Hmm...so should students be allowed to wear a shirt that says "Bert and Ernie are homosexual lovers"?

Personally, I think students should have to wear uniforms. After school, they can wear what they want. But school should be more about learning than sloganeering, or the "who has the coolest clothes" BS that occurs in every junior and high school in America. This merely distracts from the true purpose of school: To educate.

Of course, when I was in high school, I held the complete opposite view. So I can see both sides (since I've been on both sides).

Anyway, dealing with the topic at hand, no way should the kid receive money for this. A letter of apology, okay, fine. But money? That cash will come directly from the local taxpayers, many of whom probably agreed with the principal's original decision. The principal's career just took a major hit, and the kid now has about zero respect for authority. Plus, she's learned she can sue and agitate her way through life to get what she wants (money and attention).

I heard about this and the first thought I had was that 30 g's might inspire a lot of copy-cats.

I'd bet a lot of those taxpayers would rather have had the school fight in court.

The 30k probably went for lawyers fees. And after taxes, I doubt she ended up with much. As a gay person, I know that to be singled out and subject to disciplinary action for such a trivial thing can be stressful at least, traumatizing at most. Good for her, she deserves every penny she got, which probably wasn't much. And yes, if she did learn anything, it's to stand up for her beliefs and her rights.

And of course barbie is a lesbian, have you seen ken without clothes? He's nothing more than a pre-op barbie complete with hormone therapy.

I must disagree with the school system's decision. Any clothing that might result in disrupting the learning environment can be forbidden by a school district. If any disruption occurred or was threatened, the young lady should have been told to return without the shirt on.

Giving in to this kind of blackmail may lead to students wearing extremely offensive clothing to school. I have regularly blogged the activities of Kirk Lyons , a neo-Nazi and neo-Confederate leader. His favorite way to raise money is to send groups of students to public schools attired in tee shirts depicting black people picking cotton and a Confederate flag. He then tries to blackmail the schools to settle lawsuits he has filed when the students are disciplined. This kind of behavior is something we don't want to open the door wider to.

I don't think she deserves dime one. I doubt the principal disciplined her due to her sexual-orientation; it was likely due to the sexualized nature of her clothing.

She wouldn't have been "singled out" for wearing a white T-shirt with a rainbow in the middle (the gay rights symbol). She was disciplined because of the provacative tone of her clothing.

I remember, back in high school, there was a huge debate about whether students parking their cars in the lot were allowed to have Confederate flag decals on their vehicle.

Of course, no one objected to the numerous black students with Malcolm X hats and T-shirts...

To accuse this young girl of blackmail is a bit of a stretch without anything to back it up. So suddenly she's evil and manipulative? Perhaps we should bring back the stockades and teach her a lesson.

I occasionally got in trouble in secondary school. and it was usually deserved. And I never sued, or claimed discrimination.

If I wore a T-shirt that said, "Pam Anderson Likes It From Big White Guys," how long do you think I would be wearing that shirt while attending class?

It would likely be removed from me, physically. And I would not claim this was due to me being white, or straight. No, it would be removed from me due to the fact that it alludes to sex.

Sex and minors do not mix (at least in a school setting, ha-ha).

Maybe this chick thinks she's a civil rights heroine. Or maybe she just wanted attention. Or maybe she just wanted some loot.

In any event, it's the local taxpayers who are footing the bill for this mess.

If she just wanted an official apology, I'm pretty sure she could have gotten one. And if she wanted to stand up for a principle, she would not have taken an out-of-court settlement; she would have fought this publicly, in the courts.

I don't hate her. How can you hate a 15 year old who thinks she's fighting the good fight? But the decision was wrong.

Pretty soon we'll have kids running around the halls wearing T-shirts that explain, in detail, how to anally-fist someone. And the administrators will do nothing, fearing a lawsuit.

RJ, the word 'lesbian' does not lead to instructions on how to anally fist someone. The word 'lesbian' is about attraction and love. A love you don't understand or need to. Get a clue.

