Student Expelled for Tattoo

nah, i really dislike rap, but he should not have been punished at all for that, freedom of speech or *ahem* ink

I hate rap music. But still, isn't there some law about not discriminating people based on their opinions or what they like? But then again, it was a Catholic high school, so what do you expect?

I think the tenth word in the first sentence of the report might explain the 'harsh' actions taken against this young man. Catholicism and decorum/propriety are highly correlated and I am guessing the powers at the school felt this was a breach of this relationship. Mjmoonwalker is absolutely correct in his estimation, I think a lesson has been learned and this guy should have checked before he got something permanent inked on his arm.

He does have a right to be educated, but the school also has many rights. They in turn have the right to formulate rules for their students to abide by, any flouting would lead to them becoming involved and issuing punishments. I find it hard not to side with the school here, despite their apparent 'heavy-handidness'

There's no accounting for taste either, what an awful choice of tattoo, but that's another thread :)

The kids got the problem of having to live with a tattoo of Tupac for the rest of his life, screwing up his education is just like kicking him whilst he's down.

My opinion on tattoos has actually been summed up rather concisely by someone else - head over here (http://www.machinima.com/films.php?download=328) and click the link to see what I mean.

Luckily, my Tat's on my chest.

And boy, would a Catholic high school have fun with mine.

If you've seen the Bad Religion logo, you'll understand.

You ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Crossbuster.svg/180px-Crossbuster.svg.png) mean this one? :D

Why, yes sir, that would be the one.

Have you bothered watching the video I linked to?

You're gonna regret that if you turn to religion later in life ;)

I can always get the band name tattooed around it.

I thought about that before I went and got it, and I was like, "Hmm...What if, let's say, I find Jesus? Damn. WAIT! I can get the band name tattooed around it!"

So, personally, I'm not too worried.

Until then, I get the pleasure of walking around in the summer with my shirt off and having people gawk at me, plus, the amusing stares from the kids in the locker room are priceless.

i dont' really like hip hop in general although anyone should be able to get whatever they want tattooed to their body.

in this case, tupac doesn't seem to push it too far.

unless it's some anti christ thing then that would be a legitimate reason for expelling him from catholic school.

In fact, if it's a state-funded school (which it sounds like it might be) even that shouldn't be reasonable grounds to expel him.
Catholic schools usually aren't government-run, right? Well at least in North America they aren't..I'm not sure how things work down thurr.

Well, in the UK they can vary.
Some can be independent but there are some that are, at least in part, state-funded.
True. Still, Catholics are notorious for being extremely conservative. It doesn't surprise me if a tattoo is offensive in their eyes.

catholic schools are dumb, i know i went for 8 years

I went for five years, and I agree completely.

While I think expulsion was a bit harsh for something done on his own time that didn't impact anyone, it's still the school's right.

I remember reading that some college basketball coach was trying to encourage high school coaches to ban tattoos for their players. Seems his two top recruits had tats - for competing street gangs!

they should still have to comply to laws regarding discrimination.

Actually, the discrimination laws are specific to sex, race, religion, ethnic origin and, in some cases, sexual preference.

The precedents are very clear. If it's a VOLUNTARY affiliation, the organization can make any rules it chooses as long as the rules do not violate anti-discrimination portions of the law. My employer does not hire folks with visible body art or visible piercings other than in the ear. Is it considered discrimination? No, unless the tatted/pierced person is in a protected class.

You would be foolish to regard the labour market as one which serves up equal opportunities for males and females. In 2002 women's pay was 81.1% of what a man would receive in the UK. There may be some defining factors amongst all this that explain some of the gap in the figures, but a large disparity such as this does question the real motives of these "equal opportunity" employers you cited. Discrimination based on race is also a problem which individuals are likely to experience throughout their working careers.

Re-reading this thread I have noticed that I am one of the very few which has sided with the school in this debacle. The school will have quite clearly laid down the rules for their pupils to abide by. I do not see a floating of these regulations as an act of self-glorification and a deserved one-in-the-eye of the school. Schools often require their pupils to sign a contract to ensure that the students recognise the authority of the school and admit they are in the best position to make decisions regarding their education and enrichment.

The circumstance are perhaps the tragic element to this story. He was about to graduate, but that does not give permission to confront the school over an issue such as this. So what if his mother gave him the permission for the tattoo, does that make it right?

I would be optimistic to think that employers do operate non-discriminatory hiring policies.
And, as you say yourself, there will be factors not taken into account when comparing salaries, so to assume that there must be discrimination involved is somewhat pessimistic, albeit probably true. That said, it won't be universal, far from it.

Anyway, we're running off at a tangent.

