But this one takes the ruler across the knuckles, and highlights an increasing trend that scares the hell out of me, both as a mother and a reporter and vocal advocate of free speech.

In brief, a family in Hoover, Ala. has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights against the Hoover school district because it refuses to admit their son to the third grade. The reason: he wears an earring.

Thought we finished with all this crap in the 1960s, didn't you? Heh-heh-heh. Nearly fifty years later, some people still have their priorities a tad out of whack.

The family has kept their 8-year-old son home in protest of these rules. They say it's discriminatory for the school district to refuse to allow their son's earring when it allows girls to wear earrings at any age. They are getting a lot of criticism, people saying that the family must have known about the rules beforehand, and besides, they haven't even lived in Hoover all that long. Believe it or not, that makes a difference at the corner store.

The words I think of when I try to express my opinion on this issue cannot be printed here because I don't want to receive an X rating on Google. The words that Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman came up with when asked his opinio were, "If God had wanted boys to wear earrings, He'd have made them girls.'" 

Of course. That's why we girls are born with holes in our ears, right? (Hint: that was sarcasm.) The stupidity of this governor's comment is so obvious I don't really think I need to elaborate further.

We require children to attend school up to a certain age because it is essential for their development and the development of an educated work force. Therefore, people of all backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, etc. will be forced together in one government-controlled environment.

The ONLY limitation on personal appearance, jewelry, clothing, etc. should be to eliminate that which is dangerous  or disruptive to the child or other children. An earring, in a boy's or girl's ear, does not meet those standards, in my opinion. We're not talking about huge hoop earrings that could pose a safety hazard. We're talking about a tiny stud in a boy's earlobe. Spare me.

There were people in my high school who walked around in T-shirts that I found very offensive, espousing fundamentalist Christian beliefs that were far beyond my own moderate beliefs. A standard shirt would show a non-Christian "sinner" writhing in the flames of hell; or a close-up of Jesus' hand being nailed to the cross, blood spurting; and my "favorite," showing a standard diagram of the evolution of man with a  gigantic red X through it. 

This clothing was permitted without comment or question in the buckle of the Bible Belt. A friend's Black Sabbath T-shirt, on the other hand, was out the door with a note home to the parents, and God forbid my shorts ended more than two inches short of my knees. I'm not talking about ancient days, either - I'm talking about 1993.

I found these shirts offensive and disagreed with many of them. There were a hell of a lot more disruptive to the learning process than some guy's earring. I imagine any Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, agnostic or atheist students would also have been offended. But I also supported my fellow students' right to wear those shirts, because they believed in them.  And I supported my friend's right to wear the Black Sabbath shirt, although I've never cared for their music. 

On a bulletin board discussion of this issue, a woman related a story from the dim dark days of the 1970s. See, back then, girls weren't permitted to wear pants. It was believed girls in pants would be distracting from the learning process. Skirts and dresses were the only proper attire for girls.

One day, she was painting the set for a school play, and had brought a pair of jeans to school for that purpose. They ran out of paint, and she walked across the school to get more paint. She was stopped by a teacher and reprimanded. He reminded her that girls were not to wear pants in school, and forced her to walk outside, around the school and into the art room, then walk outside again to get back to the theater. He warned her that if she was seen in the halls in pants again, she would be suspended.

This shocks us all, and rightly. It was an outgrowth of mindless sexist treatment of girls that rightfully faded during the women's movement. So why do we deny the same equal protection and equal rights for men?

The problem with decisions like this earring tempest-in-a-teapot is that it doesn't stop with one little boy's ears, whether or not you approve of boys wearing earrings or the parents' actions. It is a parental decision and a parental right to decide what a child will wear, say and do. I don't want my son wearing an earring at age 8, but if I change my mind, it's my choice. If he wants to wear a fundamentalist Christian shirt or a necklace with the ankh on it, that's his decision and mine, and the school board can go to hell.

In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that the First Amendment doesn't stop at the schoolhouse doors. That was a case in which four students were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. In the Tinker decision, they said that state-sponsored schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. Yet in the last 32 years, we've seen case after case where just that has happened. The ACLU has taken up the causes of students fighting unconstitutional random drug tests that directly contradict the right to avoid self-incrimination; the eternal debate on school uniforms; government muzzling of sex education classes at the behest of conservative groups; compulsory student fees for a supposedly free education; etc. 

But it is free speech that has been hit the worst - in April, a Cleveland 15-year-old was suspended for creating a web site that the school found inappropriate on his home computer using off-campus hosting. The web site had no sexual content and did not mention teachers or administrators at his school, but focused on skateboarding and juvenile humor.

Speech isn't limited to verbal and written words. Speech can be as simple as wearing an earring with a yin-yang on it, which I did in high school. In the same buildings where we make the young people memorize the First Amendment and the Declaration of Independence, we take away their rights of privacy, free speech, religion and association. 

Even if the child's appearance isn't about a belief, it is about self-expression. We have already taken away too much of our children's independent thought in institutional schools. When I wrote essays in English class, everything was decided for me - the margins, where I would write my name, then the date, then the subject, then my teacher's name... As long as all the information is presented, does it really frigging MATTER which order I list it? 

In the excellent movie "Renaissance Man," the teacher assigns his students to write an essay about "Why I Joined the Army." One of his students says, "Do you want us to write that at the top? 'Why I Joined the Army'?" The teacher just shakes his head. All independent thought was beaten out of that student a long time ago.

In my son's district, the children are not allowed to buy folders with characters or unusual colors on them - only plain red, blue, green and yellow.  Crayons and markers must be of a specific brand and color. Nothing unusual or descriptive is allowed. 

Is it any wonder American children come out automotons without the capability for independent thought? 

Matt Groening wrote in "School is Hell" that kindergarten is the only time you're allowed to draw outside the lines. "Treasure this time of unfettered creativity," he writes, "before they show you how to do it right, and ruin everything."

Let the boy wear his earring. Let his parents decide if it's a good idea.