silly, but the response to the protest is equally silly, and serves no actual purpose. Had they just ignored the kid, most likely he would have done it for a week or two and then given up.

--Philistine

Epee_Pox · 01-25-2006, 12:41 PM

The ACLU, and other interest groups across the political spectrum, perform a valuable function. And it isn't "speaking for those with no voice," either. What they do is force a kind of reductio ad absurdem process onto the law.

The lawmakers espouse a policy. "Oh really?" say these groups, "well if you mean that, then that means you have to stop doing X, Y, and Z." Which, of course, the lawmakers do not want to stop doing at all. So it goes to the courts.

Whatever the outcome, it forces the lawmakers to fine-tune the law more and more, so that they can accomplish what they want within the policies they espouse.

Now, do I agree with the stands the ACLU takes? Not often. But it would be strange if the average person did, because the whole point of the ACLU is to take things to the extreme.

Larrison · 01-25-2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Has the ACLU done anything usefull in the recent past? I only seem to come across ridiculous stories like this one. [ ... ] .

I hate to say it, that while I am in support of the original concept of the ACLU, I can't think of a case off-hand where I support the ACLU recently. All of the cases I can recall over the past several years aren't cases that I support. Off hand the ACLU cases that immediately come to mind

-- Suit against the City of Los Angeles to remove the representation of a landmark mission cross from the city seal

-- Suit against the National Forest Service to remove a historical (errected in the 20's) cross commenorating World War I dead from National Forest land acquired in the 40's or 50's.

-- Suit against the City of San Diego and Boy Scouts to break the Boy Scout's "perpetual" lease of a part of Balboa Park (the lease has been in effect since at least the 1930's, and the Boy Scouts as part of their public use clause provide usage of the campsite to folks like Boys & Girls Clubs, Girl Scouts, Indian Guides, and even the Gay & Lesbian Alliance for conferences).

-- Suit in general against any public school or community or other public organization that allows Boy Scouts to use their facilities (such as elementary school cafeterias, etc.). That one effected *thousands* of organizations and shut down several hundred youth programs. http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20306

I'm sure with a bit of googling I'd come up with a bunch more cases, including a couple I'd support, but I'd have to say that my first impressions are not good for the current tenor of what the ACLU choses to support.

eze · 01-25-2006, 03:42 PM

The ACLU's involvement with the Lockney, Texas mandatory student drug testing gets an A+ in my book.

High school is annoying enough without the humiliation of having to pee in a cup just to go to class.

http://www.aclu.org//drugpolicy/test...s20010430.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larrison

I hate to say it, that while I am in support of the original concept of the ACLU, I can't think of a case off-hand where I support the ACLU recently....

Larrison · 01-25-2006, 06:19 PM

Yeah I'll agree this was a good one to fight... said there were some from the ACLU I'd support.

Philistine · 01-25-2006, 06:27 PM

The ACLU isn't a monolithic organization.

Chapters have a great deal of independence, and some chapters are more inclined to bring certain types of actions or get involved in certain situations than others

It makes it somewhat difficult to make broad generalizations about "the" ACLU.

--Philistine

L.O.A.S. · 01-25-2006, 07:50 PM

Why is mandatory drug testing bad? Schools have mandatory tests for math, english, science, PE etc., why not one to make sure you are not using drugs?

I'd guess that supporters of drug testing would argue that testing allows them 1) weed out

those who might pose a risk to the general population, 2) discourage the casual user with the threat of being caught.

Arguments against, because its humiliating? I can see if you had to do it on stage during a school assembly.....
I'd be interested in hearing more examples of the pros and cons.

Tomas N · 01-25-2006, 10:13 PM

The older and crankier I get, the more I agree with what the ACLU does.

Tomas

YankeeRebel · 01-25-2006, 11:07 PM

It is interesting that so many people loathe an organization whose sole purpose is a zealous defense of the Bill of Rights.

Slim · 01-26-2006, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YankeeRebel

It is interesting that so many people loathe an organization whose sole purpose is a zealous defense of the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately it has been hijacked and poisoned by liberal special interests. One event finally opened my eyes: Defending NAMBLA. It's pretty clear that they go about their business with no regard for the consequences.

