The parents specifically filed a federal lawsuit stating the district stifled their children’s First Amendment free speech rights. According to Fox News, the parents also sued to repeal the uniform policy.

One of the students had worn a button for more than six weeks before the school protested. The school claimed the buttons promoted Nazi ideology and do not, if you can believe this, constitute free speech. While the lawsuit moved forward, the students did not wear buttons to avoid jeopardizing their education.

“The school cannot prohibit student free speech even where some may find the speech offensive,” said Ed Barocas, legal director of the ACLU’s New Jersey chapter. “The school must show that the free speech is actually going to be disruptive, in order to censor it.”

The parents issued a written statement:

“I’ve gotten overwhelming support from MANY people that tell me that they absolutely agree with what the image depicted, an ominously homogenous group of blindly cooperative children,” the statement said.

“That image showed no swastikas, no weapons, and Hitler himself wasn’t depicted,” she wrote. “The picture makes a profound statement about what can happen when we turn children into ‘uniform’ followers. Our intent was not to offend but to make a bold statement about what we, as an American family believe is an erosion of a simple right, to be individuals, not blind followers. The very basic rights, to wear clothing we choose, and to peacefully protest what we know was the undemocratic stripping of those rights from us as parent and student.”

Wow!

More info:

• First Amendment Center
• NY Times Article (with photo of student wearing button!)
• Hey Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
• Find Michael DePinto on Facebook.

Related Articles

• Gov school bans skinny jeans, home school doesn’t
• Prom cancelled to avoid lesbian couple
• Suspended for Facebook page, student can sue
• Youth rights group sues to repeal Florida curfew
• Supreme Court to review strip search of student

The school admins claim skinny jeans violate their modesty requirements. They might have a point. Some clothes are not appropriate for all circumstances, and choosing which clothes are appropriate is a subjective decision. The school likely doesn’t allow males to show their briefs, a style favored by some, and students likely leave government schools for this reason.

However, students and their parents also have the right to decide if they think skinny jeans or any other dress style distracts from studying. And they have the right to leave a school that bans styles they deem acceptable, as Seth and his Mom decided.

The dress code could have been the last straw. The school may be conservative with all policies: music, arts, essays, group projects. Do they welcome creativity and new ideas or suppress them?

Seth has an exciting road ahead of him. Not only can he wear any dress style, he will have much more control over what he studies. Clearly Seth thinks for himself and now he can think for himself while learning. And when Seth meets his friends after the government school day ends, he’ll be wearing skinny jeans, while his friends, unless they changed their clothes, will be wearing more conservative attire.

» Read a related article.

» Seth’s facebook page?

» Search Google for more stories about Seth.

Related Articles

• Court approves uniform protest with “Hitler Youth” buttons
• School’s ban on cross necklaces is Christian-bashing
• Dress code enforcement goes too far
• Student in skirt challenges dress code
• Florida High School students opt-out of uniform policy

Earlier this month, attorneys for Kandice Smith, a sixth-grader at Curry Middle School in Walker County, Alabama, filed a lawsuit in federal court to overturn what they called an “unconstitutional” dress code.

In August, the school banned cross necklaces as part of its new dress code — claiming they are “gang symbols.” School officials threatened to discipline Smith if she didn’t hide the cross under her clothes.

But Smith’s attorneys argue the policy “violates the free speech and free exercise rights [of Smith] by denying her the ability to express her faith through the visible wearing of the necklace.” The lawsuit also charges that the school “demonstrates a hostility toward religion.”

Dasbach said Libertarians agree — but have a better solution.

“Any dress code that bans a popular Christian symbol is clearly unconstitutional, and we’re confident the court will agree. But changing this particular school’s dress code isn’t the answer,” he said.

“After all, if Kandice Smith wins, the problem will be solved at Curry Middle School. But it doesn’t change the fact that thousands of government school districts all across the country have the power to implement a similar anti-Christian ban tomorrow.

“And it doesn’t change the fact that government schools routinely teach values and beliefs that many Christians find abhorrent — while forcing them to pay taxes to subsidize those schools. That’s why this lawsuit won’t solve the real problem.”

So what will?

