I am not a fan of our lawsuit-crazy, "I am a victim mentality" society. However, the people that seem determined to take away our liberties in the pursuit of- whatever the excuse is this time- occasionally need to get whacked upside the head with a $100K bat.

Just unfortunate that the citizens end up paying the bill instead of the control freaks who think these things up.

It was five families whose settlements all add up to $95K. And the action wound up making a positive change. Every school I've ever been to, there was always at least some psychotic Puritan administrator wasting everyones time and money enforcing bullsh*t dress codes. The tigger socks thing went to far. I'd make a stink about it too. What is this the 17th century?

mr_a: Just unfortunate that the citizens end up paying the bill instead of the control freaks who think these things up.

Then the citizens should start demanding that their government representatives acquit themselves less idiotically on their behalf.

thamike: What is this the 17th century?

No, but scarily a lot of people seem to wish that it was...

Apparently the socks caused "substantial disruption"

$95K? Tigger, please.

I'd have to know a lot more about it, but I can testify to the fact that there are anal-retentive teachers out there who enforce the dress code down to the minutest detail, regardless of whether or not it makes any difference. These people are assholes. I still don't know if it justifies a lawsuit, though.

Of course, the actual solution is to get rid of the one-size-fits-all, pay-for-it-or-go-to-jail government-run schools.

Sadly no one will learn a lesson from this and the taxpayers will get the shaft while the lawyers will get all the money.

Churchill2004: Of course, the actual solution is to get rid of the one-size-fits-all, pay-for-it-or-go-to-jail government-run schools.

You're right. Poor people don't have a right to an education.

Can someone shed some light on what the original infraction was? I mean come on cartoon character socks are a cause of distraction? I mean how often do we look at other peoples socks anyway? I have worn one black sock and one navy blue sock before and no has ever noticed...and if they had no one cares because they are socks!


Seriously what was the original infraction?

Fluff Girl: $95K? Tigger, please.

First they came for the Tigger socks and I said nothing as I was a Paddington Bear fan

so let me get this straight. Some parents thought standing up for this dress code warranted spending $100,000 to their lawyers in a 50/50 gamble that they would break even and their kid can wear non-solid socks?

When is this country going to require mandatory psychological testing?

Churchill2004: I'd have to know a lot more about it, but I can testify to the fact that there are anal-retentive teachers out there who enforce the dress code down to the minutest detail, regardless of whether or not it makes any difference.

I remember someone in my high school having to cancel their driving test after getting a detention for not having their shirt tucked in.

Good for the parents. I'm sick of overbearing petty tyrant school administrators.

Maybe things have changed since I was in school, but if your parents made a big stink over something then you were going to be the recipient of playground justice. One family moved in from NY and the kid's mom made a big stink over "kill ball" (kick ball but you aimed at people). The school board leaned on the principal, who told the PE coach not to allow it anymore. No one ever got hurt over it. Needless to say little Scott got his ass beat over that school year.

This is why I'm never going to win a frivolous lawsuit. I don't think far enough outside the box. I would have never thought to sue over someone saying my socks didn't fit the dress code! Dammit!!

As asinine as the parents are, I think we've come to a point where we actually need parents like this to show how asinine a schools position on certain topics deem an unpleasant yet necessary overreaction by some parents.

Maybe when they stop being such idiots, the idiotic response by parents such as these would cease.


For every Stupid idiotic action the school makes, there should be an over the top ever more stupid financially painful reaction towards them.

I for one, support anti-commercial dress codes

It is just a matter of times until kids (or parents) get paid to dress certain ways; a way to earn extra income by hawking things to other kids. exactly the kind of marketing everywhere bull crap that the USA loves to do.

That said, you think the first week of school you just issue written warnings to the parents... why punish?

Jakevol2: Can someone shed some light on what the original infraction was? I mean come on cartoon character socks are a cause of distraction? I mean how often do we look at other peoples socks anyway? I have worn one black sock and one navy blue sock before and no has ever noticed...and if they had no one cares because they are socks!


Seriously what was the original infraction?

If you had RTFA, you might have noticed this line-
The settlement also says Redwood Middle School may no longer require students to wear only solid-color clothing.

