Yes, Boston Legal is still very much on. Season 3 is released on DVD on Sept. 18, and season 4 premiers on Sept. 25.
What bothers me about this whole situation is that regulations against piercings, tattoos, certain forms of clothing, and hair colors are typically incorporated into dress codes to perpetuate some arbitrary standard of "decency" and to protect the school's image.
That, however, is not why the schools are allowed to regulate dress. They can only regulate if self-expression proves to be a distraction to the educational process, if it presents some danger to the rest of the students, or if it obscene.
Nobody has made a good argument for piercings being a distraction to the learning process. Or purple hair, for that matter, either.
Piercings are not dangerous to other students.
I don't believe there is such a thing as obscenity. There are just words and actions.
Nobody has made a good argument for piercings being a distraction to the learning process. Or purple hair, for that matter, either.
Piercings are not dangerous to other students.
Personally, I really don't care what's pierced. However, I'm not the one making the decision. The local school board and the local school administrators have a much better idea of what is or is not disruptive.
Mr. Blood lives in Alabama of all places. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that he lives in an area where, if a kid saw a piercing, he'd be all, "Holy crap, I can't study because I'm so freaked out by that piercing." There might be some kids that that would hurt Mr. Blood because of his piercing. Alabama can be kinda crappy that way. Please take no offense, Mr. Blood.
Joe, your post advocates a) blind trust of authority, because clearly authority knows what's best, and b) not-so-subtle racism (state-ism?). You really think that people in Alabama are so intellectually and culturally inferior to you that they would be agape at a piercing?
Can the schools ban piercings for males and allow them for females?
No speech doesn't have to be political to be protected. However, I assume it will be much easier to defend political speech in court.
Our cases make clear that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Morse v. Frederick
In the context of my school system, Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, all protections under the constitution for the most part are null and void. Particularly free speech, as its not even worth the effort to mention the fourth amendment, which around the country is pretty uniform: "A student must cooperate with and may not obstruct or interfere with a reasonable search of the student, his/her desk, locker, bookbag, purse or other possessions which are present on school property or at a school activity.(PDF) I digress.
Freedom of speech on the other hand, is very loosely protected by the school policy, and mostly falls upon the discretion of the school staff. For this I'll cite Article M of Rule 27.
M. Participation in a Civil Demonstration: A student will not disrupt the school day by participating in a civil demonstration, including leaving campus without permission. (pg 25.)
Granted, the chances of getting a significant number of high schoolers to be more than oh say apathetic about something is damned near impossible, that still leaves the concern that our school system openly disregards student's rights to assemble, even peacefully.
The case has been made in the past that it promotes riots/chaos (which explains why this rule is filed under disruption) which essentially means any gathering of any significant portion of students can be construed as an act of inciting a riot, and whoever leads that group will be suspended if not expelled. Whats worse, we have these things in our school called "No Hitting Zones" (bare with me here), essentially, if a fight is started within, or worse, if a crowd watching said event fails to disperse in time, all the punishments are thereby magnified. Minimum of 10 day suspension for anyone involved.
SCHOOL INITIATED CONSEQUENCES: Minimum: Level 5 – Suspension of 10 days with a re-entry contract A required 10-day suspension must be served and a due process hearing held for Level 6-8 Maximum: Level 6 – Long-Term Suspension or Exclusion
Actually the school isn't bound by the First Amendment. They can easily call it a disturbation.
Which leads me to Zako's comment, which is perilously accurate. Any form of organization or movement not sanctioned is considered a bad omen. Alternatives such as fliers or propanganda are even worse, they fall under the catagory of Vandalism under Rule 14. (pg 18)
Either that or wear a bandana around his lower face until he can take the piercing out. The dress code doesn't say anything about that, does it?
Ah, yes. Bandanas. Nothing has been more fun for the administration these past few years than bandanas and do-rags. The irony of it is, that not only are these banned, they are actively fought against by my administration.
The case, filed March 19, challenges Redwood Middle School’s “Appropriate Attire Policy†which only allows solid-color clothes in blue, white, green, yellow, khaki, gray, brown, and no pictures, logos, words, or patterns of any kind, including stripes and flowers.
In regards to Jason's story about dress codes being found unconstitutional, I find it ironic that the school demanded solid colors. Our schools hate solid colors. Wearing them usually gets a warning to change your clothes, for somehow it is a preconceived notion that wearing a solid white/black whatever t-shirt automatically means you are in a gang.
