This survey deals with personality types, which is significant for the future of the uniform debate, since different personalities regard uniforms differently.
So please fill out the attached survey and return it either to the address on the survey or direct to me.
AGAIN, NJ schools are being "conned" into unis; it is amazing how they are spreading in otherwise libertarian states like NJ, CT, etc. We again see the phony arguments that most kids spend big bucks on fashion-show clothes, the abdication of the PARENTAL responsibility to "just say no", and the super=_PHONY "safety" argument. The VERY point they make about how CHEAP the new unis would be, how available they are, and the fact that SOME choices will be available SHOWS how STUPID it is to claim that uni codes allow easy detection of "intruders." And of course there is no mention of OPT-out=---permitted, but not required, by N.J. law.
As I have REPEATEDLY said, I think N.J. ---like Calif---COULD be persuaded to pass automatic parent opt-out if ACLU or parents groups pushed it hard. Maybe the pending, costly HUDAK case---filed by ADF over bans on pro-life expression in schools there---may show N.J. districts the COSTS of restrictive dress codes & unis.
Local New Jersey News
Covering Essex, Morris, Middlesex, Union, Somerset counties and more
MIDDLESEX COUNTY -- Khaki pants and polo shirts could be required attire for some students in Old Bridge and Carteret next year.
Officials in both Middlesex County school districts are discussing whether to adopt school uniform policies — a move they say could improve school safety, curb peer pressure and take away distractions in the classroom.
They would join a small number of districts in the state to mandate uniforms.
A survey will be sent to Old Bridge residents in January, asking if they approve of the policy, said Matthew Sulikowski, the school board member who led the initiative.
Sulikowski hopes a khaki-and-polo uniform will be required for elementary and middle school students starting next school year, and in the high school in 2011. The policy would affect nearly 10,000 students in the 16-school district, he said.
Sulikowski said he got the idea after finding out approximately 20 percent of public schools in the nation have uniform policies. The biggest rationale, he said, was safety.
“Anyone can get into the building, and you can’t distinguish who these kids are,” Sulikowski said. “They all look alike because they wear what they want. With uniforms, if an intruder does get into the building, you can pick them out on the spot.”
Though most schools have strict dress codes, only about two dozen New Jersey schools enforce uniform policies — including Plainfield, Trenton, Neptune City, Newark, Atlantic City and Asbury Park.
In Middlesex County, uniforms are required at an elementary school in New Brunswick, two middle schools in Woodbridge and for Perth Amboy students in kindergarten through eighth grade. Now, there are plans to implement at Perth Amboy High School in 2011, district spokesman Brian Wilson said.
A more common trend lately is schools offering a dress menu — where students are allowed to wear clothing from a list of approved items, said Frank Belluscio, a spokesman for the New Jersey School Boards Association.
Parents are the ones pushing for uniforms in Carteret, saying some students feel pressured to keep up with style trends. Dozens of parents have lobbied the school board, which formed a committee to investigate bringing uniforms to the 4,000-student district next year. Only a few parents have been opposed, said school board Vice President Fred Gerstler.
“It’s very expensive to keep up with the Jonses,” Gerstler said. “It also take away from learning time when you have distractions of any kind. This is one more distraction eliminated.”
Carteret considered uniforms in 2002, but the idea was struck down when officials learned the district would have to pay about $200,000 for uniforms for low-income students.
Once again, the issue now is whether the district can afford it. But Gerstler said uniforms are less costly today, and even sold at places like Wal-Mart and J.C. Penney.
Gerstler said Carteret’s proposed uniform — which would likely include collared shirts, khaki pants, skorts, skirts and shorts in the summer — could affect all five of the district’s schools, including the high school.
In Old Bridge, Kenneth Popovich, principal of the township’s Carl Sandburg Middle School, said he likes the uniform idea because it would take pressure off of parents and school officials who have to reprimand students if they are dressed too provocatively. Old Bridge school board member Abhishek Desai said uniforms could be up to 75 percent cheaper than the clothes most students wear now. But he acknowledged the policy could stifle self-expression.
“It takes a little away from the creativity the students can show,” Desai said. “It makes it more of an 1984-esque environment.”
New Jersey Local News Service reporter Aliyah Shahid contributed to this report.
Click Here: Check out ""----Note this link to an article in a LA magazine quotes from a new study showing unis do NOT improve academics---and may make them WORSE. This is VERY important for you to file away and reprint and distribute as needed.
FYI---Klahr exposes the ACLU's cowardice and incompetence; it basically abandons TINKER to the control of school boards that make it a dead-letter. STUDENT FREE SPEECH is DEAD in this country if the O'Brien doctrine is accepted; "Marie Antoinette" -type school admins tell kids who want to express opinions----"Buy a billboard or form a club---no logos or armbands on your clothes."
FYI---as you can see, ACLU has blown this case!!!
ACLU ABANDONS TINKER DOCTRINE---
-- TEXAS STUDENT FORCED TO TURN TO JERRY FALWELL'S GROUP FOR HELP----
Believe It Or NOT----Pete Palmer, a North Texas HS Student, wanted to wear an EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT TEE SHIRT
last year. He was threatened with punishment---since the school said THAT ONLY SCHOOL LOGOS could be worn on tops at his school. The ACLU of TX would not help---so he turned to the LIBERTY COUNSEL---formed by the late bigot Jerry Falwell. THEY filed suit, lost and as shown by the attachment, are appealing to the US. SUPREME COURT.
*********************************************
NOT ONLY did the ACLU refuse to help Pete at the lower court level, they are OPPOSING Liberty Counsel's Sup. Ct. Appeal NOW, per the ACLU of TX and our own Bob Meitz, Az CLU President. The reason--- our Natl Legal Director fears Palmer "may make "bad law."
IN FACT, ACLU PERMITTED "bad law" to be made just two years ago in the 9th Circuit (OUR AREA) by also NOT appealing the infamous Jacobs case which held (like Palmer) that kids no longer have the right to express opinions in school on their clothes if the school passes a so-called "neutral" dress code that bans ALL SPEECH on clothing!!!!
As we know, KIDS do NOT buy billboards or newspaper ads to express opinions; they wear armbands or tee-shirt logos. The Jacobs & Palmer cases are like Marie Antoinette who said--"If the peasants have no bread, let them eat cake."
UNLESS you-all protest, our 1969 TINKER case will be a "dead letter"---a rule still on the books but EASILY EVADED by ANY school board with even the dumbest legal advice.
SAVE TINKER--DEMAND ACLU support the Palmer Petition for Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court!!!
(Paid for by GARY PETER KLAHR, J.D. (former President of the AzCLU Central Chapter)
This article FAILS to note Calif law requires allowing parent opt-out. It also buys into this NONSENSE that society wins against gangs when it bans for good kids what bad kids wear; that is a non-sequitur as WE know---although the City Council does NOT!!!
1 of 1
The City Council passed a resolution recommending school uniforms at Los Angele
The City Council unanimously passed a resolution Wednesday recommending school uniforms at all Los Angeles Unified School District campuses.
The nation's second-largest school district currently allows the administration of each school to decide whether its students should wear uniforms.
The resolution by Councilman Jose Huizar, who served two terms as president of the LAUSD board, called on the district to adopt a policy that would make school uniforms mandatory at all campuses.
"This is an issue of safety and of raising student achievement," Huizar said. "I served on the school board for four years, and I certainly witnessed that those schools with uniforms had higher student achievement, and I also saw that their students were more orderly and focused on the purpose of learning at school."
Capt. Phillip Tingerides of the Los Angeles Police Department's Southeast Division said school uniforms were necessary for public safety, particularly in communities with gangs.
"In areas like southeast L.A. where there are gangs everywhere and they're identified by colors of clothing, it takes away that in-your-face-I'm-from-this-gang message," Tingerides said.
He said he has personally observed a reduction in gang activity at Markham Middle School in Watts since its student uniform requirement was instituted.
Several school districts across the country, including Long Beach, New York City and Washington, D.C., have implemented school uniform policies.
Several charter schools in Los Angeles also require uniforms for elementary and middle school students.
(D"m 2008 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Wire services contributed to this report.)
Click Here: Check out "firstamendmentcenter.org: analysis" THANK GOD that Liberty Counsel (may Jerry Falwell rest in peace) has filed for cert on PALMER---ACLU at this point refuses to get involved; the Az CLU State President says their lawyers regard it "as a likely loser." Well, if so, then TINKER is dead; any school bd with an IQ above room temp will follow Clark County, NV (the Jacobs case) & this stupid TX district and eliminate all these "pesky" armband and tee-shirt cases by adopting the so-called "neutral" dress code that prohibits ALL speech. The ACLU Natl Legal Director should be fired for stupidity & cowardice!!!
As I read the 5 opinions in MORSE, the 2007 Sup Ct. Bong 4 Jesus speech case, ALL but Justice Thomas still believe in Tinker and thus should STRONGLY reverse Palmer and keep Tinker alive. If not, Tinker may remain on the books---but in NAME only.
Again hopefully all our conservative friends who put in amicus briefs in MORSE and at the 5th Cir in Palmer will help here again---plus hopefully CATO and Thomas More Society and other libertarian groups. This is the MOST IMPORTANT student speech case since TINKER---and indeed will determine if Tinker survives at all in practical effect.
Note MY comment (name mis-spelled) in David Hudson's story on the Palmer cert filing!!!
You need to understand that Virginia Draa is Dr. Brunsma in drag---she is the ONLY pro-uni expert with ANY credentials---but she is WRONG as I have told her earlier. She PROMISED to debate with me a year ago during her summer vacation---but then refused. I have challenged her to explain the downsides of PARENT opt-out at urban schools---but she can't or won't. I DO concede that in some gang-infested URBAN schools (NOT the place where most of the fights are underway in NJ & Pa now), there MAY be some advantages to a uni program as she claims ---as long as PARENT opt-out by RESPONSIBLE parents (yes, there ARE a few there) is allowed./gpk
You need to understand that Virginia Draa is Dr. Brunsma in drag---she is the ONLY pro-uni expert with ANY credentials---but she is WRONG as I have told her earlier. She PROMISED to debate with me a year ago during her summer vacation---but then refused. I have challenged her to explain the downsides of PARENT opt-out at urban schools---but she can't or won't. I DO concede that in some gang-infested URBAN schools (NOT the place where most of the fights are underway in NJ & Pa now), there MAY be some advantages to a uni program as she claims ---as long as PARENT opt-out by RESPONSIBLE parents (yes, there ARE a few there) is allowed./gpk
RHONDA---Please post this blog(excellent BTW) on the current blog underway in Va,. I am being attacked every 10 mins and NO one has helped me---no one from :"our side" has backed me up. The blog is after the article---"At middle school, a uniform solution"? at www2.insidenova.com. PLEASE ALL OF YOU---H E L P!!!!