“Most Christians support a separation of church and state because they understand that government should not come between people’s relationship with their God,” said Dasbach. “What Libertarians understand is that we need a separation of school and state for the same reason: To protect children like Kandice Smith from the kind of religious intolerance she is experiencing at a government school.”

That’s why the underlying problem will only be solved when America starts moving toward a system where children are educated in free-market, religious, or voluntary community schools — not tax-funded government schools, he said.

“In a free-market system — where people aren’t forced to subsidize costly, failing government schools — parents would be able to send their children to schools that teach their values, and respect their beliefs,” said Dasbach. “In a free-market system, Kandice Smith’s parents wouldn’t be forced to send her to a school that makes wearing a cross a crime.”

The idea of moving away from government-run schools and towards private alternatives can be somewhat unsettling for many Christians, Dasbach acknowledged.

“But remember this: Jesus Christ was sentenced to death by his government,” he said. “So, do you want to blindly trust our government to educate your children properly — especially after what it’s done to Kandice Smith?”

Related Articles

• Court approves uniform protest with “Hitler Youth” buttons
• Gov school bans skinny jeans, home school doesn’t
• Dress code enforcement goes too far
• Student in skirt challenges dress code
• Heather Wells fights her school dress code Additional protest organizers: Ada Thompson, Rachael Gaff, Mollie Pease, Josh Reynolds and Emily Bedwell Columbia City, IN

October 9th started as a normal school day. Students milled about, the bell rang, classes started. No one expected anything. Our drowsy peers sat at their desks, some with more diligence than others, ready for education.

The 100, 200, and 300 buildings, though, were in for a surprise. The monotony of a normal first hour was to be broken. Learning was to be temporarily set aside to make way for something far, far more important to the nation’s youth and their schooling: dress code enforcement.

Students were completely caught off guard. Administrators, security officers, and a bona fide police officer formed the dress code strike force, moving nearly silently toward their objective, intent on improving that quality of student life through the upholding of clothing law. They weren’t going to take this careless ignorance of policy anymore.

The short shorts had to go. Bare shoulders could no longer be tolerated. The backless shoe industry’s grip had to be loosened. Marjory Stoneman Douglas’ crack team of dress code specialists was going to do just that. And nothing was going to stop them from achieving their goal of an entirely acceptably clothed student body. It was far too important a task too fail, and those appointed to it were far too involved to allow themselves to do so.

They marched from room to room, interrupting class in the worthy name of proper attire, inspecting each student carefully. Our peers stood (arms to the side, fingertips well below the bottoms of shorts) warily as they were examined. Violators were removed and collectively placed in confinement. Their fellow students stared after them, fearing for them, wondering what would come next.

Those who broke the code were herded into the auditorium for the remainder of the school day. Fourteen students were subjected to the icy temperatures. These outlaws quickly learned that less than tolerable clothing results in a one day vacation to a climate with less than tolerable temperature. Nothing cruel or unusual about putting the least clothed students in the coldest rooms in the school at all.

Some look at the inspections (which will thankfully occur all year long, randomly!) in a negative light. Some find it disgusting that the dress code be considered important enough to halt the learning day.

“Education is important!” they say.
“Gestapo tactics,” they call this brilliant maneuver.
Obviously some people have their priorities skewed.™
By Matt Tucker

Related Articles

• Court approves uniform protest with “Hitler Youth” buttons
• Gov school bans skinny jeans, home school doesn’t
• School’s ban on cross necklaces is Christian-bashing
• Student in skirt challenges dress code
• Heather Wells fights her school dress code Additional protest organizers: Ada Thompson, Rachael Gaff, Mollie Pease, Josh Reynolds and Emily Bedwell Columbia City, IN

The Charlotte County school code restricts attire or appearance that is distracting or disruptive. Superintendent Larry Dunn defended the code and school officials, who restricted Shinkle, by claiming that they kept a distraction out of the classroom. “It didn’t take long to figure out it was disruptive,” Dunn said. “That was obvious before he got off the bus.”

According to Shinkle, his skirt distracted only the teachers and the other administrators. “When I got off the bus that morning I noticed it wasn’t the students that were upset about it. It was the teachers,” he said.