Once you start talking about lesbians, the next logical step is talking about strap-ons and oral sex.

Lesbianism has no place in school. Practice it on your own time. Send me the pictures (all thespians being over 18, of course). Just don't preach it while students are supposed to be learning geography, or mathematics, or...

You still don't get it RJ. Being a lesbian or being gay isn't about what you do, it's about who you are. And it has no place in school? Thankfully, most of America can tell the difference between sexual activity and sexual orientation, even if you can't.

And another thought...if talking about lesbians leads someone to talk about oral sex...well then...what can I say, we certainly know straight boys and girls in school don't EVER discuss oral sex.

I don't believe any child should be advertising his or her sexual interest in school. I would be just as opposed to a straight kid wearing a tee shirt reading: "I love 69." Clothing that is disruptive should be banned, period. That is the law, When I see a school system shelling out thousands of dollars over a frivolous lawsuit, it is clear the settlement was reached for nonlegal reasons. A form of blackmail -- give me money or suffer bad publicity -- has been used.

As for gay people who support this kind of chicanery because the perpetrator is homosexual, you do yourselves no favors. This is the kind of situation that makes the claim gays want special rights appear true. Children are sent home to change inappropriate clothing every day. Natalie should have been treated the same as others are. Her claim of special status should have been ignored. The school system had a good case.

Mac Diva, you make a logical point, but you miss the overall gist.

Wearing a tshirt that says I love 69 is not analogous to claiming Barbie is a lesbian. Would you kick out a boy who wore a shirt to school that says 'I like girls'. THAT is more analogous. (I hope that word is spelled correctly.)

And where did you get the idea that I support her solely because I am gay and she is a lesbian? When my daughter gets into high school, I'm going to support her self-expression no matter what it is, but I'll make sure she understands that there are consequences to things.

Lesbianism, heterosexuality, all that stuff, should be considered disallowed in school. School is about learning things, not talking about sex.

Sex as an issue is fine, on your own time. Not at school.

You think an inanimate object is a dyke? Great. Talk about it over supper with your folks, or after school with you friends. But not at school.

That is the impression you seemed to communicate, Steve. If you have read my blog entries here or on my blogs, you know I am very sympathetic to the fate of gay people. But, like other minority groups, it is important that homosexuals declare a right to equal treatment. Anything that suggests wanting to be treated better than other citizens backfires. This settlement will surely be taken up with that argument during this time of backlash against gay marriage. Just wait and see.

The main problem is:

teenagers think a T-shirt is a philosophy.

And the solutions are simple:

1) teach kids real philosophy;

2) teach kids that expressing one's self means more than a 4 word slash of graffiti on a piece of cloth;

3) Make a rule that NO SIGNS are allowed to be warn as clothing.

~NEXT!

That is the impression you seemed to communicate, Steve. If you have read my blog entries here or on my blogs, you know I am very sympathetic to the fate of gay people.

I'm new here, but what I have read of you so far, I have really enjoyed, although it hasn't been about sexual orientation. I haven't come across that until now.

Anything that suggests wanting to be treated better than other citizens backfires.

Can you explain to me how wanting to be free of harassment and ridicule in a learning environment suggests she wants to be treated better than other citizens?

This settlement will surely be taken up with that argument during this time of backlash against gay marriage. Just wait and see.

You know, you're right, it probably will be brought up that way, and that's too bad, because that isn't what this is about.

Boom, I saw something analogous today that may make the connection between being too willing to engage in special pleading and increasing discrimination more clear.

In Portland, we recently had the second shooting of an unarmed African-American in just 10 months. For the record, the black population of Oregon is about two percent. Less than 4,000 black men between 15 and 29 reside in the region. Yet, despite the tiny population of African-Americans, police stops and arrests of persons of color are extremely common. There are good grounds for attacking racial profiling here.

