School Dress Codes and Court Cases Concerning Them

[MetalDrago]

Today, during our assembly at school, our principal announced that, in addition to many other dress codes that our school has, the adding of these three was in order: No black/dark nail polish, no black-on-black clothing, and no extreme facial make-up (absolutely NO facial make-up for gentlemen). This encouraged mixed views in the entirety of our school body. I'm not sure, but I believe that a few of our teachers even didn't like this decision. Most of the students applauded, making the people who enjoyed wearing these things feel uncomfortable, and at the end of the assembly, where all of the students are expected to stand and sing the Alma Mater, they refused to stand or sing the song.

I sympathize with these students, and, as a result, looked up some court cases derived from unsatisfactory dress codes. Here are the three court cases I had time to read today. They are related to the dress code PERIOD, and I have found that the third one seems to have the most standing in my above story.

Massie v. Henry
Source of Massie Case: http://www.ahcuah.com/lawsuit/federal/massie.htm

Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District
Source of Stephenson Case: http://neinast.home.att.net/cases/stephen.htm

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Source for the Tinker Decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines
Other Source, containing documentation of Tinker Decision: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html

Now, I would like your opinions on school dress codes, and the federal laws surrounding them. I am looking for cases both for and against the school dress codes, as I am trying to have all of the bases covered.

Thank you, because to me, this is a really important topic, and I would like some good, honest opinions, and maybe a few cited resources from which to pick up some information concerning this issue.

[Torin Reahkari]

I'd hate your school. My school's full of pot smoking hippie's with shoulder length hair, shirts with pot leaves and curse words, chicks with short-shorts and tank tops, and even gay male cheerleaders.

It'd suck if schools all over did that..but I'm okay. Canada is anti-censorship. :)

I don't really know of any times in my district...hell, in my entire school board there's been any sort of over-the-top censorship like that, so I can't really give any legal examples as it's never been a problem here. I whole-heartedly think it's wrong though. Kids express themselves through dress and accessories, so for adults to try to stop that because they don't like it..is dumb. Because everyone knows when they were kids they did the same thing.

Blah. I have nothing good to say tonight..I'll try again tomorrow. :p

[He'll Scream]

I honestly don't have a great enough understanding of the legal properties of these scenarioes to make a well rounded, intellectual statement, but I will say that crap like this pisses me off.

[MetalDrago]

Thank you both for your honest opinions, and I, personally, hate my county school board. This is the major reason I am researching the federal and law aspects of this.

They went too far this time, and now is the time to take action. As an Honor Roll student, and one of the smartest in my grade, I think my words will carry some weight, especially backed by a Supreme Court Decision.

[Max Dirks]

Is your school public or private, and what state are you from?

[LordLeopold]

Something only counts as "speech" or free expression if it imparts something meaningful that a viewer can discern. Governments are allowed to limit parts of speech as long as the parts of speech they limit are not integral to the message imparted. For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that Ku Klux Klan members are allowed to march and shout racist slogans, but local governments are also allowed to force them to remove their hoods while doing so, because just wearing a hood doesn't impart a message, nor does it form an integral part of any larger message. I would include the sort of things you're talking about being worn as school under the same heading as "Klan hoods," in that they form no speech or integral part thereof per se.

I don't think two of your cases are really applicable. In Stephenson v. Davenport the appellate court says the free speech issue is moot and repeals the rule based on its vagueness, obviously not a problem here, and in Tinker the Supreme Court upheld the plaintiff based on symbolic speech, which doesn't appear to apply here. You have something in Massie v Henry, in that wearing what clothes and makeup you want to may be part of being secure in one's person instead of speech. Although I would take issue with this interpretation of a constitutional right, especially in the instance of minors in an educational environment, I'm not a circuit judge and my opinion doesn't matter. However, more to the point, Massie refers to length of hair and the fact it has little effect on safety or learning in the classroom. If your school can demonstrate an actual threat to safety or a disruption of learning that has been caused by dressing in the now-prohibited way, they're pretty much home free under this ruling.

I would, however, caution against arguing with the administration on this, basically because there's no compelling right at stake. Unless you can find a constitutional lawyer who will do pro bono work and are willing to put up with a series of court cases (two things I don't expect are likely), I doubt you'll get much traction with your administration or the local school board.

[Serilliant]

How law applies to schools is a very touchy issue. Naturally, constitutional rights are guaranteed to all citizens regardless of situation, but there are some caveats when it comes to their place in schools. For example, even though Tinker v Des Moines protected freedom of expression through clothing, schools can still ban anything that can be deemed "disruptive". What falls under the category of being 'disruptive' is vague, and the best you can do to condense it is to look at recent cases.