Almost all Chicago public school students are required to wear uniforms. Yet a kid was beaten to death on his way HOME from school, per the story below. I thought unis guaranteed safety in our urban communities!!!! (LOLROF).
Note one more interesting point. At the FUNERAL, kids wore Memorial Tee shirts in honor of Derrion. But if they wear those SAME shirts at SCHOOL Monday instead of their uni, they will be severely PUNISHED or expelled.
Jackson, Farrakhan at beaten Ill. teen's funeral
By CARYN ROUSSEAU
Associated Press Writer
AP Photo
Watch Related Video
Violence Condemned at Funeral of Beaten Teen
Advertisement
•
CHICAGO (AP) -- The funeral of a Chicago teen who was beaten to death on his way home from school drew civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan on Saturday, both calling for an end to youth violence.
Farrakhan said he came to the funeral because he was "deeply pained" by the death of 16-year-old honor roll student Derrion Albert. The boy was walking to a bus stop after school when a group of teens attacked him during a street fight late last month.
"Naturally, we wonder why such a beautiful life? Such a future we thought was waiting for this young man," Farrakhan said. "This was a special young man of righteous bearing who God took from us so young."
Cell phone video footage shows Albert being kicked and hit with splintered railroad ties. Four teens are charged in his death.
President Barack Obama is sending U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who once led Chicago Public Schools, to Chicago on Wednesday to meet with school officials, students and residents and talk about school violence.
"The eyes of the world are watching," Pastor E.F. Ledbetter Jr. told mourners at the Greater Mount Hebron Baptist Church on the city's South Side. "This has affected people all over the globe."
Mayor Richard Daley, just off a plane Saturday from an International Olympic Committee meeting in Copenhagen where Chicago lost the 2016 Summer Games, said he would work with police, the community and school officials to break the "code of silence" that happens after street violence.
Police, ministers and community leaders have been asking people to come forward with information about Albert's killing.
"The code of silence is unacceptable in this day and age where we have young children being killed," Daley said at a news conference at O'Hare International Airport.
Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis and Chicago Public Schools chief Ron Huberman also both attended the funeral along with other city and public officials. Huberman called the Christian Fenger Academy High School sophomore a "bright light."
Jackson demanded children and teens to be given safe passage to and from school.
"Derrion didn't have to die," Jackson said. "He was murdered. His pain, his suffering, his death have shook the world."
As mourners filed into the church, video screens scrolled through pictures of Derrion as a baby and with his family, as well as photos of his academic awards. Some mourners wore T-shirts with Derrion's picture that read "We will always remember you."
The program included a poem Derrion's mother, Janette Albert, wrote to her son titled "May I Go Now?"
"I know you're sad and afraid because I see your tears," she wrote. "I'll not be far. I promise that."
Farrakhan also called for communities to support their youth.
"Let's go get our young people," Farrakhan said. "His righteousness was to serve as a redemptive force to command us to get up and get busy and save our children."
That video is out on you-tube. I don’t
know how to access it, but if you visit www.pittstonpolitics.com and go to
the Wyoming Area Dress Code video, you’ll see another video link below
it. That’s the you-tube video of the Chicago gang beating.
The ABC News reporter (actually, I think
it was Charles Gibson) who narrated it said that the victim was the boy in “tan
pants and black shirt”. However, you cannot distinguish which boy is the
victim (until you see him on the ground being clubbed with a long 2x4), because
EVERY boy had on tan pants and black shirts: their school uniform. The
pants were baggy and the shirts were loose. Man, how do we make that video part
of every person’s video collection?
The victim was caught in the middle of two
gangs. They were all dressed alike. Now, how do you suppose that the gangs
communicated with each other? I know, I know. I’m preaching to the choir.
Rhonda Lambert
Wyoming Area, PA
From: GaryK57647@...
[mailto:GaryK57647@...] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009
1:25 PM To: ACLUAlice@...;
ameetze@...; brookebowman@...; bvaandrk@...;
cdkladis@...; cobweb77@...; Cocatracycola@...; jerehumphreys@...;
linnathompson@...; rhall@...; Robert.Meitz@...;
brunsmad@...; tebarn@...;
mandatoryschooluniform@yahoogroups.com; UniformResisters@yahoogroups.com Cc: barbara.rejon@...;
editor@...; scicchitano@...; pedol@yahoogroups.com Subject: Fwd: [UniformResisters]
GaryK57647@... has shared something with you
Chicago uniformed "students" beat up & kill honor
student
DEAN MARTIN, 11, holds the shirt he wore to school on Sept. 11, to show his support for firefighters. Martin was asked to change because the solid blue shirt violates the school's dress code. Bill Hoban/Index-Tribune top stories
: : : :
Dean Martin, 11, comes from a long line of firefighters.
His father, grandfather and uncle have all put their lives on the line battling flames. So when Sept. 11 came around on Friday, he chose to wear a navy blue Vallejo Fire Department T-shirt to show his support for the fallen firefighters. "We spent the morning watching the memorial service on TV ...," said Karen Martin, his mother. "It was his choice, he wanted to wear it."
Karen Martin said she never considered the fact that the T-shirt violated Adele Harrison Middle School's dress code, which does not allow students to wear solid red or solid blue clothing due to the affiliation with gang colors. When Dean got to school, he was sent to the office for breaking the dress code. "When a student breaks the dress code for the first time, they're given a warning and asked to change their shirt," said Karla Conroy, principal at Adele, who added that Dean was given the chance to change into his gym shirt but refused.
Instead he called his mom, who gave her son permission to ride his bike home. Conroy said the school anticipated Dean would come back to school with a fresh shirt, but Karen Martin said she decided to keep her son home instead.
"I didn't want to conform to the fact that he had to change (his shirt)," Karen Martin said. "I'm saddened by it, it makes me sick. This is a national day of mourning a tragedy ... to take that right away is just wrong."
Conroy said the dress code is meant to keep all the students safe, and does not impede the students' rights to show their support.
"We're not denying them their patriotism. Kids can wear red, white and blue everyday, just not solid blue or solid red," Conroy said. "It's the policy. Someone could come on campus any day and they would not see any (solid) red or blue."
Conroy added that last year, during the first Sept. 11 observance since the new dress code took effect, the schools in the district allowed students to wear red and blue clothing in remembrance of the national tragedy.
Several students used it as an opportunity to show their gang affiliation instead.
"There were some issues at some of the schools," Conroy said. "We all agreed not to allow that this year."
Parents Karen and Dennis Martin questioned whether the dress code actually prevented gang activity on Valley campuses but said, regardless, their son should not have been penalized for supporting firefighters.
"It absolutely amazed me, then it pissed me off. For God's sake, use your brain and look at the situation," said Dean's father, Dennis Martin, who works with the Vallejo Fire Department. "One day out of the year we want to represent the men and women who put their life on the line ... I go to work, not knowing if I'll come home to see my family. I'll give up my life in a heartbeat for a stranger and this is how they treat us? No."
Conroy said three other students came to school on Sept. 11 wearing blue shirts and agreed to change their shirts when asked. "They said, 'Oh we forgot.' It was no big deal," Conroy said. "This is an isolated incident with one family."
Schools end fiscal year with $3M balance
Sonoma, Penglai eye Sister City pact
Reader Comments The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of sonomanews.com. rfaraol.com wrote on Sep 14, 2009 9:26 PM:
" I think the most important point here is that it was a day of remembrance. We have forgotten much too soon the sacrifices that were made that day. Maybe it's because we are too busy with things like dress codes. Last time I checked, I didn't see any gang members wearing fire department shirts. I think this young man had the right idea, and I believe the school should support things like this, or did Conroy "forget and think it was no big deal". It's a negative response to a positive idea. "
kirstigirl2@... wrote on Sep 14, 2009 10:07 PM:
" rules are rules they are there for a reason..what would these parents be saying if this child was beaten or badly hurt for wearing the blue shirt..i remember the boy in windsor walking home and was beaten so badly he is brain damaged and all he did was wear a red sweatshirt..i do not let my son leave the house with red or blue... "
db@... wrote on Sep 14, 2009 10:15 PM:
" I understand the "gang" problem within the school system and the colors. Parents and community have been held hostage by the gang members long enough. The shirt in question in this article is RED, WHITE, and BLUE (unless I am color blind) and should have not been an issue, especially this day. This is not an isolated incident by any means and "Conroy" is not being honest with the community in her statement. Many parents have acutally gone to the school with bags of clothes and complaints in the past about this ongoing "color" problem. Good for the Martin family to say what we all have been thinking all along. It is time for everyone to take a stand and stop letting our gang members reak havok and control the rest of us. Punish them, not all the other children who want to show respect and honor our country's heros. Enough already! "
martinthevampire@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 7:10 AM:
" This is a joke. Let the kid show the honor and respect to those heroes on 9/11. That goes above SILLY DRESS CODE RULES!! It's a joke to not allow "solid red or blue clothing" this is Sonoma, not South Central L.A. Using the example of the young man beaten in Windsor is just as bad. He just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead of living in fear, standup for your kids! "
srk57@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 7:32 AM:
" They can't deal with the real problem, which is the gangs, so they come up with a dumb dress code. Zero tolerance punishes the good kids. "
perustace@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 8:13 AM:
" I find it humorous how, once a year, an incident can happen involving "gang-affiliated" and the older generation pretends like this is THE threat to our Valley. An easy excuse. Being in school only just a few years ago, I can vouch that dress code didn't and won't stop the little gang activity that occurs in Sonoma. It's a waste of time and only brings more attention to these "gangs."
The kid was showing his patriotism with a blue firefighter shirt.