Read on....

http://stoptheaclu.com/

Slim · 01-26-2006, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomas N

The older and crankier I get, the more I agree with what the ACLU does.

Tomas

Funny, the older and wiser I get, the more I disagree.

Slim · 01-26-2006, 01:21 AM

Kiddie Porn is just fine:
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005...-distribution/

Terrorists are citizens too:
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005...sts-dont-talk/

We dont need no stinking borders:
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005...credit-itself/

Well, not all rights are good:
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005...ond-amendment/

In Satan we trust:
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005...-all-churches/

Philistine · 01-26-2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim

Unfortunately it has been hijacked and poisoned by liberal special interests. One event finally opened my eyes: Defending NAMBLA. It's pretty clear that they go about their business with no regard for the consequences.
{snip}

What did you think about them defending the Nazis?

--Philistine

Gav · 01-26-2006, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Schools have mandatory tests for math, english, science, PE etc., why not one to make sure you are not using drugs?

I'm a bit confused ...

What are the similarities between academic examinations (for science, math, PE etc) and drug testing? Are you suggesting that some people will be better at drug testing than others? That suitably for employment, or further education, should be [in part] determined by how well you perform at peeing in a cup?

Slim · 01-26-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philistine

It depends on what you consider "useful."

Even in the article you cited--I don't have a problem with it. The ACLU (and other special-interest organizations) often get involved in cases like this where schools enforce arbitrary rules to shut down protest.

In most cases--like this one--the protest is over some minor issue (no shorts), and is silly, but the response to the protest is equally silly, and serves no actual purpose. Had they just ignored the kid, most likely he would have done it for a week or two and then given up.

--Philistine

There are enough distractions in high school. School is not the venue for some misguided youth's thirst for attention. Wearing a skirt so he can "express" himself should not be allowed (in my opinion). Its freaking school, not a nightclub. And once again, a school adminstration trying to establish a serious atmosphere for learning learning was undermined by the legal system courtesy of the ACLU.

I'm sure once the attention dies down he will put the skirt away, but after wasting a lot of taxpayer $$ trying make a rediculous point, encouraged by the ACLU. In this case both sides of the legal battle were funded by the taxpayers.

Another of the the many reasons my kids go to a private school. If they wanted to drug test in their highschool, I'd provide the cups.

pigeonmeister · 01-26-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim

There are enough distractions in high school. School is not the venue for some misguided youth's thirst for attention. Wearing a skirt so he can "express" himself should not be allowed (in my opinion). Its freaking school, not a nightclub. And once again, a school adminstration trying to establish a serious atmosphere for learning learning was undermined by the legal system courtesy of the ACLU.

I'm sure once the attention dies down he will put the skirt away, but after wasting a lot of taxpayer $$ trying make a rediculous point, encouraged by the ACLU. In this case both sides of the legal battle were funded by the taxpayers.

Another of the the many reasons my kids go to a private school. If they wanted to drug test in their highschool, I'd provide the cups.

At last it has happened! Slim- I totaly agree with you. If a guy wore a skirt to my school I can't imagine him having the will to come back the next day.

Slim · 01-26-2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

At last it has happened! Slim- I totaly agree with you. If a guy wore a skirt to my school I can't imagine him having the will to come back the next day.

Wow...I better rethink my position.

telkanuru · 01-26-2006, 10:26 AM

Just because an idea is absolutely foul and loathsome (NAMBLA) dosn't mean people shouldn't have the right to express it. In any case, that website is amusingly biased. I don't have any feelings for or against the ACLU, but I am generally for the defense of free speach.

Philistine · 01-26-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim

There are enough distractions in high school. School is not the venue for some misguided youth's thirst for attention. Wearing a skirt so he can "express" himself should not be allowed (in my opinion). Its freaking school, not a nightclub.

I don't know--the distraction seemed to be more the administration's reaction than the kid dressing in a skirt. First they let him, then they change their mind....

Quote:

I'm sure once the attention dies down he will put the skirt away, but after wasting a lot of taxpayer $$ trying make a rediculous point, encouraged by the ACLU. In this case both sides of the legal battle were funded by the taxpayers.

How was the kid's side funded by taxpayers?

This doesn't appear to be a litigation, but instead was a negotiation.

--Philistine