His mother agreed. “I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill,” said Leslie Kennedy. “They should have ignored it, and he never would have done it again. The bus driver ignored it. I ignored it. The other children in the house ignored it. But the two experts at the school didn’t ignore it.”

Shinkle thinks the issue is more about control than distraction. “I don’t feel like I was violating the dress code at all,” he said. “The school is trying to control how people dress so drastically.” Shinkle wore the skirt to support a female friend’s plan to step out of character and wear baggy pants. She did not follow through.

There must be something about the skirt that particularly irks government employees. Perhaps, the sight of a man in a skirt is so different that it may encourage students to question the fashion status quo. Then if students realize that skirts are indeed very comfortable for both genders, they may start to question the wisdom of the entire dress code.

In fact, students may realize that the government is wrong about a lot of things. They’ll start to question all gender restrictions, the bans on backpacks and even the lack of a fast food restaurant at school. They may even question why the government has a monopoly on education, which brings us to the real distraction for government school administrators. If students start to clamor for change, eventually they’ll want to go to private schools, which means that in an indirect way, Shinkle’s skirt actually threatens his principal’s job.

School officials are more worried about social change than about one student in a skirt. Therefore, they try to suppress all forms of expression that may lead students to think for themselves and inevitably question their role in the government’s penal system.

If school officials were actually worried about distractions, then they would get rid of the metal detectors, the drug-sniffing dogs, and the on-site SWAT teams. How can a student concentrate when he studies in a prison. Officials would also focus are the real distractions to academia such as noisy students and classrooms without air conditioners.

Edward Shinkle said that he has long been a social outcast with his schoolmates. He should actually refer to himself as an individual. But then his principal would definitely suspend him.

Related Articles

• Court approves uniform protest with “Hitler Youth” buttons
• Gov school bans skinny jeans, home school doesn’t
• School’s ban on cross necklaces is Christian-bashing
• Dress code enforcement goes too far
• Heather Wells fights her school dress code Additional protest organizers: Ada Thompson, Rachael Gaff, Mollie Pease, Josh Reynolds and Emily Bedwell Columbia City, IN

On the day of the protest, they initially spoke to their assistant principal. “He was very open-minded about the whole thing. He actually listened to what we had to say. Then he sent us to the principal of our school,” said Heather.

Protests are rarely well received by intolerant government officials and Heather’s protest was no exception. According to Heather, the principal, “interrupted us while we were trying to calmly explain the whole thing, and jumped to conclusions about everything we said. He told us we made really bad analogies, and that we were going to bomb the school because we said something about it making the students tense because we are in a ‘high risk’ school.”

The principal took their petitions and claimed that he would present their opinion to his supervisors. He then gave in-school suspensions or sent home those students who joined the protest by wearing tank tops.

The protest was a success because many students participated and they got to discuss the issue with the principal. In addition, the protest prompted all students and teachers to reconsider the harsh dress code, which excessively limits individuality.

Heather and her fellow protestors vow to continue their fight. Their protest and petition were just the beginning.

May 20, 1999
I would like to thank you again for all the support and advice you have offered on our fight against the dress code. I will have a flier available for you as soon as I can. Also, maybe I came off saying that this was all my idea, and that is wrong. I have had a lot of supprt from my friends and everyone who has signed our petitions and agreed to wear tank tops and piercings to school tomorrow. It would be greatly appreciated if you could post the names of my friends who have helped me with the petitions and protest: Ada Thompson, Rachael Gaff, Mollie Pease, Josh Reynolds and Emily Bedwell.

May 18, 1999
What my friends and I are doing right now is petitioning our friends, and other people at our high school. We need 500 signatures before our school board will take it into consideration. So far, we have about 250 and it has only been two days.

This Friday [5/21/99], we all plan to protest the school’s unfair ban on tank tops and body piercings by wearing them to school, to protest and show how much support we have. Were passing out fliers tomorrow through Thursday and we have told everybody who has signed our petitions, and most all of them have agreed.

We are doing this for two reasons. One, We feel that this rule bans us from expressing our individuality by limiting the way we dress and adorn ourselves with jewelry. You have to understand, we live in a very small town, there is no reasoning behind this rule, other than it is distracting to other students, and we are revealing too much of our bodies; which is both unfair, and untrue.

