|
The following is the written dress code for a public elementary school
in Massachusetts:
Students are expected to be neatly dressed and
groomed at all times. No Tank Tops or "belly
shirts" should be worn to school. Shirts
advertising alcoholic beverages will not be
permitted. Parents may be required to bring
a change of clothes to the school if this rule
is violated.
There are plenty of other places where the district model code of
conduct (I've analyzed it for another school in the district) is
woefully ambiguous or not what they meant. (That is, those that
wrote this haven't paid a lot of attention to details.) My best
guess is that the alcohol restriction would fail Constitutional
muster. Thoughts?
(As for the ambiguity, by advertising do they mean specific
commercial advertisements, "Drink Duff Beer", or if they bothered
to enforce this at all would they think that any promotion of
alcoholic beverages ["Draft Beer Not Students", "The Interstate
Commerce Clause -- It's not just a good idea, it's the law"]
is prohibited.)
--
- David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
|
| |
| |
David Chesler wrote:
The following is the written dress code for a public elementary
school
in Massachusetts:
Students are expected to be neatly dressed and
groomed at all times. No Tank Tops or "belly
shirts" should be worn to school. Shirts
advertising alcoholic beverages will not be
permitted. Parents may be required to bring
a change of clothes to the school if this rule
is violated.
There are plenty of other places where the district model code of
conduct (I've analyzed it for another school in the district) is
woefully ambiguous or not what they meant. (That is, those that
wrote this haven't paid a lot of attention to details.) My best
guess is that the alcohol restriction would fail Constitutional
muster. Thoughts?
I think you are wrong. Recently, courts have pretty consistently
ruled that students "rights" can be restricted by schools for almost
any reason at all. The cases I remember cover free expression and
search-and-seizure issues, specifically.
If you think the first amendment is going to
protect a kid in this situation, I think you are wrong. As for the
ambiguity argument: I think you will find that courts are so
deferential
to school administrators, that they will uphold this dress code. Even
if the school interprets it to mean that no mention of alcoholic
beverages
is allowed at all.
Joshua Levy
|
| |
| |
David Chesler wrote:
The following is the written dress code for a public elementary
school
in Massachusetts:
Students are expected to be neatly dressed and
groomed at all times. No Tank Tops or "belly
shirts" should be worn to school. Shirts
advertising alcoholic beverages will not be
permitted.
<snip>
My best
guess is that the alcohol restriction would fail Constitutional
muster. Thoughts?
Dress codes for public elementary students are not unconstitutional.
Students do have some civil rights, including freedome of speech, but
context is all-important. While in school, minor students do not have
all the freedom of expression that applies to adults. Even with
adults, the state can impose reasonable regulations on the time, place,
and manner of protected first amendment expression. The government
does also have a legitimate interest in regulating student behavior to
maintain discipline and promote learning, so certain content-based
restrictions may be necessary to accomplish this. Do they also
prohibit indecent images or vulgar or profane words on student
clothing? If they don't, they could, and most parents would probably
say they should. Material that is appropriate (or at least
constitutionally protected) for adults may be inappropriate for young
children.
The older the student body, the more degree of freedom they should be
allowed in self-expression; but in elementary school, a higher level of
regulation is permitted.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
|
| |
| |
Update, a week after I requested and received a copy of the dress code
(just trying to find out if open-toed sandals are banned as are
open-back sandals) a memo was sent home by the principal. (And this is
all a matter of theory, in practice this school maintains an
old-fashioned sense of respect. Students are told to remove their hats
indoors [except on Hat Day, if they made a donation to a certain
charity] and mornings start with a moment of quiet, the Pledge of
Allegiance, and the National Anthem. Whatever objections I have to
mandatory and meaningless pledges, the emphasis is on meaningless, my
kids can think for themselves, so I'm not disrupting their pedagogical
experience with them, nor are we intentionally testing ths dress code.)
The requirements are now stated:
School Committee policy dictates that students are expected to be
"neatly dressed and well groomed at all times". Students are not
permitted to wear "tank tops" or "belly shirts" to school. Shirts
advertising tobacco, drugs, aclohol, violence, those with obscene or
questionable printing on them, or that in any way causes undue
attention to the wearer, will also not be permitted in school.
Proper foot attire is also important for the safety of every student.
Open backed sandals, flip-flops, and other "summer" foot attire should
not be worn to school. Closed shoes, like sneakers, are the safest for
students to wear to school on a daily basis. Students walk up and down
many stairs in school every day and open shoes are more likely to cause
a student to either trip or lose their balance creating an unsafe
situation.
I appreciate your cooperation with the above dress code rules. <u>The
ultimate goal is to maintain a respectful and safe school atmosphere
for all students.</u> Please be aware that parents may be required to
bring a change of clothing to school if it is determined that a student
is in violation of these rules.
--
- David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
|
| |
| |
David Chesler wrote:
[concerned about school dress code restrictions on advertising alcoholic
beverages]
My best
guess is that the alcohol restriction would fail Constitutional
muster. Thoughts?
(As for the ambiguity, by advertising do they mean specific
commercial advertisements, "Drink Duff Beer", or if they bothered
to enforce this at all would they think that any promotion of
alcoholic beverages ["Draft Beer Not Students", "The Interstate
Commerce Clause -- It's not just a good idea, it's the law"]
is prohibited.)
Minors in general and especially in school do not have the same rights
as adults at large. For example, school lockers can be searched where,
to some vestigial degree, we enjoy 4th amendment rights in our homes.
You don't question tank top restrictions in school, but that's not
enforceable to adults in public places.
Here, there is a major difference between 'draft beer not students' and
'drink Miller, the beer of athletes'. One is a political statement while
the other an ad. The school could bar either, IMO, but would probably
not choose to do so with the politics.
Rights are not absolute through organizations. Not only are school kids
restricted by being both minors in being in school, but military
personnel are as well (plus other places).
-paul
ianal
|
| |
| |
Paul Cassel wrote:
David Chesler wrote:
[concerned about school dress code restrictions on advertising alcoholic
beverages]
Minors in general and especially in school do not have the same rights
as adults at large.
Understood. (Joshua Levy and Mike Jacobs wrote similarly.)
I was not suggesting that elementary students in school
have all the freedoms that adults enjoy, but I understood
they had significant constitutional rights under
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 US 503. I'm sure this dress code
wouldn't stand for adults in public, but that wasn't the
question, nor was I suggesting that a dress code that wouldn't
stand for adults in public of necessity wouldn't stand for
children in school.
You don't question tank top restrictions in school, but that's not
enforceable to adults in public places.
I do question it, but I didn't bring it up here. Unfortunately (IMO)
mandatory dress codes apparently have not been found to prohibitively
restrict expression. I come from a poorly dressed generation, one
that admired our older sisters who risked suspension for wearing
slacks instead of the prescribed skirts on windy, winter days.
If one of my kids lands in a school with a dress standard
(that's what they use around here) like "Tops should be collar shirts
in white, navy or green. Bottoms should be khaki or navy. Girls
may also wear any navy or khaki dresses or jumpers" I would certainly
support their decision to question authority by wearing a red shirt
if they so chose.
Here, there is a major difference between 'draft beer not students' and
'drink Miller, the beer of athletes'. One is a political statement while
the other an ad. The school could bar either, IMO, but would probably
not choose to do so with the politics.
Do I misunderstand Tinker with regard to non-disruptive political
speech? "Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular
opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid
material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline,
is not constitutionally permissible."
--
- David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
|
| |
| |
David Chesler wrote:
Do I misunderstand Tinker with regard to non-disruptive political
speech? "Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular
opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid
material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline,
is not constitutionally permissible."
I think in the end, it'd come down to the court where you tested so it
isn't possible to give you a definitive answer here nor could anyone do
so. Given the atmosphere of the times, I believe, without any direct
evidence, that the courts would tend to err on the side of the
administration over the student when it comes to expression.
Just like the Federal government can always fall back on acting for the
general welfare, the school administration would fall back on discipline
and, IMO, win.
-paul
ianal
|
| |
| |
|