...examples include but are not limited to gang colors, bandanas or gang clothing, to include displaying gang signs on notebooks, bookbags or other personal or school material...
One thing that really gets me is how the rules differ on school by school basis. If say, Nintendo DSes are deemed to be disruptive in one high school in a particular state, shouldn't they be deemed disruptive in all high schools in that state? Likewise, if one school in a state says that piercings are not disruptive, shouldn't that be the case in all the other schools as well? The fact that the schools do not all agree clearly shows that their designations of what is disruptive and what is not are completely bullshit.
I do agree that it should be against the rules to actually create a disturbance in school. You are denying the other people their right to an education and wasting other people's tax dollars. Their parents paid for them to learn, not to watch you make a scene in class. However, I will return to my previous argument that children should have more rights than they do, and say that schools have definitely gone too far. Kids at school should have a lot more rights than the school current allows them, but there are still some that need to stay.
I agree, Scott. Youths are often baselessly punished by having rights removed for really no reason at all.
The thing that bothers me is that they don't seem to have given a reason other than the principal's arbitrary decisions in regard to fashion. I can understand having revealing garments or lewd/hateful/inappropriate messages on clothing banned, but demanding a dress code when there have not been any problems in regards to the articles of clothing beyond that seems a bit silly to me. Why ban facial piercings if they are not causing problems? I would argue, if they were going to make me take out my face piercings (not that I have any) that if I can have a lip ring, no one can wear earrings either, since there is little difference. I would try and use a slippery-slope-type argument to demonstrate the stupidity of banning something like a lip-stud.
In my experience as a sub, and particularly dealing with art students, I have seen what I would consider a ghastly array of various materials gouged into the faces, necks, stomachs, and god-knows where else in our nations youths. But at the end of they day, it doesn't matter because they're not hurting anyone else by doing it and they're not jumping up on desks screaming 'Lookit! I got metal in mah face!' or disrupting class otherwise.
Some schools, especially private ones, can go too far with their restrictive abilities.
The year after I graduated, my high school deemed that backpacks were disruptive to the school environment. Backpacks. So, students were no longer allowed to carry a pack around; instead, every pupil had to leave his backpack in his locker, and travel back to his locker during the day after every class to pick up books.
Can backpacks even be put into the category of fashion/dress code?
Some schools have instated uniforms, banned certain piercings, colors, etc. because fo gangs and cliques that cause problems.
While I think it is unfortunate that children who are not creating problems are punished for those who are, I can see how it may be a better alternative than allowing major problems to continue.
Personally, I think uniforms are alright if the issue is passed in a vote of the town/city that the school is in. I do not think dress codes should be decided by the school administration alone, the voting public in that school's district should be able to vote on any changes to the dress code.
Some schools have instated uniforms, banned certain piercings, colors, etc. because fo gangs and cliques that cause problems.
While I think it is unfortunate that children who are not creating problems are punished for those who are, I can see how it may be a better alternative than allowing major problems to continue.
Personally, I think uniforms are alright if the issue is passed in a vote of the town/city that the school is in. I do not think dress codes should be decided by the school administration alone, the voting public in that school's district should be able to vote on any changes to the dress code.
Voting on such an issue would be just fine as long as students, teachers, administrators and parents are the only people voting. If you let all the old geezers in town vote, they are going to throw the whole thing off. Also, you need some sort of town hall meeting where people can decide what are the possible dress codes to vote on. Voting is a yes/no sort of thing, and a dress code is a lot more complicated than yes or no.
Joe, your post advocates a) blind trust of authority, because clearly authority knows what's best, and b) not-so-subtle racism (state-ism?). You really think that people in Alabama are so intellectually and culturally inferior to you that they would be agape at a piercing?
Can the schools ban piercings for males and allow them for females?
Jason, I fight Authority, but Authority always wins. I despise most authority, but I understand how things work. Most of the time, Authority will win. The clever rebel picks his battles carefully. I'm much, much more concerned with our actual daily loss of civil liberties at the hands of the current administration than a forty dollar piercing.
Alabama is a very conservative state. Carole had a case involving the University of Alabama where they didn't allow a showing of some student's art at a university art show because they though it was not conservative enough. The university administration didn't see anything wrong with that. Alabama is the land of the state supreme court justice with the 500 pound Ten Commandments plaque. I'm sure it's a fine place to live, but I don't have any confidence in the state courts to agree that a student's piercing shouldn't be disallowed by a school dress code.
