I thought this issue was resolved in the late 1960’s. Public schools had a strict dress code before that. Watch an early episode of My Three Sons and you’ll see the button up shirts,ties, and slacks of the period.
In the seventies there wasn’t a formal dress code. Kids wore their hair like they wanted. Almost any clothing was acceptable as long as the naughty bits were covered. I remember the 70’s fondly.
Has something changed? Wasn’t this issue settled 40 years ago?
Were there any court decisions that forced public schools to drop dress codes 40 years ago?
Schools dropped dress codes because they realized they were fighting a losing battle. Women wore slacks and forcing them to wear skirts just wasn’t working. But AFAIK, no ruling banned them, and even now schools can send you home if you dress inappropriately. But, generally, most remaining codes (many schools dropped them, except that the required students to dress “appropriately”) are designed to match the style, and not force it upon students.
There was something of a backlash against this attitude, and some public schools require school uniforms
AFAIK, the codes were never overturned in court. Students are minors, of course, so their protests don’t matter legally, and it’s hard to prove a hardship in having to wear what everyone else is wearing.
I don’t remember the case but in 1969 the Supreme Court verified that student in public schools did enjoy a freedom of speech. This isn’t an absolute right though. If I recall from my college days I think the phrase was, this can be limited by “substantial disruption or material interference”
I recall one girl having to get her tatoo removed then she had it done and sued the school and won. While conversely piercing usually fail, on the point you can usually remove them.
Courts seem to feel if the dress is for religious or political reasons it’s OK, but if it’s fashion it can be ruled out.
If you go to the ACLU website you can find a lot of examples where they have sued and won because of school dress codes.
But I reckon because, according to the ACLU website, the federal governement has no dress code policy and no state has a school dress code policy either. It’s all decided at a local level.
So this is the reason for uneven judical rulings. It appears the ability to have or not have a dress code is tied into community standards and welfare
There was some law quoted in my high school handbook that said that they couldn’t discriminate based on hair style. My dad comments how, when he graduated, you couldn’t even have a beard, let alone the long hair that was in style then. That was just 30 years ago.
Still, we had a dress code–but it basically just covered too short skirts, shorts, and shirts (either showing too much cleavage or any tummy). There was also a rule that said you had to shave your armpits if you wanted to wear a sleeveless shirt, which was pretty much meant to allow them for girls but not for guys.
I knew private schools could set any rules they wanted. The students are paying to go, and their parents can withdraw them if they want.
The case I mentioned above is a public school. I always thought they couldn’t set rules for hair or clothing. Although, I seem to recall a vague phrase in our handbook about appropriate dress. I wasn’t aware of anyone being hassled for what they wore in the 70’s.
Yeah, I’d swear our handbook said something similar.
So in general, there’s nothing unconstitutional about public schools having a dress code per se, but the devil is in the details. If the dress code is applied in an unreasonably burdensome or discriminatory way, the courts may not uphold it.
Tut tut. Law is about precision. The last two cases address impermissibly vague dress codes. None of them said anything about being burdensome.
The dress code here is pretty straightforward (giving specific details about how hair may be worn and the like). Now, frankly, I find it pretty overbearing, and perhaps burdensome, but that doesn’t make it impermissible. Redress for unwise or unpopular regulation which is nevertheless not outside the scope of the enacting body’s authority is to be found at the ballot box not the courts. The school district seems plenty pleased with itself, but if they piss off enough parents (and it seems like they might be), the school board might begin to rue courting so much attention.
Thanks Kimmy, IANAL and it’s quite likely that the way I used “burdensome” is incorrect from a legal point of view. I just meant that the very quibbly dress codes might be ruled impermissible because they made unreasonable demands on students’ ability to distinguish between what was acceptable under the code and what wasn’t.
Schools also can run into trouble if the requirments for male and female students differ too greatly. I (& several of my classmates) always thought it was unfair that while shorts and skirts had the same length requirments skirts could be worn year round, but shorts could only be worn early fall and late spring (the administration would make an announcment). Granted very few girls ever actually wore skirts or dressed to school. Nor did the student handbook actually come out and say “only female students may wear skirts/dress”. One year my cousin and a couple other guys all wore kilts to school one day (& kept it up for a few days). Several teachers were extremely pissed the principal wanted to stop and/or punish them, then all of the sudden he dropped it and those teachers were told not to say or do anything more about it. Rumour had it that one of the parents threatened to sue the district.
Funny dress code story: I was subbing at a high school last week. As a sub, I’m loathe to be too picky about dress codes, especially if the student gets to my class after several beforehand.
