Pupil expelled for tattoo

[Rachmaninoff]

If you haven?t read about this, it?s basically a case of a student in a Catholic school being expelled for having a tattoo of an American rap musician on his arm. Something that was easily covered by a long sleeved shirt, something the student in question was willing to do to keep it covered when he was in school. The full article can be found here: [URL=http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartimes/auckland/3973681a11.html][B]Article[/B][/URL]

Now I can understand that it is a religious school and that the rules are different for a place like that, what I am curious to discuss is whether or not such a trend should be allowed. Especially if the article is correct in that there are other boys at the school who have tattoos who have not been expelled. So why pick on only one student?

It?s also a trend that?s spreading here in Utah at the University associated with the Mormon Church. BYU, which in the past couple of years has made a point of not allowing any piercing beyond one set for girls in each ear, anything else, even if they can?t see it under clothing can get a student in trouble.

Anyway, what do the rest of you think? Personally I have to wonder why they are being so concerned over something that I see as trivial. I could understand if the tattoo or jewelry being worn was offensive in some way, but other than that I just don?t see it. I?m sure this has been brought up before, but it still never fails to amaze me at the things people get upset over.

Also what do you think of dress codes in general, too strict, or not strict enough?

[Retribution]

[size=1]Well, initially I thought it too strict. But I know when you go to private school, you have to sign this contract that basically surrenders all rights you have to the school. So if "no tattoos whatsoever" was in the rules, then the guy has to accept the consequences.

But if that's not the case and there's only a rule on visible tattoos, then the school is being a bit dogmatic. If you can't see it, how does it hurt you?[/size]

[Haibara]

And this is why I'm glad I never went to a Catholic school, they seem to strict. It was bad enough for me in middle school where the dress code was collared shirts that were tucked into your pants or skirt and if your pants had belt loops you had to wear a belt. I hated that school.

[vegeta rocker]

Like Retribution said, if they signed away the kids rights then there is nothing they can do.

But if they didn't only then do they have a case, i would imagine no tattoos would be allowed so the kid screwed up by letting it be known he had one anyway.

My friend used to work in a theater and the rule was no tattoos. She got one on her wrist but wore a watch to cover it. Someone told her boss (a coworker) and she was fired for breaking the rules.

So if the rule is no tattoos it doesn't matter if he can cover it with a long sleeved shirt.

And i am almost certain Catholic schools forbid tattoos, i mean they spend so much time making you feel bad for sins you were born with it should be obvious ink on your arm would be bad.

[RobinWH]

i know this is kind of off topic...
but this is why there are laws (in the US at least) that don't allow anyone under 18 to get a tattoo or piercing. granted you can find some places that will allow it if a parent is present, but in general i know a lot of tattoo artists won't even tattoo a person under 18....weither a parent is there or not.
if a 16 or 17 year old wants a tattoo...that's great. if they STILL want it when they are 18...then they have thought long enough and hard enough, to deserve to get something that permanent.
in other words...
if a person wants a tattoo bad enough they can wait until they are 18.

remember...JustMyOpinion

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=DarkRed]I'd like to say that the kid is out of luck, but if there really are other students who have tattoos and they only expelled him, then the school is overreacting since it's not fair to punish one student and not the others if they are all breaking the rules. Other than that if it's part of the dress code then there isn't anything they can do.

Oh and you may not realize it RobinWH but the other school BYU is a university so all of the students are over 18 and they can and will expel you from school even though tattoos are not listed on the dress code, just having piercings other than one in each ear for women and guys aren't allowed to have them at all.

Personally unless the tattoo has swearwords or gestures that others would consider offensive, I just don't see the point in forbidding them. I've never understood why people were bothered by them in the first place. [/COLOR]

[Kenshin DX]

Yeah well it happens. My school no tatoos or facial piercings whatsoever. Like others have mentioned there is a decleration you must sign first day of school. Where you agree to abide by their rules or you get the boot. It's a problem with a tatoo since well there is nothing you can really do about it in terms of getting rid of it. I guess the school doesnt want to look bad because cathotic schools are very strict about their reputation. All I can say is tough luck, I know students in my school who have gotten thrown out for a lot lesser things then a tatto.

[RobinWH]

[QUOTE=Aaryanna][COLOR=DarkRed]
Oh and you may not realize it RobinWH but the other school BYU is a university so all of the students are over 18 and they can and will expel you from school even though tattoos are not listed on the dress code, just having piercings other than one in each ear for women and guys aren't allowed to have them at all.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

i realized that. but BYU is also a mostly religious university so their tattoo guidelines are based on religious beliefs.
my post was based on the fact that the kid in the article was under 18.

although i do agree that if there are other students at the school that have tattoo's, this one student shouldn't have been excluded.