Scott brings up an interesting issue. Students are second-class citizens when such an issue goes to a vote. The subject matter is the students' rights, but the students have no say in the issue. A vote, therefore, is a less than perfect solution.
It's beyond me why everyone gets so worked up about something like this but when, for instance, Congress votes to allow the administration to listen into phone conversations, etc. without a warrant, keeping in mind that the fellow who will be in charge of the warrantless wiretapping is our erstwhile Attorney General, a man who has a terminal case of lie-abetes, who has to take a shot of insu-lie-in every day, and who SITS ON A THRONE OF LIES, you all say, "Meh. They say it won't be used against me."
There are currently much greater threats to liberty and freedom than disallowing a lip piercing.
It's beyond me why everyone gets so worked up about something like this but when, for instance, Congress votes to allow the administration to listen into phone conversations, etc. without a warrant, keeping in mind that the fellow who will be in charge of the warrantless wiretapping is our erstwhile Attorney General, a man who has a terminal case of lie-abetes, who has to take a shot of insu-lie-in every day, and who SITS ON A THRONE OF LIES, you all say, "Meh. They say it won't be used against me."
There are currently much greater threats to liberty and freedom than disallowing a lip piercing.
Just because there is a worse wrong-doing going on, doesn't mean we should ignore lesser wrong-doings. With that kind of logic we would have to solve murder cases before investigating any robberies or assaults. We have the ability to fight against all injustice simultaneously.
It's beyond me why everyone gets so worked up about something like this but when, for instance, Congress votes to allow the administration to listen into phone conversations, etc. without a warrant, keeping in mind that the fellow who will be in charge of the warrantless wiretapping is our erstwhile Attorney General, a man who has a terminal case of lie-abetes, who has to take a shot of insu-lie-in every day, and who SITS ON A THRONE OF LIES, you all say, "Meh. They say it won't be used against me."
There are currently much greater threats to liberty and freedom than disallowing a lip piercing.
Just because there is a worse wrong-doing going on, doesn't mean we should ignore lesser wrong-doings. With that kind of logic we would have to solve murder cases before investigating any robberies or assaults. We have the ability to fight against all injustice simultaneously.
Not only that, but I am highly unlikely to ever have my phone tapped. None of us, statistically, will ever live in fear of federal prosecution. The vast majority of us, however, have gone or do go to public school. I think the greater evil isn't necessarily the most drastic evil; it's the most prevalent evil.
Not only that, but I am highly unlikely to ever have my phone tapped. None of us, statistically, will ever live in fear of federal prosecution. The vast majority of us, however, have gone or do go to public school.
Oh, so we shouldn't worry . . . because the guy who've been lying to Congress recently say we don't have to worry?
Tell that to this guy. I'm not nearly so concerned with the minor inconvenience of being told what to wear when there's a greater and greater danger of experiencing the nightmare Brandon Mayfield went through.
I think the greater evil isn't necessarily the most drastic evil; it's the most prevalent evil.
There are many, many more traffic violations than murders. We're all statistically more likely to be affected by traffic violations than by murders. I guess we should be worry more about and be more concerned with traffic violations than murder.
Okay, because of my neglect of checking this thread, this is going to be a long post, so bare with me.
Either that or wear a bandana around his lower face until he can take the piercing out.
That would be more badass than the piercing itself.
It would be more likely to be treated as speech too. The speech in that case would be a protest against the piercing restriction.
I didn't mention this before, but bandanna's aren't allowed in my school either. Would this be a legitimate way to wear a bandanna?
Nobody has made a good argument for piercings being a distraction to the learning process. Or purple hair, for that matter, either.
Piercings are not dangerous to other students.
Personally, I really don't care what's pierced. However, I'm not the one making the decision. The local school board and the local school administrators have a much better idea of what is or is not disruptive.
Mr. Blood lives in Alabama of all places. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that he lives in an area where, if a kid saw a piercing, he'd be all, "Holy crap, I can't study because I'm so freaked out by that piercing." There might be some kids that that would hurt Mr. Blood because of his piercing. Alabama can be kinda crappy that way. Please take no offense, Mr. Blood.
No offense taken at all Mr. Joe. In fact, while not to the extent of needing to ban piercings, this is what happened the first day of school. The second day everything was back to normal of course.
Some schools, especially private ones, can go too far with their restrictive abilities.
The year after I graduated, my high school deemed that backpacks were disruptive to the school environment.Backpacks. So, students were no longer allowed to carry a pack around; instead, every pupil had to leave his backpack in his locker, and travel back to his locker during the day after every class to pick up books.
Can backpacks even be put into the category of fashion/dress code?
I actually have a similar story. My junior year of high school, my high school banned rolling backpacks (the ones with the strap that pulls out and you can roll it behind you). Because it "promoted laziness" or some other BS.
Joe, your post advocates a) blind trust of authority, because clearly authority knows what's best, and b) not-so-subtle racism (state-ism?). You really think that people in Alabama are so intellectually and culturally inferior to you that they would be agape at a piercing?
Can the schools ban piercings for males and allow them for females?
Jason, I fight Authority, but Authority always wins. I despise most authority, but I understand how things work. Most of the time, Authoritywillwin. The clever rebel picks his battles carefully. I'm much, much more concerned with our actual daily loss of civil liberties at the hands of the current administration than a forty dollar piercing.
Alabama is a very conservative state. Carole had a case involving the University of Alabama where they didn't allow a showing of some student's art at a university art show because they though it was not conservative enough. The university administration didn't see anything wrong with that. Alabama is the land of the state supreme court justice with the 500 pound Ten Commandments plaque. I'm sure it's a fine place to live, but I don't have any confidence in the state courts to agree that a student's piercing shouldn't be disallowed by a school dress code.
Once again, a dead-on view of Alabama. It's a great place to live, especially in this small town, but it's horribly conservative. When I declared myself agnostic, I thought that I was going to be thrown out of the town. As a matter of fact, there's a story there, so I'll make a new thread for that.
I thank everyone here for all of their input. This is exactly the response I was hoping for. I hope everyone will continue to debate on this topic, because I'm still not sure what to do about this. I didn't go talk to the principal, because the way things work down here, and he at least hears me out, because I fix most of the computers around the school.
So there I was...watching the hallway outside my classroom before 1st block when a student walked past me. His shirt read "Muthafuckin Pimp." As the dress code and school rules clearly state (and are repeated every day during morning announcements) "No student may wear any clothing with inappropriate language, violent content or alcohol and drug references. This student was in violation of that rule. I stop him and ask him what he thinks he's doing wearing that in school. He looks at me like he can't believe this white dude just stopped him - obviously a super-bad gangsta - in the hallway and keeps walking. Now, it is on. I wave to the security guard (a large, black man) to follow me and point the student out to him. Security guard gives student 3 options: turn the shirt inside out, change, or go home. Student - after realizing that the large white man has large black friends - takes option A.
Is it wrong to keep this student from expressing his desire to be a "Muthafuckin Pimp?" How bout the kid wearing a shirt with a Photoshopped Diggum smoking weed on the Smacks cereal box cover? Or the 15 yr old girl wearing a shirt with rhinestone martini glasses? Hell, no.
Here's where I think we all differ on this: School isn't a right. If you fuck up enough, you don't get to go anymore. Or, at least, they send you somewhere else with all the other colossal fuck ups. Attending public, government school is a privilege. It is not mandated in our Constitution. You have a problem how things are run? Don't go. Find a private school that will accept you as the "Muthafuckin Pimp" you are. Principals are given quite a bit of lee way on how their schools are run. Teachers are given freedom to establish classroom rules as they see fit. One of my colleagues made every male student stand up when a woman entered the room. Nothing prohibited this in the school's rules, and he used this to teach a bunch of punk kids that women were to be respected and not seen as objects. It worked.
Long story short, if you really wanted that piercing, you should have checked school rules first, because now you're pretty much stuck with the consequences. Either try and fight or lose $40. The fight will cause many, many more problems and will - in the end - not be worth the effort.
These rules are new. They weren't even told to me the first day of school. I only know about them because of the local paper, and I haven't been confronted about it yet.
School is a right. Even if it is not specifically stated in the constitution of the US. First off, there are many states who have constitutions that guarantee the right to an education. Secondly, there are many normal laws which say that people have a right to an education. Thirdly, even if there were no law specifically guaranteeing a right to an education, there are still laws forcing people to pay school tax. If everyone has to pay school tax to go to the public school, then everyone has a right to go to the public school. Equal protection under the law, which is in the US constitution. If one person gets to go to school, then everyone gets to go.
