Indeed, as DeMitchell and Cobb stated in their study of New England school superintendents, “It is a sad commentary that security, as a value to be pursued in educational policy making, has joined the traditional values of excellence, equity, choice, and efficiency.” More recently, school districts have asserted a second justification for policing students’ clothing choices: the fear that certain clothing is affiliated with gangs and undermines a safe school environment. Here they get into the gang factor (emphasis mine): Nevertheless, so far at least, no court has ruled that schools are without authority to enforce standards of modesty and cleanliness in student clothing. However, students have continued to assert the right to wear what they choose to school regardless of community standards, and they have sometimes prevailed.
For example, in a 1995 opinion, an Indiana appellate court upheld a school policy against boys wearing earrings, ruling that the school board had the authority to enforce community standards.
Until recently, most school boards justified student dress codes on the grounds that they instill a sense of decorum, reflect community values, and promote an atmosphere conducive to learning. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a student has no constitutional right to wear a T-shirt condemning homosexuals, while the Seventh Circuit held that students have a First Amendment right to wear T-shirts proclaiming, “Be Happy, Not Gay.”
Thus, while most courts have approved bans on the wearing of Confederate flags and insignias on the grounds that these symbolic forms of expression may trigger racial conflict, they have split with regard to whether students have a First Amendment right to affix other social and political messages on their clothing.
0 kommentar(er)
