Let’s also remember that kids do not and never have had “free speech” in school. No more than they have at home. A parent has a right to ban certain words in a home, and the school is legally “in loco parentis.” For what it’s worth, the school can also tell a student how to dress, even requiring uniforms.
More to the point, using the word negatively (gay = bad, which is how Zack was using it), creates the perception that gay is bad. I know this is difficult logic…
Some words are pejorative in their existence. Using it the way Zack did indirectly contributes to bullying by suggesting that being gay is, itself, a terrible thing. Kids who grow up gay, who are also told that being gay is terrible, experience higher rates of depression and suicide.
I’m sure the Johns don’t want kids to kill themselves. They do have a history of trying to present both sides to an issue, but they also have a history of favoring the conservative side. I think it’s safe to say that the Johns lean politically conservative. It’s not being “prudish” to disagree with them, and it’s not a matter of context, either.
The storyline is trying to demonstrate several things:1) Zero tolerance is dumb.2) Kids should be allowed to use language like “gay” with only mild repercussions, if any.3) If there’s no direct target, it doesn’t hurt anyone.4) The current system infringes on kids’ free speech.
A rebuttal:1) Yes, it’s often implemented in a dumb fashion. But we do have zero tolerance for some things, such as murder. The question is where we draw the line. Speech like this should probably not be under zero tolerance rules and rarely, if ever, actually is. The more common problem in the schools is the reverse: kids saying whatever they want to without being punished, including threats to teachers and each other.
2 and 4) Schools are about teaching, and part of the teaching is how to live in society. Of course their speech is restricted. It should be restricted and corrected. That’s why they’re in school. When they’re older, they can make their own decisions about what to say and where, but they need to first learn the consequences and implications of the things they say.
3) The beginning of my post addressed this. It’s not a victimless crime because it furthers the perception that gay = bad.
I know this is a lot of nuance, more than most people want to read or think about, but that doesn’t mean it’s invalid.
On the other hand, so-called “Zero Tolerance” policies always mean zero tolerance for thought – zero tolerance for judgement. Always. Zero Tolerance inevitably means the victims of bullies get suspended or expelled for fighting, it inevitably means six year olds that draw pictures of guns get arrested, it means that no thought can be given to the actual situation – Wyntre mentioned murder, but we actually do not have a zero tolerance policy toward murder. Our laws consider the circumstances (premeditated or in the heat of the moment; unprovoked or self-defense). By definition, a zero tolerance policy toward murder would outlaw such distinctions and all deaths would be punished with the maximum penalty without recourse.
Nothing good has ever come from a Zero Tolerance policy, and nothing good ever will. I’d like to think that’s the point of this arc.
That said, I hate the phrase that this arc has been about, and would agree with a punishment that fit the crime – detention, education – especially education in why the phrase is offensive.
Actually their is zero tolerance for the truth! And for free speech and to being poor. but if there was a great hunger for the truth being spoken, that would solve many of our problems!
The trouble with these strips, of course, is that storytelling that grows out of believable characters has been replaced by one-sided argumentation. I don’t recall that the school officials were even shown to explain (or even to understand) what might be wrong with saying “That’s so gay.”
I hope it’s over, anyway. And I look forward to the hilarious continuity in which the PC police unreasonably punish Zack for saying that a classmate tried to jew down the price of a school lunch. Because, y’know, it’s just a word, ha ha ha.
doc white over 12 years ago
Free speach, is not free.
vwdualnomand over 12 years ago
also, the school might be sued for not doing enough to stop bullying. and, too many kids have their lives ruined by bullying.
Michael Peterson Premium Member over 12 years ago
Also, it’s hateful, vulgar and inappropriate. I wonder how many other words fall under that category that the cartoonist would also defend?
This arc has gone on forever and ended with a rousing call to mock people for their sexual orientation in order to preserve freedom. sheesh.
cdward over 12 years ago
Let’s also remember that kids do not and never have had “free speech” in school. No more than they have at home. A parent has a right to ban certain words in a home, and the school is legally “in loco parentis.” For what it’s worth, the school can also tell a student how to dress, even requiring uniforms.