Sparkybuzzed, I'm going to safely assume you're an adult. Ironically, I do agree with you that my generation has some discipline and apathy problems. I wouldn't go so far to agree about the right/privilege argument as Rym just contended pretty well, but I think your statement may have a good point to it. However, I think all callus morality aside, there are still some practical issues in your argument.
If you fuck up enough, you don't get to go anymore.
Despite that it may not seem like it, this is already the case. Having difficulty finding solid evidence of the numbers, I can anecdotally say that students can be and are frequently suspended or cordoned off from the rest of the student population for disregard of the rules or coursework. Expulsion from the system never really fixes the students problem, but it does help the school out by boosting the average performance. I think you can also extrapolate that drop outs will become societal problems in the future. This, however, doesn't solve the problem enough, so you suggested:
...send you somewhere else with all the other colossal fuck ups.
This is a really bad idea, although it sounds great on paper. Many of my school systems lowest performing schools are, coincidentally ones with the highest percentage of absences/suspensions/expulsions. Consolidating the 'problem' in one school system doesn't in any way address it. In some cases it will only amplify the issue, unless of course, Morgan Freeman is the principal. Then you're set.
I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that education is truly loathed by some people. For the betterment of the other 2500 kids at a school, should a dozen constant troublemakers (violent offenders, drug abusers, etc) be expelled? Absolutely. As an educator, I want to help kids who are in trouble, but there are a small percentage who neither want help, nor can they benefit from it. It's not a generational thing. I'm not out chasing kids off my lawn just yet.
I don't think they have any right to disallow the piercing based on it being disruptive cuz its not...sheesh. On the other hand, where is the "speech," free or other wise, in a lip piercing. Don't tell me its is to make some point. It is decorative and nothing else. This is of course assuming it does not have a pink ribbon or name of a dead soldier hanging from it.
VHD, if no one's given you trouble about your piercing so far, I doubt anyone will in the future. This is provided, of course, that you don't call any added attention to it, and don't get in trouble for something else in school where your piercing could be used as further ammunition against you.
Comments
What bothers me about this whole situation is that regulations against piercings, tattoos, certain forms of clothing, and hair colors are typically incorporated into dress codes to perpetuate some arbitrary standard of "decency" and to protect the school's image.
That, however, is not why the schools are allowed to regulate dress. They can only regulate if self-expression proves to be a distraction to the educational process, if it presents some danger to the rest of the students, or if it obscene.
Nobody has made a good argument for piercings being a distraction to the learning process. Or purple hair, for that matter, either.
Piercings are not dangerous to other students.
I don't believe there is such a thing as obscenity. There are just words and actions.
Mr. Blood lives in Alabama of all places. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that he lives in an area where, if a kid saw a piercing, he'd be all, "Holy crap, I can't study because I'm so freaked out by that piercing." There might be some kids that that would hurt Mr. Blood because of his piercing. Alabama can be kinda crappy that way. Please take no offense, Mr. Blood.
Can the schools ban piercings for males and allow them for females?
I digress.
Freedom of speech on the other hand, is very loosely protected by the school policy, and mostly falls upon the discretion of the school staff. For this I'll cite Article M of Rule 27. Granted, the chances of getting a significant number of high schoolers to be more than oh say apathetic about something is damned near impossible, that still leaves the concern that our school system openly disregards student's rights to assemble, even peacefully.
The case has been made in the past that it promotes riots/chaos (which explains why this rule is filed under disruption) which essentially means any gathering of any significant portion of students can be construed as an act of inciting a riot, and whoever leads that group will be suspended if not expelled. Whats worse, we have these things in our school called "No Hitting Zones" (bare with me here), essentially, if a fight is started within, or worse, if a crowd watching said event fails to disperse in time, all the punishments are thereby magnified. Minimum of 10 day suspension for anyone involved. Which leads me to Zako's comment, which is perilously accurate. Any form of organization or movement not sanctioned is considered a bad omen. Alternatives such as fliers or propanganda are even worse, they fall under the catagory of Vandalism under Rule 14. (pg 18) Ah, yes. Bandanas. Nothing has been more fun for the administration these past few years than bandanas and do-rags. The irony of it is, that not only are these banned, they are actively fought against by my administration. In regards to Jason's story about dress codes being found unconstitutional, I find it ironic that the school demanded solid colors. Our schools hate solid colors. Wearing them usually gets a warning to change your clothes, for somehow it is a preconceived notion that wearing a solid white/black whatever t-shirt automatically means you are in a gang.