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[QUOTE=RobinWH]i realized that. but BYU is also a mostly religious university so their tattoo guidelines are based on religious beliefs.
my post was based on the fact that the kid in the article was under 18.[/QUOTE]Actually that's not entirely accurate. Until in the past couple of decades where body piercing and tattoos became more popular among the younger generation. There was not set standard for piercings or tattoos but rather one of a modest dress code. Clothing that was less revealing. The restriction on piercings is new within the last ten years and tattoos are more of an unspoken expectation that you don't get them.

I am not sure what the Catholic Church's stance is on tattoos, but the push here to get rid of such things actually comes from parents who see it as a disruptive influence. In time I'm sure it will be included in what ever you sign when you attend the religious BYU university. But right now it is not and yet it is used as an excuse to expel students. Even if the tattoo in question is of a religious nature.

I use to think that such things were disruptive but now I think trying to control that aspect of another person's life is intrusive and unnecessary. Unless it's something offensive and even then that needs to be carefully limited so we aren't interfering with another person's right to have piercings or tattoos.

The only condition I have put on my children is that they have to be at least sixteen, and then the choice is theirs. After all at that point kids are considered old enough to drive so it seems only fair that you start giving them even more responsibility at that point as well.

Sometimes when it comes to dress code I'm in favor of uniforms for the simple reason that it avoids a lot of the hassle of worrying about what a student is wearing. But that never really caught on here.

Also, I really don't recall anything in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon that said tattoos were bad, so I have to wonder if that's a more modern concept of them being bad. At least for where I live and the religion I grew up in. I can't remember a single time where a lesson was on not getting a tattoo.

[Sazumechan]

[QUOTE=RobinWH]i know this is kind of off topic...
but this is why there are laws (in the US at least) that don't allow anyone under 18 to get a tattoo or piercing. granted you can find some places that will allow it if a parent is present, but in general i know a lot of tattoo artists won't even tattoo a person under 18....weither a parent is there or not.
if a 16 or 17 year old wants a tattoo...that's great. if they STILL want it when they are 18...then they have thought long enough and hard enough, to deserve to get something that permanent.
in other words...
if a person wants a tattoo bad enough they can wait until they are 18.

remember...JustMyOpinion[/QUOTE]

hey i totally agree with you.b/c i told my parents i wanted a couple of tatts myself but they told me once i was 18 and out of the house and i was like hey i can wait that long!but anyways more on subject.i am catholic though i have never been to a catholic school i think they shouldnt allow tattoos in school even though my close friend has three and i think they are completely awsome! i still think they shouldnt be allowed.and if only one person got punished even though there is several people have tattoos that is totally and completely unfair!

[vegeta rocker]

[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]

Also, I really don't recall anything in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon that said tattoos were bad, so I have to wonder if that's a more modern concept of them being bad. At least for where I live and the religion I grew up in. I can't remember a single time where a lesson was on not getting a tattoo.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure it stems from the whole idea of your body being your temple.

Which really leaves it up to the interpretation of the person judging or making the rules.

[Nerdsy]

[QUOTE=vegeta rocker]I'm pretty sure it stems from the whole idea of your body being your temple.

Which really leaves it up to the interpretation of the person judging or making the rules.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='God]Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [I]am [/I'] the Lord.[/quote]

[color=deeppink]Leviticus 19:28, of the King James version. For all your stemming needs.[/color]

[RobinWH]

[quote name='Nerdsy][color=deeppink']Leviticus 19:28, of the King James version. For all your stemming needs.[/color][/quote]

i KNEW there was something in the bible because my grandma constantly reminds me of it everytime she sees my tattoos.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

I don't know about anyone else here, but personally it always amazes me that when people do something stupid they know they'll get in trouble for, they automatically play the ignorance card in regard to rules. Every facet of society has rules that we agree to abide to, and seeing as this kid chose not to, he's now paying the price.

On the one hand I agree that the expelling was excessive if other students have tattoos and haven't been expelled, of course we have only the boy in question's word that this is true. On the other hand, I really don't think that a Tupac tattoo that goes from his elbow to his wrist is really the sort of this that he can claim won't be the source of disruption, I'm back in a Catholic high school myself and looking at it from a more mature point of view, I know that people are going to want to see it and fawn over it and say how cool it looks, and that's going to cause disruption, even contention.