I can't find the exact trial but can assure you that it does exist, but I know there was a school recently that banned black trenchcoats on the grounds that they were disruptive given the actions at Columbine. That ban was overturned on the grounds of constitutionality. In short, something must be immediately disruptive (i.e. a shirt that says, "I'm going to blow up the school"), not something that causes concern over a potential disruption.

What's important, though, is that this school was a public school. If your school is private, they have entirely different regulations they operate under. But, as Leopold said, you likely won't be able to get a lot of traction with the administration even with a well-reasoned and correct argument. Your best bet is to find a pro bono constitutional rights lawyer. I disagree that they'd have to put up with a number of court cases as I'd imagine the school would back down once the L-word was invoked, but finding someone to take the 'case' would not be terribly easy.

[Storm Veritas]

Interesting topic here. I'm going to operate under the assumption that you are referring to a public school, because if that is not the case, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

More important than fighting this on a basis of establishing "freedom of speech" is drawing a line in the sand as to what business the school has a right to legislate. If it's a public school and you are acting under laws legal to the rest of town, it would be very interesting to see what case if any the school could make to sustain their ban on stupid clothing.

[Caerah]

The only one of those three new rules I can see being accepted would be the no extreme facial makeup. Many people would accept the fact that something like that would cause a disruption in a classroom setting. The other two however...

No black/dark nailpolish? That's a stupid rule right there, especially if it pertains to both sexes. Women can't wear dark nailpolish now? No thanks. How is that able to disrupt anything in a school environment. No black on black clothing? Only disruption is that they might be hard to locate in a power outage (assuming they mean all black on black clothing, not just ones with certain imagery).

The extreme makeup could potentially cause personal attacks towards the individual wearing it, as well as cause some students to be distracted in class (Basically think similar issues to the whole dyed hair in school bit).

[Ashiakin]

I honestly don't have a great enough understanding of the legal properties of these scenarioes to make a well rounded, intellectual statement, but I will say that crap like this pisses me off.

That's pretty much the best post on Althanas I've seen in a while.

MetalDrago, as someone who went to a charter high school with a strict dress code (blue golf shirts and khaki pants) I feel your pain. I'm just going to say that I agree with Serilliant and Leopold on the legal matters and add something of my own personal opinion.

Our school defended its dress code policy by saying that if everyone wore the same thing, it would get rid of the desire for teenagers to wear trendy clothing and no one would be able to tell how much money someone's family had. Which, well, didn't work. The rich kids wore expensive golf shirts and khakis and the poor kids wore cheap golf shirts and khakis. It wasn't hard to tell.

Oh, I think part of the reason was also that we might fuck like rabbits in the hallways if girls wore skirts that were too short. In retrospect, maybe that was a good idea. Christ knows that would have happened. It's pretty hard to get turned on by a girl when she's wearing a golf shirt and a knee-length khaki skirt.

i.e, I'm only joking and agree with the first guy. I think it's great that you're taking an interest in this--our high schools need more students who do--but I'm uncertain of what you'll be able to accomplish. School boards more like to listen to students' parents (even if they dropped out of high school themselves) than they do their own straight A students. Mainly because school boards are populated by said parents. You know, people who remember getting drunk and having sex in the back of their girlfriends' vans and are like "Holy shit, I can't let my kid can't do that!" It's a crazy world we live in.

[BlueMoon]

Yeah I don't really know much aout the legal matters involved but that would piss me off. I persoanlly like wearing black clothing just because that's my taste. That'd be like saying "You're not allowed to wear blue on blue." I can almost understand the make-up and nail polish issues, but (like many others assume this is publiic school) the school's main concern should be learning. I used to go to a school that had alot of petty policies like this. They began charging students for ketchup and when students brought their own it would get taken away. "Open containers of food are a health risk" they said. Schools are getting pretty whiny.

[MetalDrago]

This is a public school, and I am considering using a lawyer. I know it won't be easy, but I have plenty of free time to work on this. I have all intention of seeing this removed as fast as possible. Though I rarely wear said colors, I do not like others being told they can't do so if they wish.

Of course, I have to check and see what will happen once I try to argue the case for them on Monday, but... As it is 9/11, I may have to back down until Tuesday. I plan on giving the school board hell, even if I cannot get the ruling reversed. This is my choice, and as an Honor Student, I have plenty of brains to rely on, and some good resources to pull on when I finish searching them.

[Max Dirks]

State, MetalDrago, state. Certain states offer more protection than others to the rights of students and/or to the rights of freedom of speech/expression. Please note that Damon and I are in school to become lawyers. We can probably help you minus the $125 per hour I currently bill to clients.

[Serilliant]

$125/hr. for a 1L? What happened to the 150 hours of required pro bono work?

[MetalDrago]

The state is Alabama. And, if this helps, the school board I am working to fight against is Cullman County, right there in between Birmingham and Huntsville. If you could offer legal advice on this, I would be most grateful.