I do agree that it should be against the rules to actually create a disturbance in school. You are denying the other people their right to an education and wasting other people's tax dollars. Their parents paid for them to learn, not to watch you make a scene in class. However, I will return to my previous argument that children should have more rights than they do, and say that schools have definitely gone too far. Kids at school should have a lot more rights than the school current allows them, but there are still some that need to stay.
The thing that bothers me is that they don't seem to have given a reason other than the principal's arbitrary decisions in regard to fashion. I can understand having revealing garments or lewd/hateful/inappropriate messages on clothing banned, but demanding a dress code when there have not been any problems in regards to the articles of clothing beyond that seems a bit silly to me. Why ban facial piercings if they are not causing problems? I would argue, if they were going to make me take out my face piercings (not that I have any) that if I can have a lip ring, no one can wear earrings either, since there is little difference. I would try and use a slippery-slope-type argument to demonstrate the stupidity of banning something like a lip-stud.
In my experience as a sub, and particularly dealing with art students, I have seen what I would consider a ghastly array of various materials gouged into the faces, necks, stomachs, and god-knows where else in our nations youths. But at the end of they day, it doesn't matter because they're not hurting anyone else by doing it and they're not jumping up on desks screaming 'Lookit! I got metal in mah face!' or disrupting class otherwise.
The year after I graduated, my high school deemed that backpacks were disruptive to the school environment. Backpacks. So, students were no longer allowed to carry a pack around; instead, every pupil had to leave his backpack in his locker, and travel back to his locker during the day after every class to pick up books.
Can backpacks even be put into the category of fashion/dress code?
While I think it is unfortunate that children who are not creating problems are punished for those who are, I can see how it may be a better alternative than allowing major problems to continue.
Personally, I think uniforms are alright if the issue is passed in a vote of the town/city that the school is in. I do not think dress codes should be decided by the school administration alone, the voting public in that school's district should be able to vote on any changes to the dress code.
Alabama is a very conservative state. Carole had a case involving the University of Alabama where they didn't allow a showing of some student's art at a university art show because they though it was not conservative enough. The university administration didn't see anything wrong with that. Alabama is the land of the state supreme court justice with the 500 pound Ten Commandments plaque. I'm sure it's a fine place to live, but I don't have any confidence in the state courts to agree that a student's piercing shouldn't be disallowed by a school dress code.
There are currently much greater threats to liberty and freedom than disallowing a lip piercing.
Tell that to this guy. I'm not nearly so concerned with the minor inconvenience of being told what to wear when there's a greater and greater danger of experiencing the nightmare Brandon Mayfield went through. There are many, many more traffic violations than murders. We're all statistically more likely to be affected by traffic violations than by murders. I guess we should be worry more about and be more concerned with traffic violations than murder.
I thank everyone here for all of their input. This is exactly the response I was hoping for. I hope everyone will continue to debate on this topic, because I'm still not sure what to do about this. I didn't go talk to the principal, because the way things work down here, and he at least hears me out, because I fix most of the computers around the school.
Is it wrong to keep this student from expressing his desire to be a "Muthafuckin Pimp?" How bout the kid wearing a shirt with a Photoshopped Diggum smoking weed on the Smacks cereal box cover? Or the 15 yr old girl wearing a shirt with rhinestone martini glasses? Hell, no.
Here's where I think we all differ on this: School isn't a right. If you fuck up enough, you don't get to go anymore. Or, at least, they send you somewhere else with all the other colossal fuck ups. Attending public, government school is a privilege. It is not mandated in our Constitution. You have a problem how things are run? Don't go. Find a private school that will accept you as the "Muthafuckin Pimp" you are. Principals are given quite a bit of lee way on how their schools are run. Teachers are given freedom to establish classroom rules as they see fit. One of my colleagues made every male student stand up when a woman entered the room. Nothing prohibited this in the school's rules, and he used this to teach a bunch of punk kids that women were to be respected and not seen as objects. It worked.
Long story short, if you really wanted that piercing, you should have checked school rules first, because now you're pretty much stuck with the consequences. Either try and fight or lose $40. The fight will cause many, many more problems and will - in the end - not be worth the effort.