Are we going to let the "terrorists win?!" ;-) *Sarcasm*
Anyway...go uniforms if you want to put restrictions on the way kids can dress. "
sn437@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 9:11 AM:
" Something tells me that if this was New York, This Principle would be back peddling and singing a different tune. Could you imagine the response if our New Yorkers got wind of this. Out here on the west coast maybe we have lost touch on what an impact Sept. 11th was to them. Obviously this bright and brave young man has not. Kudo's to him for bringing it to OUR attention. Shame on anyone for taking that away from him. "
skiharder@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 10:20 AM:
" If you know who the gang afffiliates are then Kick them out and be done with it. Everybody has the right to free speech and free will to express there feelings on honoring are fallen. Get all gang looser low lifes out of our school systems and put them in the pen were they belong "
leslietippell@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 11:45 AM:
" I agree, this is so LAME!
We should support our Firefighters especially on this day of remembrance.
Talk about draconian rules. "
a.andersongmail.com wrote on Sep 15, 2009 11:57 AM:
" Waking up to an article like this is very discouraging for college students like myself who are planning on entering into the education field. I am graduating in Spring to become a high school teacher and issues like make me second guess my choice in career path. It is a little scary to think because of this economy I would be forced to take a job under someone like Conroy whose values I do not agree with. I would not like someone like that to be acting as a mentor for my child, being in the position Ms. Concroy has the ability to impact so many lifes and for someone like that to ignore such a event like 9/11 and not set example or show patritism to our country is not only wrong but disgusts me. In her Authoritative position she should be educated enough to see the difference between an 11-year old child showing support for our country versus a child participating in gang-related bussiness. This is when someone will get hurt, when we are too busy abusing our power and trying to present ourselves as something we are not that small details that put our children in danger go unnoticed. Maybe you should spend the time implementing a better safety system for out students. These children are the future of our country, why teach them to focus on such minute details versus the bigger issues we have at hand. I have to question her education and judgement, perhaps there is a better candidate for her position at Adele because success as principle seems to be far out of her reach. These parents have every right to be upset, I am another irked citizen. People like this in position of power are the reason we have so many pitfalls in our education system. Time to see what is really in-front of you Conroy you are making a mockery out of our education system and are embarrassing others in the field. We are all Americans and hold the right to show patriotism to our country. "
talkintodawalls@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 12:25 PM:
" I stand behind the Martins. Ms Conroy - education includes the teaching of values, not just ABCs.
You need to find a better way to deal with gangs besides denying good students a sense of country and patriotism. You reward the gang members and punish the decent when you employ this kind of lame reasoning. This is why we're being delivered to hell in a handcart; heaven forbid we offend gang members. If colored shirts are a true safety concern on campus, why wasn''t a student body committee appointed to design an official commemorative arm band or sash for the day? Surely, as an administrator, you have the foresight and ability to organize such an effort. Did you not realize that Sept 11 was approaching, and that it is a very significant day for most?
In any case, I've always favored uniforms - then everyone complains equally. I still stand behind the Martins. "
Ralph.J.Keechler@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 12:39 PM:
" Today is a sad day for me in my home town of Sonoma. I have lived in this community for over 84 years not to mention many more years of family ties to this Valley. Not only am I a World War II Veteran I have served this City of Sonoma in their Fire Dept for over 54 years. Never until now have I been so disgusted. Taking away an 11 year old boy's right to show pride for fallen firefighters is nothing less then disturbing. The only color he was "flashing" was that of pride, red white and blue....the color of his fathers uniform. The color on the men and women's uniforms that serve us. The color's of our flag. As a Veteran of The United States Army, as a Volunteer Division Chief of Sonoma Valley Fire Dept......Dean Martin I salute you. "
shysonly@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 12:40 PM:
" This shirt is blue WITH red WITH white - NOT SOLID COLOR.
What a shame this leader in our community could not recognize that.
Enough said! "
db@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 2:02 PM:
" Ms. Conroy, you need to pull you head out of the sand. Don't pass blame on to the supervisers either, you make rules also. Find a way to change this and work with it, come next Sept. I would not want to be in your shoes, shame on you for turning a blind eye. Bye the way, how many red or blue shirts have you worn to school lately?!!!!! "
jenneam@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 2:29 PM:
" I am shocked to read this young man was not allowed to wear his patriotic shirt to school. What happened in our community where students are limited to the colors they can wear to school for fear of gangs? We need to face the bigger problem here and spend some time addressing the real situation where gang activity has taken over our town. Our children should have the right to wear whatever color they choose to school and especially so when it comes to showing their pride and reverence for those brave individuals who sacrifice themselves every day to keep the rest of us safe. What else can our community do to tell the gangs we will not stand for it besides the band-aid approach of banning gang colors at school? The gang activity is slowly eroding Sonoma values and it is sad to see it happening so obviously. "
Whardy39@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 3:20 PM:
" Do you think if the blue shirt had
a Obama/Biden logo on it the
same big deal would have been
made of it?? "
kmartin@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 5:10 PM:
" On behalf of my husband Dennis and my incredibly brave son Dean....I would like to thank each and every one of you for this outpouring of support. Wow !!!!! We are so very humbled. You know I started to re -think my decision in not making Dean remove his father's uniform shirt and return to school. I was so nervous at the thought of breaking the rules. It honestly never occurred to us that this red, white and blue shirt could be construed as a gang shirt. So very far from our minds on such a sad and horrific day of remembrance. We are so very warmed by the support we have received...from phone calls to e-mails to letter's on this very page.....from near and far. We thank you all from the bottom of our heart's. I am so very, very proud of my family and my son. I am sorry if we broke any rules...it was truly not intentional. I have the utmost confidence in our community and our schools. Dean has never broken this rule and for obvious reasons...will never do it again....however...what kind of parent would I be if I did not stand behind my son. So to all of you who serve us or were touched by the loss of lives on Sept. 11th....God Bless You and Thank you......Karen Martin "
ANIPSEOJATT.NET wrote on Sep 15, 2009 6:20 PM:
" LOOKS RED WHITE AND BLUE TO ME TO, IF ANYONE SHOULD BE SORRY, ITS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, KAREN, YOU DID THE RIGHT THING! "
sonomaparentalunit@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 6:39 PM:
" As a parent with a child at this school I'm completely in agreement with Ms. Conroy. The district policy clearly states the clothing that can be worn, and just because the shirt supported a good cause, that doesn't make it any less against the rules. The shirt was a solid blue front with a small white logo, which plainly is against the rules. Everybody commenting seems to think that our Principal over-reacted, but how would we feel if she just started picking and choosing how to apply district policy indiscriminately in other areas? Like it or not, these rules were put in place to keep our children safe, and I find it much more asinine that a parent would demand their 11 year-old child leave school in the middle of the day than attacking a Principal for enforcing a policy she didn't create. If you have such a disagreement with the policy, take it up with the school board, not the Principal who is doing a wonderful job. "
RICK@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 7:26 PM:
" "asinine" parentalunit....would be to not stand up and back your children for what we all know to be true and right. I too am a parent at this school. Mrs. Martin did the right thing. A life lesson for her son. One no principal would ever teach. She did what most of us don't have the cohonas to do.... STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS. Our principal should exercise common sense. She states at any given time you can walk on that campus and never see solid red or blue. This as YOU know is not true. I see it at least once a week there. She should not claim what she cannot back. She should not preach what it is not true. "
db@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 7:59 PM:
" Dear sonomaparentalunit. You sure sound like a staff member with your wording. Your right the district should be seeing this, and if the school was doing their job (principal) then Dr. Martens should already be aware of the uproar and postings. Still, we need to clear this up before next Sept. it will be a doosey!!!! I think more parents should just pull all the kids out next 911 and then let's see what "the district office" thinks....!!!! "
sonomaparentalunitgmail.com wrote on Sep 15, 2009 8:04 PM:
" As a parent with a child at this school I'm completely in agreement with Ms. Conroy. The district policy clearly states the clothing that can be worn, and just because the shirt supported a good cause, that doesn't make it any less against the rules. The shirt was a solid blue front with a small white logo, which plainly is against the rules. Everybody commenting seems to think that our Principal over-reacted, but how would we feel if she just started picking and choosing how to apply district policy indiscriminately in other areas? Like it or not, these rules were put in place to keep our children safe, and I find it much more asinine that a parent would demand their 11 year-old child leave school in the middle of the day than attacking a Principal for enforcing a policy she didn't create. If you have such a disagreement with the policy, take it up with the school board, not the Principal who is doing a wonderful job. "
db@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 8:19 PM:
" What is with the double posting sonomaparentalunit? Your kicking a dead horse..... "
ellilarrieu@... wrote on Sep 15, 2009 9:52 PM:
" Now it is really time for this principal to see to it that a left turn signal is placed at Broadway and Leveroni, before more kids get hurt. How about it? "
ronlemley@... wrote on Sep 16, 2009 4:40 AM:
" I think that the rules about colors are rediculous and serve no purpose.
I also disagree with the guy who always tries to politicize everything and weakly attempted turn this into an example of bad liberal politics which it is so obviously not.
The rule was initiially made to protect the kids, but this is a case when it backfired. "
screamjerk100@... wrote on Sep 16, 2009 11:51 AM:
" You're all missing the bigger picture here people! The real problem is not the school district's dress code or this kid's wardrobe. It is the fear-inducing thugs that have hijacked our country and our culture. The school district needs to use it's resources to remove the problem of gang violence instead of making it the parents problem. Are you telling me a kid that gets beat up for wearing a red or blue shirt is somehow at fault? What is happening to this country? I applaud the kid for supporting the firefighters but this problem is much bigger than any t-shirt. "
a.andersongmail.com wrote on Sep 16, 2009 11:59 AM:
" Waking up to an article like this is very discouraging for college students like myself who are planning on entering into the education field. I am graduating in Spring to become a high school teacher and issues like make me second guess my choice in career path. It is a little scary to think because of this economy I would be forced to take a job under someone like Conroy whose values I do not agree with. I would not like someone like that to be acting as a mentor for my child, being in the position Ms. Concroy has the ability to impact so many lifes and for someone like that to ignore such a event like 9/11 and not set example or show patritism to our country is not only wrong but disgusts me. In her Authoritative position she should be educated enough to see the difference between an 11-year old child showing support for our country versus a child participating in gang-related bussiness. This is when someone will get hurt, when we are too busy abusing our power and trying to present ourselves as something we are not that small details that put our children in danger go unnoticed. Maybe you should spend the time implementing a better safety system for out students. These children are the future of our country, why teach them to focus on such minute details versus the bigger issues we have at hand. I have to question her education and judgement, perhaps there is a better candidate for her position at Adele because success as principle seems to be far out of her reach. These parents have every right to be upset, I am another irked citizen. People like this in position of power are the reason we have so many pitfalls in our education system. Time to see what is really in-front of you Conroy you are making a mockery out of our education system and are embarrassing others in the field. We are all Americans and hold the right to show patriotism to our country. "
ffplaw@... wrote on Sep 16, 2009 9:00 PM:
" There must be another, better way to prevent gang member violence in our public schools. This boy's shirt does not proclaim gang affiliation in any way. His message is patriotic, purely and simply.
This incident was very, very badly handled by the school, to say the least. But now comes the really important question: will the District learn from the mistakes made? Can we move to a better way of handling this situation the next time it arises?
And an interesting Constitutional question is involved: may a public school district prohibit the wearing of red, white and blue attire by law abiding resident students of the district, in order to further a politically correct policy designed to preserve the secret identity of criminal gang members who are, or may be, undocumented aliens? "
worth@... wrote on Sep 17, 2009 6:39 AM:
" Zero tolerance equals zero judgment. "
ratfeat@... wrote on Sep 17, 2009 7:21 AM:
" Lol... I'll call the fire department and tell them they can't wear their shirts anymore they might be mistaken for gang members and beat up or arrested. 6-7 years ago when one of my sons was attending Adele he had a knife pulled on him and it had nothing to do with colors. 3-4 years ago another boy threatened to stab my other son in high school (this kid was known to already have stabbed someone else). His gang colors were black (folded black bandanas on the dash0. He is now the youngest person on Sonoma County's Most Wanted list. "
ratfeat@... wrote on Sep 17, 2009 7:26 AM:
" Oh yeah!! Fire departments are gangs, aren't they? Whose members are some of the bravest out there, who put their lives on the line everyday for us! "
db@... wrote on Sep 17, 2009 11:10 AM:
" Just because we are in Sonoma DOES NOT mean we don;t have gang issues here. I am seeing that this is of high importance and time for a city council meeting open to public. No more having the schools hide the fact that the gang problem is bigger than we know. We have many intellegent people among us in this town, surely we can find some way to address this "gang" issue without having other good kids suffer. And by the way, if the schools know these gang kids, they why the Hell are they on our campuses anyway. ???!! How many backpack checks do the schools really do on a regular basis? Get these damn kids out of the way of our children once and for all!!!! "
db@... wrote on Sep 17, 2009 11:29 AM:
" By the way, when is "Conroy" going to publically apologize to the Martin family? Even with all the support and knowledge that we all know about this incident, is true. The Martin family still has to take on the issue and Dean still has to go to school. Ms. Conroy, I myself as a local community member and parent of school children here am waiting for you to step up and do what you know you need to do. APOLOGIZE!! This is your bed you made, now sleep in it. "
unionfirefightersareoverpaid@... wrote on Sep 17, 2009 1:22 PM:
" The above statement is retracted and changed to the following, more intelligent one:
"The school was only trying to protect the child given issues with gangs in the past. While the idea to support firefighters on 9/11 is a noble one -- the parents of the child need to understand what the school is trying to do and support it -- even though their necessary policy forces them to make some very difficult decisions."
Perhaps the fire department can have some white t-shirts made and offered for sale so future efforts won't put the principal in a bad light -- with the proceeds being donated to a worthy cause. "
db@... wrote on Sep 17, 2009 3:30 PM:
" Shame on you Union firefighterhater...how disgusting you are to attack a child!! you must not be a parent, and if you are lord help your kids for being so prejudice. Keep this to what is about and stop making personal attacks at children. Sounds like you know the family in question, then maybe you should persaonlly take this up with them and not air dirty laundry!! "
wth5sonoma@... wrote on Sep 17, 2009 9:24 PM:
" Dear unionfirefightersareoverpaid@..., I want to set some records straight. First you say union firefighters are overpaid? That is not true what so ever. I know this for a fact because I am one. It sounds to me like you could not get a job as a union firefighter and are a little bit jealous. Second, what balls you have to publicly attack a child about his physical appearance. Big tough guy behind the keyboard here. Watchout for this person. Christmas is right around the corner and I realized what I want for my one and only present from good old St. Nick, you to publicly display who you are. At the very least you owe this child, his family and friends an appology for your slander. Then you owe myself and every other union firefighter you try to back door with your idiotic ideals and stereotypical views a huge kiss on the A$$. "
llantrip55@... wrote on Sep 21, 2009 8:08 AM:
" It is very sad that showing your support for firefighters, or any other group that puts their life on the line for you, must be laid aside because of the unfortunate misplaced loyalty some people have with gangs. Its the same old story - because of people who choose to spread fear, the rest of us are forced to bend to their whim. It is also sad that uneducated "adults" choose to make this forum their own personal whining session about his/her own inadequacies and make disparaging comments toward a young man exercising his rights as a citizen of the United States of America. I wonder if the "mouth" lost anyone on 9/11? I'm proud of this young man! "
GaryK57647@... wrote on Sep 23, 2009 7:56 PM:
" THe whole concept of banning for us GOOD guys those everyday things which BAD guys (gangs) ALSO use is ABSURD & abhorrent. It is also unnecessary. Red & blue are both FLAG & PRIMARY colors; they are generic and used by EVERYONE; we can NOT let the gangs steal them from us---that gives control & victory to the GANGS---can't the school see that? In fact it is GOOD if gangs wear clothes identifying themselves---then we can keep track of them and expel THEM (not good kids) for the slightest REAL gang infractjon like assauts or intimidation. Wearing a "gang shirt", whatever THAT is, intimidates and endangers NO ONE; what is dangerous is gang ACTIVITY; and that can & should be punished regardless of what the gang member is wearing.
School admins have NO COMMON SENSE anymore; I served 8 years on the Gov. Bd of the 2nd largest HS district in the nation---Phx Union in Az; we did NOT ban colors and did NOT have gangs overrun the schools as your foolish admins are claiming.
In any event, we do NOT believe in GROUP punishment in this country--- punish GANG members---not good kids like this one!!! "
Submit a Comment Please log in to comment:
*Member ID:
FYI--this is from John Tinker, co-=plt with his sister & Chris Eckhardt in the 1969 TINKER case that is the basis for student free speech.
Gary,
Our lawyer from the case, Dan Johnston, and I will be at a one-day
symposium about student rights four decades since our case. This will
be November 10th at the U. Mo, Kansas City campus. Any chance you would
be able to make it up there?
John
Click Here: Check out "" More N.J.uni nonsense---all caused by the failure of the Bayonne & Secaceus protesters years ago to JUST SAY NO. This uni is an unconstitutional no-logo uni. Where is the NJ ACLU??? Why is a BLUE state putting up wiith this nonsense. As I explained to the wimpy people in TN & Indiana, unis are like the flu---if you don't stamp it out RIGHT AWAY, it spreads like wildfire.
What is needed is for these Atlantic City teens to JUST SAY NO---not submit to suspensions---glue themselves to their desks if necessary---and make the STATE POLICE haul them away in front of the cameras while wearing PATRIOTIC or Nets or other team logo tees. REALLY. As I keep saying, if Dr. King was as meek as the kids & parents in CT, NJ etc, we would STILL have segregation. This is New England--0-where is the Revolutionary Spirit???
You are choosing the correct words "supposedly". Of course, uniforms, whether official, as in soldiers or school uniforms, or chosen, like in gangs, are a licence for people to take no responsibility for their behaviour.
Here, in New Zealand, where most schools have uniforms, groups of kids are using their collective shield to destroy or fight. Most of the time it is just groups of them walking around together shouting and crusing; sometimes it is destroying plants, occasionally there is an outright fight between 'uniformed' groups. This is the exact same behaviour as soldiers in wars and , as I have been trying to get to the public with my book "In the Real World" , uniforms create little soldiers, so they will be obedient big soldiers later (whether socially or military). The few children that walk around here that do not wear uniforms are generally calm and do not engage in group desctructions, for the simple reason that they are not given a group uniform to hide behind: they learn to be their own individual.
But governments benefit from having obedient citizens; the word 'individual' is merely a slogan to convince people.
Anyway, good luck.
Nonen
--- On Fri, 28/8/09, mcelhenie <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
From: mcelhenie <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [SchoolUniformsDebate] Uniform thesis To: SchoolUniformsDebate@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, 28 August, 2009, 3:47 AM
Good for you. I myself am doing some research so that I can use the proper wording when I file my Application for exemption here in Texas. I've pulled up a lot of cases to see who has won and who hasn't and figured out why. Mostly finding out that there is no real evidence that uniforms have done what they were suppose to do because when uniforms were implemented, so were other things - change of school programs, different standards throughout the school, new directions from teachers and administrations, etc....
When I pull up studies, they seem to be old. It seems that this fad of instituting uniform policies is loosing attention while schools are still implementing it as a bandaid to the problem. However, there are some of us parents out there that still feel that we as parents should decide what our children wear, that we as parents have that right and that no government should tell us how to dress, that we as parents have the right to
teach our children right from wrong, and more importantly, that we as parents have the right to instruct, model, and encourage our children.
Uniforms should always be optional to those parents who want their kids to wear them, but should not infringe on other's rights. And also, we should not just label our children as bad before they have done something wrong. Supposedly uniforms should solve the gang and violence problem.
Anyway, good luck.
--- In SchoolUniformsDebat e@yahoogroups. com, "Cynthia Stocks" <cynpeach44@ ...> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > I am considering doing my thesis paper on the school uniform issue. I am looking for any new research/info on the topic. > Any information you have would be greatly
appreciated. > > Thank you >
Need mail bonding? Bring all your contacts to Yahoo!Xtra with TrueSwitch
The route thru TX law is clear---first if it is Standardized Dress rather than a "uniform," ---whatever that is--you can't get opt out under Tx Stat 11.162. Second, you need a philosophical or religious reason---like belief in diversity over conformity. Third, you must be SINCERE; this trips up most of the losing applicants--because many boardssay that if your kids ever wore ANY kind of uniform or costume, they are disqualified. That is absurd---especially when it comes to athletic teams, but several have lost on those grounds. But Diane & Benjamin won and a few others at the TEA admin-hearing level.Apparently NO parent has yet taken it to court except the losing Littlefield case---and that was FEDERAL ct; because the 5th Cir is SOO bad (see the recent PALMER Case), you may be better off in state court. /gpk
Good for you. I myself am doing some research so that I can use the proper
wording when I file my Application for exemption here in Texas. I've pulled up
a lot of cases to see who has won and who hasn't and figured out why. Mostly
finding out that there is no real evidence that uniforms have done what they
were suppose to do because when uniforms were implemented, so were other things
- change of school programs, different standards throughout the school, new
directions from teachers and administrations, etc....
When I pull up studies, they seem to be old. It seems that this fad of
instituting uniform policies is loosing attention while schools are still
implementing it as a bandaid to the problem. However, there are some of us
parents out there that still feel that we as parents should decide what our
children wear, that we as parents have that right and that no government should
tell us how to dress, that we as parents have the right to teach our children
right from wrong, and more importantly, that we as parents have the right to
instruct, model, and encourage our children.
Uniforms should always be optional to those parents who want their kids to wear
them, but should not infringe on other's rights. And also, we should not just
label our children as bad before they have done something wrong. Supposedly
uniforms should solve the gang and violence problem.
Anyway, good luck.
--- In SchoolUniformsDebate@yahoogroups.com, "Cynthia Stocks" <cynpeach44@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am considering doing my thesis paper on the school uniform issue. I am
looking for any new research/info on the topic.
> Any information you have would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you
>
In a message dated 9/1/09 5:07:52 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
in violation of a Pa. Dist Ct case many years
> ago). WHERE is the ALABAMA ACLU?????
I don't remember---it was one I think recommended by the Schitanos; I cited it to the Nashville bd attys when they limited THEIR uni logos to one inch. I do think that the GUILES case INDIRECTLY supports large logos because ONE of the issues there (not the MAIN one) was that the kid's shirt was COVERED---front & back---with the anti-Bush drug & alcohol symbols. I think one of the briefs from the losing school madea point of that as ONE justification for banning the shirt.
************** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115)
What Pa Dist. Court Case?
--- In SchoolUniformsDebate@yahoogroups.com, garyk57647@... wrote:
>
> Click Here: Check out "Dadeville Record | Schools cut four teachers" Look
> at the LAST paragraph. This stupid board UNCONSTITUTIONALLY limited logos
> to QUARTER-sized. That violates the GUILES case from the 2nd Cir (cert
> DENIED by SCOTUS) and goes one worse than the Nashville logo policy which
limits
> logos on tops to 2 inches (in violation of a Pa. Dist Ct case many years
> ago). WHERE is the ALABAMA ACLU?????
>
>
> **************
> Discover the variety of
> Bisquick mix. Get Recipes & Savings Now.
>
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222831871x1201491818/aol?redir=http:%2\
F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B21
> 5225813%3B37274670%3Be%3Fhttp:%2F%2Frecipes.bisquick.bettycrocker.com%3FESRC
> %3D971)
>
WEll, most of my material comes from Googling Uniforms in Public Schools and Dress Codes in Public Schools. Also mine everything at the www.aprod.org website, and running MY name through Google may produce some articles I have written. and Dr. Brunsma is working with new material; in revising his book;/ GARY PETER KLAHR
Click Here: Check out "Following a new uniform code - The Connecticut Post Online" This article shows how FAR BEHIND we are in the fight against mand unis; they are spreading to HS in of all places---liberal blue-state CT. The only opt out in this one school is religious or medical---narrower than TX, which allows "philosophical." Supposedly the parents want it---fine---then make it VOLUNTARY or allow easy opt-out.
Actually I shouldn't be surprised---because right after Clinton's 1996 speech, WATERBURY CT, put in unis and DID go to Court to SUCCESSFULLY EXPEL 4 honor students for wearing jeans. (A natlonal columnist COMMENDED Waterbury for it, I believe). I think the Judge said some stupid thing like black jeans would be allowed but NOT blue jeans because BLUE jeans could hide guns!!! (LOLROF)
But CT is too soft---unlike Kent State, Ohio -- to SHOOT kids---so I have recommended on their blog that kids refuse to wear the unis and DARE the police to shoot them---since they will refuse to be suspended. Of course it will never happen, because CT kids are wimps like most U.S. kids---letting the gov't trample all over them.
I am so mad THAT IF I WON THE LOTTERY, II WOULD SPEND ALL THE $$ SETTING UP A NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO STOP THIS NONSENSE. We are becoming a nation of sheep---awoken only by Sarah Palin to warn us of "death panels."
Click Here: Check out "Richmond, stand up and be heard | pal-item.com | Palladium-Item" This is one of the BEST citizen editorials I have ever seen against unis and absurd school dress codes. You-all need to reprint it for use in YOUR communities. But the Richmond paper indicates that as "usual." protests are dying down and the SHEEP are winning again. As i keep saying, schools cannot suspend kids for 11 days or more without an independent (expensive) hearing under the GOSS case from the Sup Ct;---If parents just declare---"We won;t obey a stupid code v banning ALL logos and ALL decorations, stripes and floral prints even." then the school either blinks or is tied in knots with hundreds of hearings it can't schedule. I bet on the blinking.
As I have told you guys before, in the THREE (only) KNOWN instances where kids and parents JUST SAID NO (Baltimore in 1990, Long Beach HS kids in 1998 and one San Francisco HS controlled by an Asian school Bd about 10 years ago), OUR side has won. But everywhere else---unlike the Civil Rights movement headed by Dr. King 40 years ago--the protesters gave up and conformed---like SHEEP, not humans.
Yes, I KNOW that it hurts for your kids to be out of school even temporarily, to be denied extra-curric activities, to be threatened with denial of graduation---but FREEDOM ISN'T FREE; it wasn't in 1775 and it isn't NOW. But unlike the recent Iran protests, you will NOT be killed or imprisoned; we CAN & WILL WIN if ONLY people will stand together and NOT let themselves be intimidated by the GOVERNMENT. Remember, despite the BROWN case, many courts ENJOINED marches etc by Dr. King et al in the 1960's but as their slogan said---WE SHALL OVERCOME and WE SHALL NOT BE MOVED. If you-all care, we CAN win. Look at this Obamacare stuff; although I FAVOR health care reform, just a handful of prrotesters have derailed it ---at least for NOW --and gotten natl coverage; this pro-diverse-clothing movement CAN do the same IF people STOP acting as sheep!!! /gpk
Richmond High School suspended about 50 more students Thursday while about 150 people marched, chanted and honked horns in front of the building in protest of Richmond Community Schools' revised dress code.
Authorities from the Richmond Police Department and Wayne County Sheriff's Department patrolled Hub Etchison Parkway as the people protested for about four hours, sometimes restricting traffic in and out of the campus. Intermittent rain did little to quell or quiet the crowd.
"This dress code is so extreme," said parent Brian Thompson. "The dress code doesn't say anything about students in violation if you can see their collarbone, but students are being suspended because of it.
"It's just way over the top," he said.
The school board approved revisions to the dress code in May, which prohibit students from wearing clothes with any distinguishing marks on them, including logos, stripes, plaid or floral prints. Low-cut tops and excessively tight and baggy clothing is also among the dress code's no-nos.
But despite the protests and the suspensions -- 169 were suspended at RHS on Wednesday -- school went on as usual, Superintendent Allen Bourff said.
"In the school itself, aside from some low numbers in some of the classes, it was business as usual," Bourff said. "Out front it would be a day of protest. And we were told that that might happen."
Bourff said the district has received numerous comments from parents and will try to schedule meetings with some to discuss their concerns about the dress code.
But he said district officials would stand firm on the new code.
"Now is not the time for us to back away from any of the code," Bourff said. "The code was revised because it was not enforceable last year. We have put one in there that's much more easy to see when the student is in violation. We're not anticipating any backing away or relaxation of the code itself."
Parents and students, many whom were suspended on Wednesday and Thursday, carried signs reading, "Educate their mind. Forget fashions: and "Which is first? Education or Dress Code?"
(2 of 3)
No one was arrested, but tickets were issued for noise violations and blocking traffic, police said.
City police closed Hub Etchison from Sim Hodgin Parkway to South West G Street around 9 a.m. until about 11:30 a.m. for safety reasons and to slow the building traffic often lined up in front of the high school.
Police returned to the school in anticipation of the school dismissing its students, but signs of the protest had greatly diminished. At about 3:30 p.m., when school was dismissed, the suspended students mockingly cheered for their classmates.
"I'm here because (the new dress code) is retarded," said student Tomi McNew. "You can get suspended for (an emblem) on your shorts."
He wore a solid-colored shirt and shorts, but the shorts had an emblem.
"I think this looks fine but when they tell you can't wear it then it's not," he said.
Tenth-grader Karlee Cochran said she was suspended Wednesday, but instructed not to return to school until Friday. She said she wore a low-cut solid-colored white T-shirt, but wore a tank top over it that apparently didn't pass the dress code.
She stood outside the school, beginning at 7 a.m., to participate in the protests.
"It was kind of exciting," Cochran said about the attention the protest had received from local and regional media outlets. "Nothing ever happens in this town and this was big excitement."
RHS Principal Barb Bergdoll did not return several calls seeking comment on the suspensions and the school was closed to the media. Bourff estimated the suspensions at 50.
RCS' middle and elementary buildings continued to issue warnings to students who disobeyed the dress code rather than suspend its students.
"I have not suspended anybody," Dennis Middle School Principal Kathy McCarty said. "Each day we kind of up the ante a little bit."
McCarty said she is giving students three warnings before suspending them. Several students have two warnings.
"We've called parents and it's taken care of itself," she said.
Elementary schools are taking a different approach, too.
(3 of 3)
Bill Doering, the principal at C.R. Richardson Elementary School, said suspensions were an option, but not likely at his school.
"On our second day, 89 percent were in compliance," Doering said. "Today was 97 percent. I don't think we're going to have to" suspend anyone.
Vaile Elementary Principal Tammy Rhoades agreed.
"I did not have any parents who said to me, 'We're not going to comply,'" Rhoades said. "Everyone I talked to has every intent of complying."
While the student dress code has caused a lot of commotion, teachers and other staff members are subject to new guidelines for attire, too, which prohibit jeans, among other things.
Elizabeth Williams, a six-year employee at Vaile's cafeteria, said she was fired for wearing them.