The Tigger socks were striped, not a solid color. Therefore they were gang related and the girl needed to be expelled from school.

Oh man, a story about kids and lawyers. Blood in the water for farkers.

Never mind that the school policy was asinine and the district got what it deserved, let's all biatch about how kids are evil - especially when they express individuality or creativity - and how no wrongs are worthy of lawsuits.

bubbaprog: Churchill2004: Of course, the actual solution is to get rid of the one-size-fits-all, pay-for-it-or-go-to-jail government-run schools.

You're right. Poor people don't have a right to an education.

Nobody has a "right" to an education. I didn't say they shouldn't have one, though.

$95,000?




Ohhh-kayyy

nosepicker: Some parents thought standing up for this dress code warranted spending $100,000 to their lawyers in a 50/50 gamble that they would break even and their kid can wear non-solid socks?

I bet the students were suspended and the parents didn't want that to show up on their precious little chocolate starfish's record, hindering their chances of getting into college.

skwerl: Jakevol2: Can someone shed some light on what the original infraction was? I mean come on cartoon character socks are a cause of distraction? I mean how often do we look at other peoples socks anyway? I have worn one black sock and one navy blue sock before and no has ever noticed...and if they had no one cares because they are socks!


Seriously what was the original infraction?

If you had RTFA, you might have noticed this line-
The settlement also says Redwood Middle School may no longer require students to wear only solid-color clothing.

The Tigger socks were striped, not a solid color. Therefore they were gang related and the girl needed to be expelled from school.



Maybe it's my lack of sleep but I must have missed that part in the article.


Did the educator really think that Tigger socks were gang related? Have educators become this farking retarded thanks to NCLB?

The schools are right on this one. Tigger socks may be considered gang colors, or supporting terrorism.

The new face of terrorism.



/sarcastic

Fluff Girl: $95K? Tigger, please.

Damn, you win again!

Churchill2004

Nobody has a "right" to an education.

Now, now. Let's not be bitter just because you apparently never got one.

I think the schoool's original intent was to avoid clothing commercialism and competition among students by forcing them to wear solid colors only. I happen to agree with that policy. Maybe they shouldn't have been such hardasses and just issued warnings for the first infraction, though.

The family deserves every penny. Let the school suck it.

/ too many beers to write anything intellectual.

If so lelio, then I hope all three, parents, college admins, and school admins get to join hands in their own circle of hell.

Sadly what this will teach the schools admins is to enforce a different sort of zero tolerance, not to use actual wisdom. And so in lieu of an overly strict dress code, they'll probably just go back to no dress code at all.

It occurs to me that school admins. do their best to curb clothing trends; what with hem length restrictions, banning of tank tops/muscle shirts, body jewelery other than earings for girls et. al. (FYI these were some of the restrictions when I was in high school)

nosepicker: so let me get this straight. Some parents thought standing up for this dress code warranted spending $100,000 to their lawyers in a 50/50 gamble that they would break even and their kid can wear non-solid socks?

When is this country going to require mandatory psychological testing?

It was almost certainly done on contingency. THis was most likely a 42 USC 1983 suit for damages for violation of civil rights, alleging that the dress code violated the First Amendment. The school probably would have won if they litigated it, but it would have cost them more than $95k. Better to settle it and make it go away.

Churchill2004: bubbaprog: Churchill2004: Of course, the actual solution is to get rid of the one-size-fits-all, pay-for-it-or-go-to-jail government-run schools.

You're right. Poor people don't have a right to an education.

Nobody has a "right" to an education. I didn't say they shouldn't have one, though.

Since the US is a signatory to Link , actually they do.

Don't be messing wif my peeps, Yo!

Word.

Lets just let them come to school naked, carrying nothing but is knives. Clearly, that will help them learn.

/jk
//is glad he doesn't have kids
///would home school them if he did

nosepicker: When is this country going to require mandatory psychological testing?

Testing for the school administrators, I hope you mean. This was an idiotic policy. Period. Idiotic policies deserve to be sued out of existence. Don't want to pay up? Don't make up idiotic policies.

jenniferwillow: $95,000?

[Picture]

Ohhh-kayyy

That's Eeyore, not Tigger. Mongo cut wood posted a pic of Tigger.

hyperflame: That's Eeyore, not Tigger. Mongo cut wood posted a pic of Tigger.