But after about 30 minutes, a boy took off his hoodie to reveal a T-shirt with the message “HIT THE F**KING FLOOR” (my asterisks) on the back. He was sitting in the back, facing the back. Not to make a scene, I prepped an office pass, then asked another student up front for “the boy in the white T-shirt’s name”.
He casually looked back, then started laughing. “Jimmy, you shouldn’t turn your back to the teacher wearing that shirt.” Jimmy seemed mystified, until I came back and handed him the office pass. Seems he forgot what was on his shirt when he took off the hoodie.
Then there was the girl with an 8" hole in her jeans just below her butt…
I do wonder about codes that require boys to have much shorter hair than girls. I haven’t thought about sex-discrimination law in some time, but my recollection was that rules with no rationale other that to enforce traditional gender norms are impermissible sex discrimination. Many schools get away with unconstitutional rules because suing is a pain.
This thread is fascinating to me, mainly because this is so different than what I have experienced. Dress codes illegal? I have to laugh because if anything the schools I have had contact with have only gotten stricter in their dress codes in recent years.
The (public) elementary and middle schools my oldest attended in SC had uniforms. The “dress code” was white or light blue button up shirt or dark blue or white polo shirt, dark blue or khaki pants for boys, girls could wear dark blue or khaki pants or skirts (note: boys could not wear skirts). All shirts must be tucked in, belts must be worn through belt loops. I don’t recall the hair and jewelry rules (other than no wallets on chains) but it was also different for boys and girls.
The next middle school we went to had a similar dress code except that it was blue or khaki pants (skirts okay for girls, but not boys) and the shirts were colored for the classes- 6th graders in green (unadorned, solid color) 7th graders in yellow and 8th graders in gray.
The high school my oldest graduated from was a DOD school so perhaps was “allowed” to be stricter. His freshman year it was solid colors only (no stripes, designs, etc) shirts which must be tucked, belts must be worn through belt loops, no skirts for boys. Hair and jewelry standards were a little different between boys and girls. The next year the clothing rules relaxed to “appropriate, no drug, tobacco or alcohol references” but the other rules remained.
The schools my younger children attend now (middle school and high school) in Kansas also have fairly strict, if seldom enforced dress codes which include “no overly tight or revealing clothing” skirts and shorts must be no shorter than (I think) 3 inches above the knee. Hair is just “not distracting” and no unnatural colors (this is not enforced) no chains, spikes, etc. no hats, pants worn at the waist, no pajamas. I honestly don’t know if there are differences for boy and girls, but this being Kansas I would venture a guess that a boy in a skirt would cause enough of a “disturbance” to the teachers that it would be disallowed.
There have always been issues with dress codes in general and debates about it (and whether or not dress in school should be protected as free speech) but as far as I know they have always been legal to have.
I agree it does seem this way until you equate dress codes as a form of freedom of expression, which stems from one’s freedom of speech or freedom of religion.
If you see dress codes as limiting a right to express oneself it does seem right. Though I agree with the poster, it does seem a bit “off” at first glance
Schools may have gotten stricter in their dress codes, but that doesn’t mean that they are doing so legally.
I was a teacher when the Supreme Court of the land ruled in the late Sixties that public school students could not be prevented from wearing an item of clothing unless the school administrator had evidence that the item would cause a disruption.
Mind you, the administrator couldn’t just have a hunch that the item of clothing would cause a disturbance. She or he had to have evidence that it would before preventing the student from wearing it.
There have been some rulings since that seem to leave some questions still unanswered.
That’s not what Tinker held. Tinker held that an expressive gesture, which took the form of a garment, could not be banned if it would not cause a disruption.
If a school wants to adopt a time-place-manner restriction, such as, say, forbidding t-shirts generally in favor of button-up shirts, this is completely legit—quite apart from the question whether a generic t-shirt would be disruptive or not.
Actually, this illustrates one of my peeves with some teachers. Like some cops, they come to see themselves as all-powerful in their domain, and anyone who does not do exactly what they want needs to be crushed. The principal had the right attitude (whatever the reason) - don’t raise a fuss, and in a few days the boys will get tired of wearing skirts to school since it doesn’t get a reaction out of anyone.
I went to a private school, so uniforms were madatory; continuing to attend was the optional part. If you want to be a white collar worker, you have to learn to wear a white collar when the situation demands it. Along with that, there must be some ancient wisdom that says “pick your battles wisely”.
One relative used to delight in finding the fine line in what she could wear at school without being sent home - til her family relocated to another state, and she said it was no fun any more - they let you wear whatever you wanted. It was her mother who gave her grief about wearing “I am a virgin -this is an old Tshirt”; until she pointed out that mom let the brother wear the “Free Mustache Rides” hat for the last month. She then had to explain the concept, and her mom gave up regulating words on clothes.