Secondly, Our school is like a literal boiler room. There is no air conditioning to speak of, and we also have kilns and ovens running in a few rooms constantly, which jacks up the heat to unbearable. One of my friends almost passed out the day before last, and another one of my friends has suffered heatstroke more than once this year.

Well, the logical solution to this problem would be to let us wear lighter clothing to make the heat bearable, but, alas, they do not listen to reason. So, were doing what I above mentioned, and as soon as we get enough signatures, we are going straight to the school board. Thank you for showing an interest in my struggle to make High School life a little more bearable.

Heather Wells
Columbia City, IN

Related Articles

• Court approves uniform protest with “Hitler Youth” buttons
• Gov school bans skinny jeans, home school doesn’t
• School’s ban on cross necklaces is Christian-bashing
• Dress code enforcement goes too far
• Student in skirt challenges dress code

Andrea Byrd, a graduating senior at Alameda High School, wanted to dispense with the government’s graduation dress code by wearing a blue and silver ribbon on her graduation gown to memorialize the 12 students and one teacher who were murdered April 20th in Littleton, Colorado.

Upon hearing that she would not be allowed to wear the ribbon, she quickly fought back by contacting the ACLU on the Thursday before her graduation. She called Mark Silverstein, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado, who faxed a letter of protest to Alameda Principle Deborah Williams.

Since the graduation was only days away, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on Friday seeking a preliminary injunction. The court granted an emergency hearing but the judge ruled against Byrd and upheld a school policy that forbids adornment on graduation gowns.

The judge could have struck down the law as a violation of free speech but he obviously wanted to help the school censor students. At the trial, he asked, “What if a group of students wanted to demonstrate their support for the individuals that perpetrated this horrible crime?” and suggested some could show up sporting “miniature trench coats.”

The judge’s ruling seems to conflict with a Supreme Court ruling that allowed students to wear black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. The court ruled that the armbands were protected speech because they were not disruptive. Perhaps the student should wear blue and white armbands, which might remind the local judge that she has Constitutional rights even at graduation ceremonies.

If you also disagree with your school’s graduation dress code, you have the right to sue your school for violating your First Amendment right to free expression. If your graduation is only days away, your local court will probably grant an emergency hearing to quickly decide the case. Perhaps you’ll even find a judge who will defend the Constitution..

Related Articles

• Court approves uniform protest with “Hitler Youth” buttons
• Gov school bans skinny jeans, home school doesn’t
• School’s ban on cross necklaces is Christian-bashing
• Dress code enforcement goes too far
• Student in skirt challenges dress code

The court held that since the students were quiet and passive, they were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth.

The court also held that First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

According to a University of Cincinnati law professor, the 1969 decision freed public school student expression in word and garb. That means that you have the right to wear political clothing even if it is not imprinted with a message. The Vietnam protestors were simply wearing black armbands and it seems likely that they also would have won if they had chosen black trenchcoats.

If your school tries to ban attire that is not political, such as the Goth look, but not disruptive, then you have the right to sue your school for violating your Fourteen Amendment right to express your individuality.

Your school officials may claim that the more recent court decisions have decreased the impact of the 1969 decision. However, many of these decisions focused on attire that is disruptive to the school. For example, a student can probably not come to a school in a Ku Klux Klan uniform. Attire that is not disruptive may still be protected. Your teacher may not like Marilyn Manson T-shirts but that does not give him the right to ban them. We also doubt that judges would consider the Goth look to be disruptive.

According to Scott Greenwood, an American Civil Liberties Union Lawyer, “said educators can ban garments that are disruptive or promote violence, but not simply on the assumption that people who wear black trench coats or anything else will commit massacres.”

In summary, your attire is protected by the First and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution. Mention these amendments to your school officials if they comment on your attire. If you’re willing to go to court to affirm your right to express yourself, tell them that also. Remember that schools do not like court cases especially when they deal with the 1969 black armband case.

Related Articles

• Court approves uniform protest with “Hitler Youth” buttons
• Gov school bans skinny jeans, home school doesn’t
• School’s ban on cross necklaces is Christian-bashing
• Dress code enforcement goes too far
• Student in skirt challenges dress code