Smaus over 12 years ago
this all seems a bit queer to me
Comic Minister Premium Member over 12 years ago
This is exactly what happen to him when he did graffti. Zero tolerance strikes again!
ladywyntre over 12 years ago
Tue, do you feel that way about the n-word?
More to the point, using the word negatively (gay = bad, which is how Zack was using it), creates the perception that gay is bad. I know this is difficult logic…
Some words are pejorative in their existence. Using it the way Zack did indirectly contributes to bullying by suggesting that being gay is, itself, a terrible thing. Kids who grow up gay, who are also told that being gay is terrible, experience higher rates of depression and suicide.
I’m sure the Johns don’t want kids to kill themselves. They do have a history of trying to present both sides to an issue, but they also have a history of favoring the conservative side. I think it’s safe to say that the Johns lean politically conservative. It’s not being “prudish” to disagree with them, and it’s not a matter of context, either.
The storyline is trying to demonstrate several things:1) Zero tolerance is dumb.2) Kids should be allowed to use language like “gay” with only mild repercussions, if any.3) If there’s no direct target, it doesn’t hurt anyone.4) The current system infringes on kids’ free speech.
A rebuttal:1) Yes, it’s often implemented in a dumb fashion. But we do have zero tolerance for some things, such as murder. The question is where we draw the line. Speech like this should probably not be under zero tolerance rules and rarely, if ever, actually is. The more common problem in the schools is the reverse: kids saying whatever they want to without being punished, including threats to teachers and each other.
2 and 4) Schools are about teaching, and part of the teaching is how to live in society. Of course their speech is restricted. It should be restricted and corrected. That’s why they’re in school. When they’re older, they can make their own decisions about what to say and where, but they need to first learn the consequences and implications of the things they say.
3) The beginning of my post addressed this. It’s not a victimless crime because it furthers the perception that gay = bad.
I know this is a lot of nuance, more than most people want to read or think about, but that doesn’t mean it’s invalid.
smparadox over 12 years ago
On the other hand, so-called “Zero Tolerance” policies always mean zero tolerance for thought – zero tolerance for judgement. Always. Zero Tolerance inevitably means the victims of bullies get suspended or expelled for fighting, it inevitably means six year olds that draw pictures of guns get arrested, it means that no thought can be given to the actual situation – Wyntre mentioned murder, but we actually do not have a zero tolerance policy toward murder. Our laws consider the circumstances (premeditated or in the heat of the moment; unprovoked or self-defense). By definition, a zero tolerance policy toward murder would outlaw such distinctions and all deaths would be punished with the maximum penalty without recourse.
Nothing good has ever come from a Zero Tolerance policy, and nothing good ever will. I’d like to think that’s the point of this arc.
That said, I hate the phrase that this arc has been about, and would agree with a punishment that fit the crime – detention, education – especially education in why the phrase is offensive.
pam Miner over 12 years ago
Actually their is zero tolerance for the truth! And for free speech and to being poor. but if there was a great hunger for the truth being spoken, that would solve many of our problems!
Daniel Mishkin Premium Member over 12 years ago
The trouble with these strips, of course, is that storytelling that grows out of believable characters has been replaced by one-sided argumentation. I don’t recall that the school officials were even shown to explain (or even to understand) what might be wrong with saying “That’s so gay.”
I hope it’s over, anyway. And I look forward to the hilarious continuity in which the PC police unreasonably punish Zack for saying that a classmate tried to jew down the price of a school lunch. Because, y’know, it’s just a word, ha ha ha.
ladywyntre over 12 years ago
@Tue: He doesn’t mean anything bad with it? He calls anything he doesn’t like “gay.” How on Earth can you not see that it means he equates gay to bad?
I think at this point, you’re just being willful; you’ve made up your mind and you don’t care about facts.