"I don't have the funds right now," Williams said of her failure to comply with the staff dress code. "I had to choose my kids over myself. I told them to give me my paycheck."
Rhoades said she couldn't comment on Williams' employment status.
Aside from the protest outside RHS, an online petition, which was posted Aug. 10 at www.ipetitions.com, continues to grow with signatures. On Thursday night, 1,303 had signed it.
A second petition in support of the revised dress code and a move to uniforms also surfaced on the same Web site on Wednesday. The petition had 23 signatures Thursday night.
Reporter Bill Engle: (765) 973-4481 or bengle@.... Reporter Brian Zimmerman: (765) 973-4478 or bxzimmer@....
There may be merit to SOME of these points---but not others. It is like "voluntary" SS---I originally thought Barry was right---but now realize that the base of EVERYONE paying in is absolutely necessary for it to work. Unless we give a pvt health insur co. a monopoly, frankly few of any can AFFORD to include people like me with pre-existing conditions. The WORST effect of my disbarment was that the American Bar Assn expelled me and cut off my health insurance. NO PVT company would insure me at ANY price at that time---4 years after my quadruple heart bypass. Luckily state law REQUIRED the Phoenix Union's health insurer---Blue Cross--- to sell me GROUP health insurance at the district's group rate; that is the ONLY way I got coverage until I turned 65 and got Medicare.
But how many people are ELECTED present or former school bd members; THAT is the ONLY way I got coverage.
In a message dated 8/18/09 12:43:21 PM, barbara.rejon@... writes:
ary,
I don't know why you continue to get so upset that the ACLU is doing nothing when they have, by their continual non-action and non-support of not only the U.S. Constitutionbut of U.S. citizens as well, have pretty much screamed out to you and everyone that they do not care!
Now, if the t-shirt had something written on it in Spanish complaining about the way illegals are being treated (especially if worn by an illegal) well, thenthings would be different - they would do something about that.
So stop trying to get them to take a look at this stuff because your words are only falling on deaf ears - or maybe you should be sending it to them in Spanish.
I respectfully disagree, Barbara. ACLU spends more time on immigrants rights because---ADMIT IT---it is a much hotter issue generally than student speech at this time. They would NOT---N O T---be defending Story in Congress or any other kid if he had Spanish on his shirt---UNLESS the school permitted only English writing (as you know, they permit neither). Your anger on this issue frankly is injuring relations with people I need to STOP this assault on student free speech; if you can't help on THAT, please get out of my way---I need ALLIES---not more enemies.
Well, I am RIGHT as usual. I predicted that the ACLU's failure to seek cert on Jacobs v. Clark County, 526 F.3d 419 (9th Cir 2008) would be the PRACTICAL DEATH for student freespeech. The Palmer case ---reprinted below from the 5th Circuit's 8/13 slip opinion---proves me right. This wasn't even a UNIFORM case---the excuse Judge Hawkins used in Jacobs. This was just a "no speech on shirts" DRESS CODE case, which appears contra to Guiles v. Marineau and certainly to Jeglin v. San Jacinto, the Calif Dist Ct case that said kids have a constitutional right to wear non-gang logo tees.
Under the rubric of the ABSURD O'Brien doctrine (irrelevant to student free speech jurisprudence, because if it applied, the Tinkers should have lost), and the nonsensical ideas that bumper stickers and other means of student speech are nevertheless available, the 5th Cir. Court---as did Hawkins in Jacobs---destroys the whole Tinker-Morse doctrine just re-affirmed by EIGHT Justices in Morse. It especially flies in the face of the controlling/concurring Kennedy-Alito opinion in Morse that they would permit NO further incursion on student free speech beyond outlawing advocacy of illegal drug use!!!
I WARNED everyone---like Paul Revere in 1775---what was happening and NO ONE listened; ADF ignored my calls; ACLU of NV and Steve Shapiro , Natl ACLU Legal Director, said Jacobs was a "loser aand would make bad law." Well bad law is now being made Circuit by Circuit. The 6th Cir, already the author of one of the worst cases (The Marilyn Manson shirt case) but which recovered somewhat in Castorina, will be the next to fall. Soon every school in the nation will be able to legally require kids to wear only BLANK tops as the price of a public education!!
Those saying---well the kids can carry petitions or buy billboards to make their point remind me of Marie Antoinette---"If they have no bread, let them eat cake," As MANY courts said in 90's non-school cases (eg. airport protests etc) ---"Tee shirts are the billboards of the 90's." Wearing tees is the way both LEFT AND right-wing kids express opinions at school. The EDWARDS TEE HERE IS CORE POLITICAL SPEECH; there is NO VALID time,place and manner RATIONAL ARGUMENT against allowing it
for the administrative convenience of easy dress-code enforcement or whatever "rational" reason the school conned the 5th Circuit into buying here. I REPEAT---SOMEONE MUST take this up by CERT; there are 5 to 8 votes in our favor if properly presented; since this was NOT a uniform case, it IS a stronger case than Jacobs. The 5th Cir ADMITS that it has CREATED a FOURTH basis for restricting student speech NOT found in direct U.S. Sup Ct juridsprudence on STUDENT cases (O"Brien was NOT a student speech case).
As you-all know, this TX suit was brought by Liberty Counsel---not ACLU. Liberty Counsel along with almost EVERY LEFT AND RIGHT wing advocacy group filed amicus briefs IN FAVOR of Joe Frederick, the sacrilegious ACLU client, in MORSE. The rt-wing LBT briefs were responsible for the key Kennedy-Alito concurrence. We can expect the same here, especially since Thomas More now has another right-wing (anti-abortion) student tee case in fed ct in Merced, Calif. pending.
THIS CASE MUST BE OVERTURNED. Those of you refusing to participate=--please do NOT complain when YOUR clients have THEIR free speech suppressed in school!!!!/GARY PETER KLAHR< J.D., Phoenix
PLEASE FWD TO ACLJ, RUTHERFORD, ADF, ETC
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-10903
PAUL T. PALMER, by and Through His Parents and Legal Guardians,
Paul D. Palmer and Dr. Susan Gonzalez Barker,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAXAHACHIE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Paul Palmer, a student at Waxahachie High School, submitted three shirts
for approval under the dress code of Waxahachie Independent School District
(“the District”), whose administration told Palmer the shirts violated the code
and could not be worn to school. Palmer sued and requested a preliminary
injunction, which the district court denied. He appeals, and we affirm.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 13, 2009
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 08-10903
This version of the dress code did not allow students to wear messages on t-shirts un-1
less they were in connection with a club, sports team, university, or school spirit. It allowed
students to wear polo shirts with messages.
2
I.
On September 21, 2007, Palmer, then a sophomore, went to school wearing
a shirt with “San Diego” written on it. Assistant Principal Johnson told Palmer
his shirt violated the District’s dress code, which did not allow t-shirts with1
printed messages. Palmer called his parents, who brought him a “John Edwards
for President ‘08” t-shirt to wear instead. Johnson said Palmer would not be al-
lowed to wear that shirt either, because it contained a printed message. Palmer
appealed the decision to Principal David Nix, who denied the appeal, and that
denial was sustained by the District’s Superintendent, Thomas Collins.
On April 1, 2008, Palmer sued the District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleg-
ing that the dress code violated his freedom of speech under the First Amend-
ment. He asked for declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, a preliminary in-
junction, a permanent injunction, nominal damages, and attorneys’ fees. The
District answered that Palmer’s shirt violated the dress code even though it did
not pose a concrete threat of substantial disruption, was not sexually explicit,
was not school-sponsored speech, and did not promote illegal drug use.
The district court held a hearing on May 8 on Palmer’s motion for prelim-
inary injunction. District Assistant Superintendent David Truitt testified that,
four days before the hearing, the District had adopted a new dress code for the
upcoming school year. Because of the new code, the court dismissed Palmer’s
motion without prejudice but asked the District for a copy of the new code.
On May 19, the District submitted its new dress code, which restricted
more speech, including polo shirts with messages, shirts with professional sports
team logos, and clothing with university messages. The policy continued to per-
No. 08-10903
The District claimed that it adopted the stricter dress code to meet several problems.2
First, it had found that teachers and administrators spent too much time enforcing the old
code, and the District believed the new one would be easier to enforce. Second, it banned pro-
fessional sports shirts and university shirts because students had worn them to promote gang
affiliation. Third, it found that neighboring school districts had used similar dress codes that
had been successful. Finally, the District noted that it had considered adopting school uni-
forms but decided not to do so, because it still wanted students to have some freedom to chose
their clothing.
3
mit “campus principal-approved [District] sponsored curricular clubs and organi-
zations, athletic teams, or school ‘spirit’ collared shirts or t-shirts.” It also al-
lowed logos smaller than two inches by two inches.2
After receiving the dress code, Palmer submitted three shirts to the Dis-
trict for approval. One was the original John Edwards for President t-shirt, one
was a John Edwards for President polo shirt, and one was a t-shirt with “Free-
dom of Speech” on the front and the text of the First Amendment on the back.
The District rejected all three.
Palmer again sued, and Truitt again testified, admitting that the dress
code did not ban political pins, buttons, bumper stickers, or wrist bands and
stating that those would be analyzed under the District’s policy of not allowing
any item that is distracting, sexually explicit, or promoted a violation of school
rules. The district court determined that Palmer had not shown that he would
suffer irreparable harm because of the dress code and denied a preliminary in-
junction.
II.
We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion.
Doe v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist., 994 F.2d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1993). We eval-
uate de novo the legal principles on which the decision is grounded. Ponce v.
Socorro Indep. Sch. Dist., 508 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
A district court should issue a preliminary injunction only if the plaintiff
No. 08-10903
4
establishes
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial
threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, (3) that
the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any
harm that will result if the injunction is granted, and (4) that the
grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.
Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Speaks v. Kruse,
445 F.3d 396, 399-400 (5th Cir. 2006)). The district court examined only the
second prong and concluded that Palmer did not “satisf[y his] burden of proving
irreparable injury in light of the Court’s determination that the school district
will not [prevent Palmer] or other students from conveying political messages via
bumper stickers affixed to their clothing, or buttons to do the same.”
The “loss of First Amendment freedoms for even minimal periods of time
constitutes irreparable injury justifying the grant of a preliminary injunction.”