The latest victim of a police shooting is a man with a lengthy record of felony convictions and drug use. James Jahar Perez, 28, had nearly toxic levels of cocaine in his system and baggies of the substance stuffed in his mouth and pockets when shot by the police -- 24 seconds after he was told to get out of his car. Some people protesting the shooting want to deny that Perez was anything but a choirboy. I believe that is the wrong road to take for the same reason I don't support Natalie. It ignores the facts that are inconvenient to the political argument the activists want to make. They undermine their position by not acknowledging the full story. Perez was a walking disaster as a person, but he did not deserve to be killed.

They undermine their position by not acknowledging the full story.

I really don't want to walk the proverbial plank here for a barbie t-shirt, but I'd like to point out that I don't see the analogy. ALL of the comments against the monetary reward are what have not acknowledged the full story.
1) She didn't win the award because of one single episode with a t-shirt. She won it because of an ongoing discriminatory environment.
2) Natalie didn't sue, so it shouldn't be a gay vs. straight issue. Her mom sued.
Considering those two factors, I cannot see the opposing view that has been presented here, because the opposing view does not address those two issues.

I've said enough about Natalie, but I would like everyone to be aware of one more thing that might apply here (might or might not):

Just shortly after Bush got on tv, touting the economic recovery, the company I worked for had to lay off numerous people and the rest of us had to take mandatory pay cuts. Two weeks later, my partner, who works for a law firm had the exact same thing happen at his work. Luckily we both survived the layoffs, but not the paycuts (thriving economy my ass). One of the lawyers turned to my partner and said 'You don't ever have to worry about being laid off. You have a built in lawsuit'. Referring of course, to his orientation.

WE would never misuse the legal system like that, but my point is perhaps this t-shirt scenario has less to do with Natalie and more to do with ambulance chasers?

Perhaps, on the overly litigious.

However, I am going to go back to the 'let's pretend we are angels' thing I've seen just about every minority group do. (Meaning some members of, not all of course.) Also here, a gay black woman because a cause celebre after she claimed people had burned a cross in her yard and graffitied the outside of her house with slurs. The investigators released tape of her doing both things herself. Predictably, some activists claimed that it did not matter she had made her story up. So, what I am saying is that we need to be discerning when it comes to claims about discrimination. If I were Natalie's mother, I would not have allowed her to wear that shirt to school. Why urge people to be abusive when it can be avoided?

what I am saying is that we need to be discerning when it comes to claims about discrimination.

Agreed. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on where that 'line' is though.

If I were Natalie's mother, I would not have allowed her to wear that shirt to school. Why urge people to be abusive when it can be avoided?

I would have allowed it, but I would have made sure she understood she was setting herself up for harassment and possible ridicule, because not everybody out there can understand the makeup of her family. I don't see allowing free expression as synonomous as urging people to be abusive. And I wouldn't have sued unless I was convinced she was continually subject to harassment. And I wouldn't have sued for money, except for maybe attorney's fees, but would have sued for changes within the educational system.

It's odd. Gay people who promote who they are (via a t-shirt) are being disruptive. A muslim child who wears a veil on her head 'promoting' her religion and is told to remove it, gets the support of everybody, including the federal goverment. They are synonomous to me, but with far different results.

You really don't get it, Boom. I don't have to wear anything dubious to be harrassed. I am followed in stores, stopped by the police, and insulted by ninnies merely because of the color my skin. So, from my perspective, someone who seeks out harrassment looks pretty foolish. White privilege has blinded you to something that is obvious to me, I guess.

I do know what you are talking about though, Mac Diva. I look like Bon Jovi (early 90's look minus the tight clothes). Because of my long hair, I get pulled over for no reason (whatcha smokin, boy?)

I'm still not convinced anybody sought harassment in this case. Earlier, I had mentioned that discrimination put me on the emergency room table. When that happened, the doctors called the police against my wishes because the assault was so severe. Lying on the emergency room table, looking up at the bright lights and the silhouettes of the policemen standing over me, I was completely disheartened to realize they were not filling out their report but smirking at the queer who got beat. That was when I realized I had to leave my hometown/homestate and my family for my own safety. Please don't label me as having white privilege.