Getting back to the point at hand, you have assumed that the kid has deliberately flouted a school rule (one that must state that all tattoos are categorically banned) and that he had signed some sort of contract to say he wouldn't break the rules. Now I don't know what sort of school you went to but my school never had contracts pupils had to sign, nor did they have a rule on tattoos

Also, we still don't know whether the school is private or partly- (or even fully-) state-funded.
As I said before, if the state funds the school to any degree, then the school should not be allowed to throw someone out for having a tattoo.

Neither of these points has been cleared up - we don't know if there was actually a rule that he has broken, some people have just assumed so. And we don't know the status of the school.

And, another point, education id very different to a job - a person is entitled to an education, it's a human right, there is nothing that says a person must be given a job.
So whilst it may be okay to choose to employ someone based on whether or not they have tattoos, that should not be a factor in whether they are allowed an education.

@toothpaste: I have no idea what your problem is mate.
Nothing I said was demeaning or condescending and if that's how you interpreted it, well then that says more about you than it does about me.

My not wanting a tattoo does not mean my opinion doesn't count nor that I shouldn't be allowed to discuss such matters with people who do have tattoos.

And you give blood? Wow!
I'll go get the marching band started up...

Some schools are now requiring a formal contract be drawn up to define the relationship of the pupil to the learning institution. Whilst this may not be a nationwide policy it is fair to say that tacit contracts occur in abundance in the education sector. The principle reason for attending a school and receiving education is to enrich and develop your knowledge (there are contrasting ways of achieving this, with Steiner Institutes being one of the most advocated alternative), often with a view to arming yourself for a world of work. It is a delicate relationship which require the parties on both side to cooperate with each other. If the school neglects their education duties then they are liable to face sanctions and inquiries from the relevant authoritative bodies. If the student shirks whilst at school then s/he will also expect to face punishment from the school.

The nature of this shirking is defined by the school. There are certain practices which the government deems unacceptable and schools have the method to deal with any flouting of this infrastructure. Schools also have the authority to lay down their own set of principles which their students are bound to. Taking into account that this is a Catholic school then we can assume that these principles will differ from your average comprehensive. Yet the prerogative still lies with the school, and they have identified this example as one of those instances whereby their authority has been disrespected.

Education may be a right in many of the countries in the Western World, as well as those elsewhere, but it has to be earned. It is not one of those 'Natural Rights' which protect it from human action. It is very much dependent on the willingness and compliance of the child. Rousseau details the relationship that is deemed ideal for a state and its subjects, and the Social Contract premise is one which is very much applicable here. The school teaches, safe in the knowledge that the pupil complies. A tattoo might not seem like a major deal, but the school has stated that it is a breaking of this contract and took the necessary action (in their eye's). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child makes no mention of a child's right to education and therefore my sympathy lies with the school and not the person who has desecrated their arm with a hideous inking of a irrationally immortalised young black American.

No rights are being violated because it's a PRIVATE catholic school. He can transfer his credits to a public school and still graduate... at least eventually. I went to a catholic school and let me tell you the rules are usually well spelled out. He chose to violate those rules and now he pays. You think the world is supposed to be fair? Buy a damn clue. It's his own fault he got a lame tattoo. Obviously it is is family/mother that doesn't value his education or is either stupid enough to not know the rules and realize the consequences.

I suppose it's a bit of both. Mainly to the first one.

I think that's wrong that he was expelled over getting a tattoo of Tupac. He offered to cover it up, what is wrong with that? That's blatant censorship/fascism and it shouldn't be allowed. He has the right to free speech and its not like it was a gun or a knife on it. This is all over news right now, its ridiculous. They shouldn't censor someone's freedom. That's just wrong. But what's done is done and it can't be changed. I think he'll regret getting that tattoo in fifty years though.

I think that's wrong that he was expelled over getting a tattoo of Tupac. He offered to cover it up, what is wrong with that? That's blatant censorship/fascism and it shouldn't be allowed. He has the right to free speech and its not like it was a gun or a knife on it. This is all over news right now, its ridiculous. They shouldn't censor someone's freedom. That's just wrong. But what's done is done and it can't be changed. I think he'll regret getting that tattoo in fifty years though.

The right to free speech may not exist and be protected by the law in new zealand the way it is in united states. So it may not be as far fetched or extreme that he was expelled as a result of getting a tattoo, and showing up to a catholic school displaying his ink. What the smart thing to do would be to cover the tattoo before he went into the school. Hindsight always has 20/20 vision but a little thought before hand would have saved him, his mother and the school a bunch of unneeded grief.

"never underestimate the predictability of stupidity"--bullet tooth tony