Deerfield Med. Ctr v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. Unit B
Nov. 1981) (citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). Because “[w]ords
printed on clothing qualify as pure speech and are protected under the First
Amendment,” the dress code’s ban on his shirts would cause Palmer irreparable
injury. Canady v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 240 F.3d 437, 440 (5th Cir. 2001) (ci-
tations omitted). The analysis is no different just because the code permits but-
tons and stickers. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in deciding
that the District’s enforcement of the dress code could not irreparably harm Pal-
mer.
III.
A.
Both parties ask that we examine the first prong, whether there is “a sub-
stantial likelihood of success on the merits.” We may do so, because “it is an ele-
mentary proposition, and the supporting cases too numerous to cite, that this
No. 08-10903
5
court may affirm the district court’s judgment on any grounds supported by the
record.” United States v. Dunigan, 555 F.3d 501, 508 n.12 (5th Cir.) (citation
omitted), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2450 (2009).
B.
Although students in public schools have First Amendment rights, this
“constitutional protection is not absolute.” Canady, 240 F.3d at 441. “[T]he con-
stitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive
with the rights of adults in other settings.” Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618,
2621 (2007) (citation omitted).
The Supreme Court has issued four major opinions on public school regula-
tion of student speech. First, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), a public school punished students who wore
black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Id. at 504. The Court
confirmed that “students [do not] shed their constitutional rights to freedom of
speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” id. at 506, and “[i]n the absence
of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech,
students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.” Id. at 511.
Schools can restrict student speech only if it materially interferes with or dis-
rupts the school’s operation, id. at 512, and cannot “suppress ‘expressions of
feelings with which they do not wish to contend.’” Id. at 511 (citing Burnside v.
Byars, 363 F.3d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 1966)).
Since Tinker, every Supreme Court decision looking at student speech has
expanded the kinds of speech schools can regulate. In Bethel School District No.
403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 687 (1986), the Court ruled that schools can prohibit
“sexually explicit, indecent, or lewd speech.” The Court held in Hazelwood
School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 271-73 (1988), that schools can also
regulate school-sponsored speech. Finally, in Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618
No. 08-10903
6
(2007), the Court determined that schools can prohibit “[s]peech advocating ille-
gal drug use.” Id. at 2638 (Alito, J., concurring).
Palmer argues that under these decision, he wins on the merits. Reading
Tinker, Fraser, Hazelwood, and Morse together, Palmer believes the Court has
established a bright-line rule that schools cannot restrict speech that is not dis-
ruptive, lewd, school-sponsored, or drug-related. If this were the rule, Palmer
indeed would prevail, because the District has stipulated that his shirts do not
fall into any of these categories. Palmer’s proposed categorical rule, however, is
flawed, because it fails to include another type of student speech restriction that
schools can institute: content-neutral regulations.
In Canady, the plaintiff presented this court with the same categorical
argument that Palmer makes, in a facial challenge to a school uniform code. The
plaintiff argued that uniforms violated the First Amendment because they
banned student clothing that was not disruptive, lewd, or school-sponsored.
Judge Parker, writing for the court, recognized that the Supreme Court had es-
tablished these categories for situations in which schools were targeting specific
speech but that content-neutral regulations “do not readily conform to [any] of
the three categories addressed by the Supreme Court.” Canady, 240 F.3d at 442.
These cases all addressed “disciplinary action by school officials directed at the
political content of student expression,” not content-neutral regulations such as
school uniforms. Id. at 442-43.
Because the regulation was content-neutral, we held that it should be an-
alyzed under the rules of “the traditional time, place and manner analysis and
the O’Brien test for expressive conduct.” Id. at 443; see United States v. O’Brien,
391 U.S. 367 (1968). “Thus, the School Board’s uniform policy will pass constitu-
tional scrutiny if it furthers an important or substantial government interest; if
the interest is unrelated to the suppression of student expression; and if the inci-
dental restrictions on First Amendment activities are no more than is necessary
No. 08-10903
For the remainder of this opinion, we use “intermediate scrutiny” to refer to the time,3
place, manner, or O’Brien, tests referred to in Canady.
Pretus v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., 571 F.3d 478, 487 (5th Cir. 2009) (Smith,4
J., dissenting) (quoting Teague v. City of Flower Mound, Tex., 179 F.3d 377, 383 (5th Cir.
1999)).
Id. at 488 (Smith, J., dissenting).5
See Bar-Navon v. Brevard County Sch. Bd., 290 F. App’x 273, 276-77 (11th Cir. 2008);6
Jacobs v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 526 F.3d 419, 428-32 (9th Cir. 2008); Blau v. Fort Thomas
Pub. Sch. Dist., 401 F.3d 381, 390-93 (6th Cir. 2005).
Amicus Walter Bateman’s request that we follow Judge Thomas’s dissent in JacobsSS7
which suggests that “the Supreme Court has consistently focused on the nature of the speech
itself,” rather than the regulationSSruns afoul of Canady. See Jacobs, 526 F.3d at 442-43
(Thomas, J., dissenting). That argument, moreover, does not properly distinguish between
regulations that suppress specific speech and content-neutral regulations. In cases reviewing
content-neutral time, place, manner restrictions, the Supreme Court has examined the regula-
tions, not the speech being regulated. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791-
803 (1989).
7
to facilitate that interest.” Id. (citation omitted). This court concluded that
viewpoint- and content-neutral school dress codes should be reviewed under in-
termediate scrutiny.3
Palmer and amici vigorously argue that intermediate scrutiny should not
apply to student speech, because the Supreme Court has never used that stan-
dard when reviewing such cases. The American Center for Law and Justice, as
amicus, notes that O’Brien predates Tinker, and thus the Court implicitly re-
jected intermediate scrutiny for student speech cases when it declined to use it
in Tinker. These arguments, however, overlook our rule of orderliness, which
“forbids one of our panels from overruling a prior panel.” “Although it would be4
fair . . . to debate whether” intermediate scrutiny should ever apply to student
speech, “that debate already took place” in Canady, so we follow that decision.5
In addition, Canady has been followed by three other circuits and has effectively6
become the national standard for analyzing content-neutral student speech.7
Palmer presents several arguments for why Canady, despite being our
No. 08-10903
In Ponce v. Socorro Independent School District, 508 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 2007), we8
recognized that Justice Alito’s concurrence is “controlling” for our interpretations of Morse.
Palmer’s argument that our decision in Ponce overruled Canady is similarly incorrect.9
That case interpreted Morse and examined a school’s suppression of dangerous speech, not
content-neutral regulations.
See, e.g., United States v. Hicks, 980 F.2d 963, 970-71 (5th Cir. 1992) (analyzing as-10
(continued...)
8
controlling precedent, should not apply in this case. First, he claims that Justice
Alito’s concurrence in Morse overruled Canady. Morse, however, involved a8
school’s targeting specific speech and did not concern content-neutral regula-
tions. That distinction is critical and controlling. In addition, Justice Alito nev-
er mentioned Canady or any similar case and in fact recognized that Tinker
“does not set out the only ground on which in-school student speech may be reg-
ulated.” Morse, 127 S. Ct. at 2637 (Alito, J., concurring). Nothing in Justice Ali-
to’s concurrence or the majority opinion in Morse overruled Canady.9
Next, Palmer posits that Canady does not govern our case, because it ex-
amined a uniform code rather than a dress code. This is a distinction without
a difference, because a uniform code is merely a strict version of a dress code.
Palmer’s distinction would require that federal judges decide when a dress
code is strict enough to be considered a uniform and would spawn endless line-
drawing litigation. In addition, it would punish those school districts that adopt
dress codes rather than uniforms because their students cannot afford uniforms.
Also, such a rule would have the perverse result of pushing schools to adopt uni-
forms rather than dress codes that give students some clothing choice.
Palmer also argues that this case differs from Canady because it is an as-
applied, rather than facial, challenge to the dress code. This fact does not
change our standard of review. When analyzing time, place, and manner restric-
tions, we have used intermediate scrutiny for as-applied challenges, not just fa-
cial challenges. The reason is obviousSSto review facial challenges for a dress10
No. 08-10903
(...continued)10
applied challenge to statute under intermediate scrutiny).
See Jacobs, 526 F.3d at 432-33; Lowry v. Watson Chapel Sch. Dist., 508 F. Supp. 2d11
713, 719 (E.D. Ark. 2007), aff’d, 540 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1526
(2009); Long v. Bd. of Educ., 121 F. Supp. 2d 621, 625 n.5 (W.D. Ky. 2000), aff’d, 21 F. App’x
252 (6th Cir. 2001). But cf. Blau, 401 F.3d at 391 (noting that appellant did not argue content-
neutrality of dress code that allowed for “any logos larger than the size of a quarter save for
Highlands logos or other ‘Highlands Spirit Wear’”).
9
code under intermediate scrutiny while reviewing as-applied challenges for strict
scrutiny would make no sense and would effectively destroy any content-neutral
regulation that could possibly ban political speech. Challenges to content-neu-
tral dress codes, whether facial or as-applied, are reviewed under intermediate
scrutiny.
In summary, because Canady survives Morse and applies to all content-
neutral challenges, school regulation of student speech can be justified on fiveSS
not just fourSSgrounds. If the speech is disruptive (Tinker), lewd (Fraser),
school-sponsored (Hazelwood), or promoting drug use (Morse), schools may in
some instances restrict specific student speech. Student speech can also be reg-
ulated so long as the regulation is viewpoint- and content-neutral (Canady).
C.
We must decide whether the District’s dress code is content-neutral. The
District does not allow messages on shirts, but it exempts small logos on shirts
and “campus principal approved” shirts that promote school clubs, organizations,
athletic teams, or “school spirit.” Palmer argues that the dress code’s exemption
for small logos and school-sponsored shirts by definition violates content-neutral-
ity, because it distinguishes based on content. Similar allegedly-content-based
dress code exceptions have been examined by three other federal courts and
found to be content-neutral. 11
Palmer’s argument regarding content-neutrality has some judicial support.
No. 08-10903
See, e.g., Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 719 (2000) (reaffirming Ward); Turner, 51212
U.S. at 641 (stating that the First Amendment is concerned with “the inherent risk that the
Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ide-
as”).
10
“As a general rule, laws that by their terms distinguish favored speech from dis-
favored speech on the basis of the ideas or views expressed are content based.”
Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 642-43 (1994) (citations omit-
ted). A dress code “is content based if . . . it differentiates based on the content
of the speech on its face.” Jacobs, 526 F.3d at 444 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
The District’s code, however, is content-neutral. In its preeminent case on
content-neutral regulation, Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791
(1989), the Court stated that “[t]he principal inquiry in determining content-
neutrality, in speech cases generally and in time, place, or manner cases in par-
ticular, is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because
of disagreement with the message it conveys.” The Court has reiterated this
principle. “[A] regulation is generally ‘content-neutral’ if its restrictions on12
speech are not based on disagreement with the message it conveys.” Brazos Val-
ley Coal. for Life, Inc. v. City of Bryan, Tex., 421 F.3d 314, 326-27 (5th Cir. 2005)
(citations and footnote omitted).
The District was in no way attempting to suppress any student’s expres-
sion through its dress codeSSa critical fact based on earlier student speech cases
SSso the dress code is content-neutral. Its allowance for school logos and school-
sponsored shirts does not suppress unpopular viewpoints but provides students
with more clothing options than they would have had under a complete ban on
messages. We therefore employ intermediate scrutiny.
D.
Under intermediate scrutiny, “the School Board’s uniform policy will pass
No. 08-10903
The O’Brien test also requires that the government have the power to enact a given13
regulation, but in all dress codes cases this prong is, of course, automatically met. See Jacobs,
526 F.3d at 434 n.33.
See Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 267 (“‘[T]he determination of what manner of speech in14
the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board,’
(continued...)
11
constitutional scrutiny [1] if it furthers an important or substantial government
interest; [2] if the interest is unrelated to the suppression of student expression;
and [3] if the incidental restrictions on First Amendment activities are no more
than is necessary to facilitate that interest.” Canady, 240 F.3d at 443. Palmer13
does not contend that the dress code violates the second prong but argues only
on the first and third prongs.
Palmer asserts that the code does not further an important or substantial
governmental interest. The code’s preamble states that the code was adopted “to
maintain an orderly and safe learning environment, increase the focus on in-
struction, promote safety and life-long learning, and encourage professional and
responsible dress for all students.” The District notes that the code would reduce
administrative time spent enforcing the code and promote the school and its ac-
tivities.
“Improving the educational process is undoubtedly an important interest.”
Canady, 240 F.3d at 443 (citation omitted). Improving student test scores and
reducing disciplinary infractions qualify as important governmental interests.
Id. Improving student performance, instilling self-confidence, increasing atten-
dance, decreasing disciplinary referrals, and lowering the drop-out rate are all
important governmental interests that meet the first prong’s requirement. Lit-
tlefield v. Forney Indep. Sch. Dist., 268 F.3d 275, 286 (5th Cir. 2001) (citations
omitted). Importantly, this list of recognized interests is not exhaustive, and fed-
eral courts should give substantial deference to schools where they present their
reasons for passing a given dress code.14
No. 08-10903
(...continued)14
rather than with the federal courts.” (citing Fraser, 478 U.S. at 683); Littlefield, 268 F.3d at
287 (“[F]ederal courts should defer to school boards to decide, within constitutional bounds,
what constitutes appropriate behavior and dress in public schools.” (citations omitted); Cana-
dy, 240 F.3d at 444 (“[I]t is not the job of federal courts to determine the most effective way
to educate our nation’s youth.”).
12
Under our precedents, the District’s stated interests all qualify under the
first prong. The stated benefits for the students, such as providing a safer and
orderly learning environment and encouraging professional dress, are all suffi-
cient interests. “[I]t is hard to think of a governmental interest more important
than the interest in fostering conducive learning environments for our nation's
children.” Jacobs, 526 F.3d at 435-36. The benefits for the school, such as reduc-
ing time spent enforcing the code and promoting school spirit, are also important
in promoting better education. The District and its administratorsSSnot federal
judgesSSare in a better position to formulate a dress code, and we are under-
standably hesitant to question their stated justifications. See Canady, 240 F.3d
at 444.
The District has provided more than enough evidence to establish its im-
portant governmental interests. In Canady and Littlefield, this court properly
set a low bar for the evidence a district must submit to show its dress code meets
its stated goals. A statistical showing that the code has improved test scores or
lowered disciplinary actions is sufficient. Id. at 443-44. Additionally, evidence
of improvements in other districts that have adopted the same or a similar dress
code can support the district’s decision. Littlefield, 268 F.3d at 286 n.16.
We do not, however, require statistical or scientific evidence to uphold a
dress code; improvements in discipline or morale cannot always be quantified.
The sworn testimony of teachers or administrators would also suffice. Again,
they are in a better position than are we to determine the benefits of the dress
code. Here, Assistant Superintendent Truitt testified that the school board had
No. 08-10903
The court in Jacobs, 526 F.3d at 435, held that for the first prong of intermediate15
scrutiny, the court must take the government’s stated interests at face value and cannot an-
alyze the plaintiff’s challenges to those interests. Because this position has no basis in law,
we disagree with it and analyze Palmer’s allegations that the dress code does not actually sup-
port the District’s purported interests.
13
examined over forty other dress codes to see which would be the best fit for the
District; the board took trips to see dress code enforcement in action and
reviewed data regarding the impact of codes on other schools. This is more than
enough to show that the District justified its important governmental interest
with factual support.
Palmer does not take issue with the school board’s claimed interests but
instead argues that these interests do not apply, because the board’s ban on
shirts is undermined by allowing students to wear pins, buttons, wrist-bands,
and bumper stickers containing messages. Generally, Palmer believes that al-
lowing messages on buttons destroys the benefit of the dress code and its ban-
ning of messages on shirts. For Palmer’s objection to stand, however, he would15
have to show that the District’s button allowance destroys all of the District’s
stated important governmental interests; if any of those stated benefits remain,
then the dress codeSSbutton/shirt distinction and allSSis valid.
The District’s stated benefits function under this distinction. Because
shirts are large and quite visible, banning them while allowing buttons would
still cause less distraction and promote an orderly learning environment. But-
tons and pins are also less prominent than are shirts and therefore require less
attention from and regulation by teachers. Another District goalSSpromoting
professional and responsible dressSSstill functions as well, because students are
prepared for a working world in which pins and buttons may be appropriate at
work but large, stark political message t-shirts usually are not.
Most importantly, even if, arguendo, we were to find the distinction be-
tween messages on shirts and messages on buttons odd, we recognize that the
No. 08-10903
There are certain situations in which allowing more speech can cause a regulation16
to violate the First Amendment. Indeed, were the District’s additional permitted speech spe-
cific to one particular viewpointSSsay a rule that only allowed pro-abortion buttonsSSthis could
run afoul of the First Amendment. Our situation, however, is different: The District is not
providing a right for student speech on a given topic, but instead is providing students a limit-
ed means to express their views on any topic.
14
teachers and administrators who establish these rules know better than do we
how the distinction will function in schools. “[F]ederal courts should defer to
school boards to decide . . . what constitutes appropriate behavior and dress in
public school.” Littlefield, 268 F.3d at 287. The determination of where to draw
lines on dress code decisions “properly rests with the school board, rather than
with the federal courts.” Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 266 (citation, brackets, and in-
ternal quotation marks omitted).
Finally, we reject Palmer’s “somewhat ironic[]” argument that the dress
code “is an unconstitutional abridgment of speech because it does not abridge
enough speech.” Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 540 (1981)
(Stevens, J., dissenting in part). Under the current dress code, Palmer can come
to school with a “John Edwards for President” button or First Amendment wrist-
band and express his views through these devices. But Palmer requests that we
strike down the dress code because the District gave him this avenue to express
himself. He argues that, to survive intermediate scrutiny, the code must allow
him no options at all.
We decline to follow this perverse reasoning. Under Palmer’s rule, school
districts would rush to impose the strictest dress codes possible or merely re-
quire school uniforms. Students such as Palmer would never be able to express
their views through any medium. We eschew any legal principle that would lead
to such a race-to-the-bottom. 16
Also, because we review dress codes for intermediate scrutiny, such a rule
would be particularly unreasonable. Under the third prong of intermediate scru-
No. 08-10903
The means do not necessarily have to be related to messages on clothing or buttons.17
Instead, schools can allow students to communicate their messages through other avenues,
such as orally at school or through their written work.
15
tiny, the District must show that its dress code is no more strict than necessary
to achieve its goals. In Canady, 240 F.3d at 443, we expressly noted that allow-
ing speech through “other mediums during the school day” ensured that a dress
code did not violate this third prong. Yet, under Palmer’s argument, if a school
allowed certain other speech mediums, in order to survive scrutiny under the
third prong, that allowance could cause the entire code to fail under the first
prong. We decline the invitation to impose such a Catch-22 on school districts.
Lastly, Palmer argues that the dress code fails under the third prong,
which requires that “the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment free-
doms [must be] no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.”
Turner, 512 U.S. at 662. In Canady, however, we noted that a dress code passes
this third prong so long as students “remain free to wear what they want after
school hours” and “may still express their views through other mediums during
the school day.” Canady, 240 F.3d at 443. In addition, in Littlefield, 268 F.3d
at 287, this court said that a dress code whose restrictions “pertain only to stu-
dent attire during school hours and do not affect other means of communication”
does not run afoul of the third prong. Thus, under our precedent, so long as a
dress code does not restrict student dress outside of school and provides them
with some means to communicate their speech during school, it passes the17
third prong. The District’s code fits easily within this rule, so it passes interme-
diate scrutiny.
In summary, Palmer has not shown a likelihood of success. There is no
abuse of discretion, and the order denying a preliminary injunction is
AFFIRMED.
Click Here: Check out "RCS dress code holds no answers | pal-item.com | Palladium-Item" This article---by a conservative PRO-=uni mother---shows EXACTLY what is wrong with most uni & SSA dress codes. She has tried to comply but cannot. The petty rules barring ALL logos---even on polos---and barring ALL decorations on both tops & bottoms---is the problem.
NOTE the OUTRAGEOUS justification by the school---a CLASSIC example of a NON-RATIONAL basis that CAN be defeated in court, ACLU's Dan Pochoda NOTWITHSTANDING---"THEY (the school bd) believed that patterned clothing contains hidden messages." Someone believing that belongs in a PSYCHIATRIC WARD---NOT ON A SCHOOL BOARD.
Comments PLEASE!!!!/gpk
Most Commented on NJ.com
comments