Good point! By introducing school uniforms, schools do not merely
restrict the students' right to freedom of expression as protected
by the 1st Amendment, they also start imposing and teaching values
that may be in conflict with the values of the student's family. The
latter equally falls under the 1st Amendment.

The literal text of the 1st Amendment is:
"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."
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

The High Court has often interpreted the meaning of religion widely,
to include the beliefs of people who otherwise may not regard
themselves as religious. Thus, people who are opposed to uniforms on
philosophical grounds, are equally protected by the 1st Amendment.
They may see uniforms as part of a violent, oppressive and
dictatorial mindset that they do not want their children to be
indoctrinated with.

This wider view is also supported worldwide through the UN's
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm
In line with Article 18.4, government should "undertake to have
respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal
guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their
children in conformity with their own convictions".

So, this argument may well be put forward in countries that lack
suitable Constitutional protection. In the US, the UN's Covenant
could also be used to support the view that "religion", as protected
in the 1st Amendment, should be interpreted widely to include the
moral education of, say, atheist families.

In conclusion, uniforms can be rejected both on the ground that they
deny students freedom of expression, and on the ground that they may
indoctrinate students with values opposed to what their families
believe in! In the US, this is both covered by the 1st Amendment,
while The UN's ICCP also applies.

Cheers!

MCS

--- In SchoolUniformsDebate@yahoogroups.com, "Vickie M. W. Crager"
<vickiecrager@c...> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.worldviewweekend.com/book/chapter04.html
>
> Creatures of the State
>
>
> As I traveled the country speaking about Outcome-Based Education,
the
> popular response by many conservatives was, "We agree, OBE is a
bad thing,
> but if the outcomes were developed by people like us, it could be
good."
>
> Wrong!
>
> "If it is morally wrong for the state to mandate one worldview, it
is
> equally wrong for the state to mandate any other worldview."15
>
> The parents — or the private school — can teach any worldview they
choose,
> that is their constitutional right.
>
> The public school, however, according to the U.S. Supreme Court
decision,
> Wisconsin v. Yoder (406 U.S. 205, 1972) is not to impose or teach
values
> that conflict with that of the child's parents. The ruling
specifically
> said, "Any conflict between public schooling and a family's basic
and
> sincerely held values interferes with the family's First Amendment
Rights."
>
> This idea is stated even more emphatically in the decision, Pierce
v.
> Society of Sisters (1925):
>
>
> Fundamental . . . liberty . . . excludes any general power of the
state to
> standardize its children. . . . The child is not the mere creature
of the
> state; those who nurture him . . . have the right . . . to
recognize and
> prepare him for additional obligations.
>
>
> Some of our lawmakers need to review not only the U.S.
Constitution, but
> also some of these U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Instead of
reviewing and
> complying with the U.S. Constitution, some lawmakers are working
to keep it
> from being the emphasis of today's civic and government classes.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]