[streak101]

I'll put my two cents in...*Ehem*

It seems to me that the principal is well anti goth or rocker or whatever its called. I mean, in my school plenty of people do that, some guys even paint their fingernails black or even purple! Your principal from a students point a view, or at least the students in my school, seems to want to stop letting the students express themselves, or even thinks he can force them to do that. WHICH HE CANT!

Sorry touchy subject school rules.

I say let them express themselves! Screw the school staff! Screw the singing! Let there be black fingernails, and facial make up! Let there be black on black clothes!

But if one kid even brings a switch blade...SHOOT THE LITTLE MOTHER FUCKER!


P.S.: I only read the first post.

[Wizo]

The only thing I can saw about this is that many schools nation wide are becoming like this. My old school put new rules and regulations where many people were getting pissed off. Though the anti-goth laws for this one is bit out there, I will admit that. School make it hard period for kids to become kids.

[Max Dirks]

Sorry about the wait, MetalDrago, but I did some research. Here's the skinny:

Alabama law is pretty vague in regards to your case, which unfortunately will not work in your favor. Here is an exerpt from Alabama Law Title 26, Chapter 28A, Section 16-28A1:
The Legislature finds further that every child in Alabama is entitled to have access to a program of instruction which gives him or her the right to learn in a non-disruptive environment. No student has a right to be unruly in his or her classroom to the extent that such disruption denies fellow students of their right to learn. The teacher in each classroom is expected to maintain order and discipline. Teachers are hereby given the authority and responsibility to use appropriate means of discipline up to and including corporal punishment as may be prescribed by the local board of educationAs you can see, the lines are not specifically drawn as to what constitutes distruption. You can argue that your school was not subject to distruption as a result of those reasons listed in the provision, but they will just counter that it does distrupt at least one person.

Wearing dark clothing, wearing extreme makeup and using dark nailpolish is not really considered expression by any government (local, state or federal) that would hear your case. Leopold is right, you do not have any legal basis for your claims insofar as your school district is committing First Amendment violation. You MIGHT have a claim of a TITLE IX of the Education Act of 1972, which claims equality on the basis of gender in educational institutes. We generally associate TITLE IX claims with athletic funding and availability, but a close examination of the law shows it extends to all school activities. Your job then would be to prove that disciplinary actions are an essential school activity undertaken by the faculty and staff. This is on the grounds that men can wear no makeup at all and women can. It's a long shot, you'll never be able to find a lawyer that will work pro-bono on the case, but you might be able to find find someone to work on a contingency if you grab him or her right after passing the Alabama Bar.

However, someone once said "If opportunity doesn't come knocking, build a door." To make a case, I suggest gathering a number of friends together to "protest" the changes. Here's what you do: go to school with "Impeach Bush" or "I express, therefore I am" written on your forehead in makeup (Serilliant would probably suggest eyeliner or lipstick to do the trick). Go through school how you normally would, without making any indication as to why you have slogans written on your forehead. In a sense, take no action or make no reference to the new school rules that would disrupt the class. The MINUTE someone gets taken to the principal's office, or better yet, suspended, you have yourself a case based on expression.

If the makeup is too outlandish on you, try wearing a black on black t-shirt that has your slogans written on it. Hell, even "Save the Environment" is petty enough to do the trick. I can just imagine an ACLU lawyer in court. "So what you're saying, Sir, is that if the Plaintiff wore a green-on-green shirt that said 'Impeach Bush' he would not have been suspended? I don't think the Plaintiff is suing you on the grounds of equal protection of colors. How can this court, even in its best judgment, discern whether that is true or not?" Also, if you can bring expression BACK into the case, then the ACLU will most likely provide you with a team of attorneys to work for you pro bono.

As a little caviot, especially if you do not want to risk suspension, try something cute. Prepare a letter, or perhaps someone on Althanas prepare one, in the realm of having concern that the forthcoming school play might be distruptive to other student's learning and give it to your principal. The members of the play will be wearing excessive makeup, and at least one character usually wears dark nail polish to excentuate the character. One might be wearing all black as well. Submit the letter, and then call your principal and request a time to come discuss your concerns personally. When you do, wear a dress black shirt with dress black pants and a silver tie. If you have a pinstripe suit jacket with a bit of white or silver on it, wear that to complete the outfit.

Hope that helps, get ahold of me if you need anything else.

[LordLeopold]

My opinion is that if you're trying to convince a school board in Alabama of anything, you can't expect much.

[MetalDrago]

I understand you're standing on that, and I'm not going to try to sway them of anything, until I have a law degree under my belt and the approval of the Alabama bar... In other words, probably never... I'm going into game design, if I can make it there