In the end, if he's allowed this tattoo, even covered then all it's doing is undermining the school's authority, rules need to be enforced for the good of everybody. At least that's just my feeling on it. It's a shame the kid seems to be seriously interested in school, but then he should have thought of that before getting cut. [/SIZE]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']In the end, if he's allowed this tattoo, even covered then all it's doing is undermining the school's authority, rules need to be enforced for the good of everybody. At least that's just my feeling on it. It's a shame the kid seems to be seriously interested in school, but then he should have thought of that before getting cut. [/SIZE][/quote]
[size=1]Well, what if the school happened to be wrong in expelling him? Should they stand by their decision just because they need to maintain the authority?

In any event, I'm not really willing to say "Well, should have read the rules!" to this kid. There is the possibility that the school is being unjust in its decisions if in fact there are other students with tattoos that haven't been expelled. And the possibility of discrimination looms large -- I wouldn't be surprised if this private school were opposed to the image of Tupac solely because he's a rapper.

And part of me wants to call the school administration a bit overbearing and Pharisaical. If the intent of the rule is to prevent disruption, and he keeps it hidden, is not the intent of the law being upheld? Sure, literally he is still breaking the rules, but if the spirit of the law is followed, why bother?[/size]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Nerdsy][color=deeppink']Leviticus 19:28, of the King James version. For all your stemming needs.[/color][/quote]Thank you hun, we don't really study the Bible a lot in my religion so I couldn't think of where or if I had read anything to that effect.

Still in the end I've come to believe that God really doesn't care about appearance but more about the purity of one's soul. My view comes from a brother who smokes, isn't religious, served as a sheriff for decades. Has biker buddies who when ever they drove around the US would stop and visit me and my kids. And many of them did indeed have tattoos and yet I would trust any of them with my kids.

So I guess it boils down to if it's in the rules, the kid has no recourse, but if they are singling him out and ignoring others who are not following the rules, that sort of thing needs to be addressed.

[Retribution]

[size=1]The problem with citing Leviticus as grounds for "God supporting it" is that there's so much [i]other[/i] stuff in the book that is currently disregarded. To single out a passage like that and hold it up to condemn tattoos while saying "That other stuff is antiquated" seems like a double standard.

Not to mention Christianity kind of tosses out Leviticus as a moral standard, cuz Jesus said "An eye for an eye is the old way, I am the new way".[/size]

[Nerdsy]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]The problem with citing Leviticus as grounds for "God supporting it" is that there's so much [i]other[/i] stuff in the book that is currently disregarded. To single out a passage like that and hold it up to condemn tattoos while saying "That other stuff is antiquated" seems like a double standard.

Not to mention Christianity kind of tosses out Leviticus as a moral standard, cuz Jesus said "An eye for an eye is the old way, I am the new way".[/size][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]I don't think the school is citing Leviticus. I mean, the school [i]does[/i] allow tattoos for religious, cultural, and health reasons (although for the life of me I can't imagine what tattoos have to do with health), so I really doubt they're using 19:28 as a basis.

This feels more like a school-specific value, and it likely has consdierably more to do with the nature of the tatoo than tattoos themselves.[/color]

[Gavin]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']Well, what if the school happened to be wrong in expelling him? Should they stand by their decision just because they need to maintain the authority?[/size][/quote]

[SIZE=1]Of course not Alex, that goes without saying. As I already said, if there is a double standard being employed here, and this guy (as he is 17) was singled out then of course the school should admit they were excessive.

However I'm still not convinced that there isn't a good portion of blame with the young man himself, as he did break the rules and I'm pretty sure that most high school teens are aware of the rules of their school, especially after a good few years. Perhaps I'm wrong, as the guy was never in trouble before, but I just think he should have known better.[/SIZE]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Nerdsy][color=deeppink]I don't think the school is citing Leviticus. I mean, the school [i]does[/i] allow tattoos for religious, cultural, and health reasons (although for the life of me I can't imagine what tattoos have to do with health), so I really doubt they're using 19:28 as a basis.

This feels more like a school-specific value, and it likely has consdierably more to do with the nature of the tatoo than tattoos themselves.[/color][/QUOTE]
[size=1]I agree, and it was more in response to vegeta rocker. But it would be dubious to say that they forbid tattoos because of their "nature" when the school [I believe] has considerable Judeo-Christian heritage.[/size]

[Nerdsy]

[color=deeppik]When I said "nature," I was referring to what the tattoo was of. A Christian school is likely to have qualms with a gangster-rap poster boy. Like has been said, there are various students who have been allowed to have tattoos, and the article says nothing about whether those are religious or cultural.

I didn't transition well in my last post. The first paragraph was mostly concerned with the actual rule, where the second one was concerned with the application of it.[/color]

[cancer]

I would love to argue the case of only allowing one set of piercings for only girls to a judge, because that is obviously sexist. I hate when schools make sexist rules; it's a perversion of American freedom.