Requiring School Uniforms Is a Violation of the First Amendment Thesis

School Uniforms

The legal debate over school uniforms hinges on First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of expression. Clothing is a form of personal expression and often includes emblems of cultural or religious pride. Therefore, clothing can be considered a significant part of a child's identity development. A review of literature reveals a broad-based attack on the constitutionality of school dress codes. Prior to recent legal challenges, the Department of Education had lauded the role of school uniforms in promoting discipline and reducing violence on campuses, in its Manual on School Uniforms. Although some evidence may have suggested that school uniforms can play a role in creating safer schools, legal analysts almost universally decry restrictions on dress codes. Middle-ground policies take into account the rights of private schools to implement uniforms if they can prove the uniforms serve some pedagogical purpose. In taxpayer-funded public schools, however, the First Amendment clearly protects the rights of students to express themselves with their clothing and therefore prohibits a school uniform policy.Download full
paper NOW!  ⬇️

TOPIC: Thesis on Requiring School Uniforms Is a Violation of the First Amendment Assignment

The First Amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Proving that school uniforms violate the First Amendment requires the fulfillment of two tasks. First, clothing must be portrayed as crucial to the "free exercise" of religion, to the "freedom of speech," or to "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." School uniforms can violate any one of these three protected rights. In 1999, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) helped a third grader and his great-grandmother file a lawsuit against a school district in rural North Carolina, claiming that a new mandatory school uniform policy violated the boy's First Amendment rights (Learning 1999). The plaintiffs claimed that school uniforms violated Aaron Ganues' right to religious expression and right to freedom of speech, and won the case. The victory signaled a strong legal affirmation that school uniforms do indeed violate First Amendment rights. Moreover, the North Carolina case demonstrates that school uniforms infringe on both freedom of religious expression and on freedom of speech.

In 1996, a school uniform case reached the Supreme Court of Massachusetts: in Pyle v. School Committee of South Hadley. The case does not involve freedom of religious expression but it does illustrate the legal rights of young Americans to express themselves, their values, beliefs, and sense of humor using clothing. Two students were involved in the case, after being suspended for wearing T-shirts some of their classmates deemed "vulgar," (Pyle v. School Committee of South Hadley). According to the ACLU, the "Massachusetts Supreme Court Judicial Court ruled that student expression through clothing is protected even if it is considered 'vulgar' by some, so long as that expression causes no material disruption of the educational program." Essentially, schools do not have the right to prohibit or mandate specific clothing.

If clothing is considered a valid means of self-expression in schools, then clothing may also be used as a means of expressing group identity. One of the central arguments in favor of school uniforms points to the ability of students to express their identification with violent gangs. The Department of Education claimed that one of the potential benefits of implementing a school uniform policy would be "helping prevent gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school." However, empirical evidence has failed to prove that school uniforms would minimize gang allegiance; the uniforms themselves "can do little to fight gang violence in our schools," (Felch nd). Wearing a shirt bearing the name of a street gang does not necessarily mean that student pledges allegiance to the gang, either. Barring a shirt with a gang logo would clearly violate a students right to free speech. Any logo or insignia is legally protected under First Amendment rights. Booth (2007) details a case that upheld students' rights to wear logos, pictures, or insignias of offensive groups like the "Hitler Youth." The 2007 case echoes previous rulings such as the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community. School District. In the latter case, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of war protesters to wear armbands to school. Regardless of what group a logo belongs to, a logo depicting that group is a far cry from a hate crime.

A formidable legal foe to school uniforms is the truth that clothing imparts "cultural and ethnic dimensions" of human communication, self-expression, and group membership (Mitchell & Knechtle 2003). In this sense, a school uniform may violate not just freedom of religious expression and freedom of speech but also the right to assembly. Any clothing that visibly and proudly announces allegiance to a specific ethnic or cultural heritage should be protected under First Amendment rights. Mitchell & Knechtle (2003) point out: "youth of color, their parents, families, and community members may view dress codes and uniforms as restrictions on students' cultural expressions of dress." If clothing has the potential to foster healthy identity formation and increase ethnic pride then school uniforms violate the essential rights and freedoms of students from multicultural backgrounds.

One of the main arguments in favor of school uniforms is that they might "lessen peer pressure aggravated by socioeconomic divisions," leveling the playing field between wealthy and poor students (Hudson 2009). Other arguments claim the school uniforms directly reduce instances of violence and gang membership on school campuses. After a Long Beach, California school district mandated school uniforms for all elementary and middle school students district officials claimed "overall school crime decreased 36%, fights decreased 51%, sex offenses decreased 74%, weapons offenses decreased 50%, assault and battery offenses decreased 34%, and vandalism decreased 18%," (Department of Education).

As impressive as the Long Beach statistics may seem, they are isolated data and not necessarily representative of other districts' experiences with school uniforms. Furthermore, correlations between school uniforms and decreasing violence do not necessarily denote causation. Even if a relationship between school uniforms and violence can be proven, mandatory uniforms still violate First Amendment rights. School districts and communities must look towards constitutional methods of reducing violence and delinquency instead of relying solely on clothing. In fact, the ACLU later sued the Long Beach school district. Representing twenty-six families, the ACLU succeeded in an out-of-court settlement that upheld the constitutional rights of the students while also acknowledging the disciplinary needs of the school district (Felch nd). The Long Beach case established a precedent allowing school uniform policies only if they included "opt-out" clauses. An opt-out clause makes the case in favor of school uniforms irrelevant, though. By definition, uniforms impose a uniform dress upon all students attending a public school. Opting out would mean that no school uniform was mandatory in the first place.

The Department of Education also claimed that school uniforms "help students concentrate on their school work," without citing any evidence or offering examples. Little if any empirical research substantiates the claim, also made by the Department of Education, that one of the benefits of school uniforms is "instilling students with discipline." Educators and school administrators as well as parents must find more fruitful, creative, and constitutional means to improve academic performance and discipline.

Schools clinging to the presumed legality of school uniforms have several defense options, Simonson (1997) claims. First, schools can find legal exemption and allow school uniforms if they can prove "a reasonable relation to the school's pedagogical purpose." Such proof may be difficult for public schools to find, but relatively easy for private schools. Second, school districts can spell out "alternative avenues for expression" other than clothing if a uniform is mandated. For example, students prohibited from wearing whatever t-shirt they like might be allowed to put buttons on their backpacks. Third, any school uniform policy must represent "content-neutral regulation." In other words, the uniforms cannot be imposed on students immediately after a boy was sent home for wearing a turban. Finally, if a school can prove that it is not actually a "public forum," then a court may rule the institution exempt from having to allow total freedom of expression. Proving that a public school that is funded by taxpayers and attended by their children is not a "public forum" would be practically impossible.

School districts would be far better off focusing on improvements to school infrastructure, pedagogy, and curriculum rather than on school uniforms. deMitchell, Fossey & Cobb (2000) found that high school principles strongly supported dress codes but were not in favor of mandatory uniforms. Parents are equally disillusioned with school uniforms. The head of a Parental Action Committee opposing school uniforms claimed that mandatory uniforms are "un-American and is fundamentally wrong," (Hudson 1999). School uniforms clearly present financial and practical as well as legal problems for school administrators. Legal battles are costly and can degrade relationships between schools, parents, and the community.

Dress codes and uniforms are two different… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE