News: Rights Watch
Dress Codes Are Back in Style

School uniforms upheld; Marilyn Manson expelled.

Rejecting student free speech claims, three recent court rulings have forcefully reaffirmed the broad authority of school officials to tell students how to dress.

• Last January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit became the first federal appeals court to uphold a mandatory school uniform policy for public school students.

  Citing the need to reduce disciplinary problems, Louisiana's Bossier Parish School Board in 1999 adopted a requirement that all students wear uniforms to school beginning with the 1999-2000 school year. Each school was free to choose between two colors of polo or oxford shirts, and navy or khaki pants.

  A group of 40 parents sued, claiming a First Amendment violation.

  The appeals court agreed that a student's clothing is a form of "pure speech" that can express the student's "ethnic heritage, religious beliefs, and political and social views."

  But that free speech right, the court said, is trumped by the right of educators "to decide what constitutes appropriate behavior and dress in public schools."

  Why? Because school officials testified--without contradiction--that the new uniform policy actually "drastically decreased" discipline problems and "improved ... overall test scores."

  "It is not the job of federal courts to determine the most effective way to educate our nation's youth," the court cautioned.

• In a case now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals last year upheld an Ohio school district's ban on wearing Marilyn Manson T-shirts in school.

  The reason? The court agreed with school officials that the T-shirts could be outlawed because the controversial rock band is a bad influence on young people.

  Van Wert High School senior Nicho-las Boroff ignited the controversy in August 1997 when he wore a Marilyn Manson T-shirt to school. The front of the shirt depicted a three-faced Jesus and the words, "See No Truth, Hear No Truth, Speak No Truth." The back of the T-shirt carried the word "BELIEVE" with the letters "LIE" highlighted.

  Citing a school rule prohibiting "clothing with offensive illustrations," the principal told Boroff that Marilyn Manson T-shirts are banned on campus and gave him the option of turning the T-shirt inside-out or going home. He opted to go home.

  But for the next five days, Boroffcontinued to wear Marilyn Manson T-shirts, each featuring a differentpicture of the band's lead singer. And each day, he was sent home.

  When he later sued, school officials argued that the band "promotes disruptive and demoralizing values which are inconsistent with and counter-productive to education."

  And the court agreed, citing media reports that the group's lead singer, also named Marilyn Manson, "promotes drug use," "is popularly regarded as a worshipper of Satan," and sings lyrics advocating suicide, mayhem, and violence.

  The court also accepted the principal's testimony that "children are genuinely influenced by the rock group and [its] propaganda."

  The school has the authority to ban the group's T-shirts, the court concluded, because they "contain symbols and words that promote values that are ... patently contrary to the school's educational mission."

  Boroff has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, but the Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case.

• And in Jefferson County, Kentucky, last year, a federal district court upheld one of the most restrictive and detailed dress codes in the country.

  The policy bans shirts made of denim or spandex, those with hoods or zippers, collarless shirts, and red or blue shirts.

  Also taboo are pants made of denim, nylon, or spandex; pants that are frayed, bagging, or sagging; and biker, bib, capri, cargo, and clam digger pants.

  The court found that the dress code was adopted to "help reduce violent gang activity, ease tensions between students who fight over attire, aid school officials in identifying campus intruders, and promote student safety in general."

  The school's goal of creating a "safe and peaceful environment," the court ruled, outweighs students' right to express themselves through their choice of clothing.

--Michael D. Simpson
NEA Office of General Counsel

Court Strikes Down School's Anti-Harassment Policy

In a decision with nation-wide implications, a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania has ruled that a school district's policy banning various forms of verbal harassment violates the First Amendment.

The February 14, 2001 ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a comprehensive anti-harassment policy adopted in 1999 by the State College Area School District in Pennsylvania because it was "overbroad" and sought to ban some categories of student speech that are constitutionally-protected.

The policy defined harassment as "verbal or physical conduct" based on one's "race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation disability, or other personal characteristics" that had the "purpose or effect" of interfering with a student's education or creating a hostile environment.

The unanimous court found several defects with the policy. First, it prohibits harassing speech that merely has an objectionable "purpose." It's not enough, the court said, for the speaker merely to intend to offend others. Rather, schools can ban only harassing speech that causes or is likely to cause actual harm to a student, e.g. by interfering with his or her education or creating a hostile environment.

Also, prohibiting harassment based on one's "personal characteristics" goes too far because the policy defines that term to include making negative comments about one's "values." Such a ban, the court said, "strikes at the heart of moral and political discourse, the core concern of the First Amendment."

The court's decision is binding in the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.

--M.D.S.