Like she doesn't know that?

Churchill2004: Nobody has a "right" to an education. I didn't say they shouldn't have one, though.

Nobody has a "right" to own a piece of metal molded into a firearm, either. They have a right to defend themselves, but a metal mold is just one way to do it.

Bucky Katt:

Since the US is a signatory to Link , actually they do.

You might want to read that worthless document a little closer. It does not bestow any rights on anyone.

LocalCynic:
Nobody has a "right" to own a piece of metal molded into a firearm, either.

Yes they do, dumbass, read the Bill of Rights. It's even toward the beginning so you won't have to read far.

Ooooooooohhh..."Tigger."

Jakevol2: Can someone shed some light on what the original infraction was? I mean come on cartoon character socks are a cause of distraction? I mean how often do we look at other peoples socks anyway? I have worn one black sock and one navy blue sock before and no has ever noticed...and if they had no one cares because they are socks!

The infraction was in not bending to the school rule.

For years I had two kinds of socks, that came in one package - half are navy blue with greyish blue trim, and the other half greyish blue with navy blue trim (trim being a little stripe around the top, and the heels/toes). All was good, the colors are far enough apart I was never confused.

But then this Halloween I needed some black socks for my costume, and got that same brand of sock, but black ones (with grey trim).

Now half the time I leave the house with one black sock and one navy blue one, I can't tell them apart in the morning. No one really cares, but I always seem to finally notice sometime around noon.

I suppose I could spend some quality time folding and sorting my socks rather than just stuffing them all in a big milk crate on the shelf, but... nah.

FWIW I went to school with actual uniforms, none of this "dress code" business, and we had to wear white socks. I actually didn't mind the uniform so much, as it let us (1) own far fewer clothes, and (2) be extremely lazy, just wake up, put on the same old same old thing, and run out the door. Artfully untucking your shirt just so can be managed on the train.

/lazy

ne2d: Yes they do, dumbass, read the Bill of Rights. It's even toward the beginning so you won't have to read far.

Oh, you mean that corporate welfare provision designed to protect the gun industry? Yeah... that's a good one.

LocalCynic: Churchill2004: Nobody has a "right" to an education. I didn't say they shouldn't have one, though.

Nobody has a "right" to own a piece of metal molded into a firearm, either. They have a right to defend themselves, but a metal mold is just one way to do it.

"Bearing arms" (meaning--yes--firearms) is the only reason American citizens were able to fend off the British. so yeah, that right was kinda valued highly by those forefathers.

/Would you rather I shot you, or beat you repeatedly with a baseball bat until you were incapacitated?

LocalCynic: ne2d: Yes they do, dumbass, read the Bill of Rights. It's even toward the beginning so you won't have to read far.

Oh, you mean that corporate welfare provision designed to protect the gun industry? Yeah... that's a good one.

Okay, you're just a troll. Or you don't understand history.

Corporate welfare? In my 1700's?

Somehow the turn this thread has taken has me imagining some school in the future that will require all students to pack heat but some kid will get suspended for having the wrong brand of gun.

Fluff Girl: $95K? Tigger, please.

i hereby award you one internet. don't spend it all in one place.

Barakku: LocalCynic: Churchill2004: Nobody has a "right" to an education. I didn't say they shouldn't have one, though.

Nobody has a "right" to own a piece of metal molded into a firearm, either. They have a right to defend themselves, but a metal mold is just one way to do it.

"Bearing arms" (meaning--yes--firearms) is the only reason American citizens were able to fend off the British. so yeah, that right was kinda valued highly by those forefathers.

/Would you rather I shot you, or beat you repeatedly with a baseball bat until you were incapacitated?

Can we hurry up and Godwin this?


/sheesh

Bucky Katt: Since the US is a signatory to Link , actually they do.

A hilariously contradictory document that means little to nothing.

LocalCynic: Nobody has a "right" to own a piece of metal molded into a firearm, either. They have a right to defend themselves, but a metal mold is just one way to do it.

They have the right to obtain, by their own means, the means of self-defense. Nobody has a "right" to have the government give them a gun at the expense of others, which is what the "right" to education claims.