Dress Code Violation And Discrimination

Dress codes in middle and high schools are a form of discrimination against teenage girls in today’s society. Parents and students all over the country argue that dress codes are directed mainly at girls and are a blatant example of gender inequality. The idea behind the strict enforcement of a dress code is that it will teach self-respect and raise moral standards for the students. However, when the reason for many dress code violations is questioned the rationale is often to prevent distracting the male students. Young women across the country are being shamed and punished for wearing what schools consider immodest and being a distraction to their male peers. This discrimination against female students results in their clothes being strictly regulated and dress coded more often than male students’ clothes are. The enforcement of these discriminatory dress codes has become a form of public humiliation for female students. Theoretically, a dress code makes sense and should be effective. In reality, it does not affect how students dress but causes a distraction and interruption of a girl’s education.

Historically, legal issues regarding the grading of assignments containing religious material have come to similar decisions. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), a group of students decided to express their views about Vietnam by wearing black armbands to school. Although the district attempted to punish them for this, the Supreme Court ruled that the students were expressing a form of “symbolic speech” and were protected by the First Amendment, as long as it did not disrupt normal school functions. Similarly, expressing views of religion in school is protected if it does not disturb the educational process. According to Haynes and Oliver (2007), students have the right to express religious beliefs “in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions” (p. 65). An educator must

The hearing took place on November 12,1969. During the hearing, leading attorney for the Tinkers, Dan Johnston, argued that the action of the students was censored under the First Amendment and their symbolic speech caused no disturbance. On the other hand, the school argued that they should have the duty to enforce and maintain order and all discretion should be left at the hands of the school and not the court (Anker 379). Around the same time, another case with the same problem arose. In the Burnside v. Byars case, there was a group of black students that attended an all-black public school in Philadelphia, Mississippi. To protest the racial segregation happening in their state, they wore freedom buttons. About thirty of the students who wore the buttons were suspended. The Court of Appeals, in the fifth circuit, said that the students have free speech rights and in order for the school to ban the buttons, the school must have evidence of disruption; otherwise, it is considered arbitrary and unreasonable and cannot be sustained (“Tinker…1969”). In the ruling of the Burnside v. Byars case, the Court of Appeals stated that in order for the school to interfere with students’ free rights, they must have evidence that it was interfering with school orders. However, Judge Stephenson, judge in the United States Court or Appeals, claimed that schools should not be limited to how they restrict

However, the school board didn’t approve this action and state that whoever come to school wearing black armbands would be suspend. Mary Beth arrived to school on December 16. The principal asked her to remove her armband. When she refused, she was sent home and got suspended. Even though the protest did not disrupt classes, four other students were suspended including John Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt. The school told the students they couldn’t return to school until they agreed to remove their armbands (“Tinker V. Des Moines”). Mary Beth Tinker wrote later in an essay in Peter Irons’s book The Courage of Their Convictions “We didn’t think it was going to be that big of a deal” (Mauro). Therefore, the students decided to remove their armband and retune to school after the Christmas break. The article “Tinker V. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969)” says, “the students returned to school after the Christmas break without armbands, but in protest wore black clothing for the remainder of the school year” (“Tinker V. Des Moines”). The parents of the suspended students deprecated the school action and asked for the suspensions to be revoked, but the school refused. Therefore, the Tinkers’ father filed a

That well known court case is Tinker vs. Des Moines. Tinker vs. Des Moines was a Supreme Court case that happened in 1969 dealing with dress code. Students got suspended from school for wearing black armbands to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam.The Supreme Court ruled that public school officials could not censor student expression unless they could reasonably forecast that the student expression would cause substantial disruption or material interference with school activities or would invade the rights of others. This case established our second amendment right; the freedom of expression. Students were getting in trouble for expressing themselves. How can you get in trouble for simply expressing yourself? Rachel Zoe said, “Style is a way of saying who you are without having to speak.” Dressing up and wearing the clothes we wear is how we convey a message. What I’m saying is that girls should not be getting in trouble of what they wear if it is not disruptive. Our outfits are not interfering with our schooling. If anything the dress code is telling us that a male's education is more

The Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines originated in Iowa in December 1965 when seven Des Moines high school students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Ultimately they were suspended in which the student’s fathers sued the school district. The court case battled through the District Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court. The ultimate ruling was that Des Moines School District violated the students First Amendment rights. Years later, in Oregon in 1990, teachers a McMinnville High School started a lawful strike and in response, the school district hired replacement teachers. Following, two students wore and distributed buttons and stickers with slogans supporting the strike. The students were suspended which led to the student’s parents suing the school district where the District Court provides a ruling. Similar to Tinker v. Des Moines, Chandler v. McMinnville was ruled that the school violated the students First Amendment rights of the students.

In this day, children can often feel as though they are at a loss of ways to express themselves. With the heavy burden of societal standards, clothes are one of the only “acceptable” ways students have left to express themselves with. The biggest and most relevant example of this today is Transgender and LGBT students, or those who identify with a different gender than the one they were legally born into. As said in The Movement Against Sexist and Discriminatory School Dress Codes, “Meanwhile, gender nonconforming and transgender students have also clashed with such policies on the grounds that they rigidly dictate how kids express their identities. Transgender students have been sent home for wearing clothing different than what's expected of their legal sex.” This said, they way one dresses can extremely affect

The case of Tinker v. Des Moines revolved around American's discontent for the actions the country was taking overseas in Vietnam. In 1965 in protest against the war, John and Mary Beth Tinker "wore black armbands to their public school as a symbol of protest against American involvement in the Vietnam War" (StreetLaw Inc. 1). The two were young students at a local high school. Their protest was noticed by the authorities of their school, who then promptly demanded that the two remove their armbands. This demand was denied, and the Tinkers refused to do so, claiming that it was their right to free speech that was provided to them by the Bill of Rights. As a result the two were suspended from their school (StreetLaw Inc. 1). Yet, the Tinkers were unwilling to accept the punishment, and saw the act as a violation of their First Amendment rights. They sought legal action and took the case all the way to the Supreme Court in 1968.

John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Echardt all attended the same public school. They decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. They were asked by the school to remove the armbands but the kids refused to do so. This resulted in the suspension of all three students. Through their guardians, the scholars sued the school region for infringing the scholar’s right of expression and looked for a directive to keep the school from suspending them. The Tinkers took to court. The Tinkers claimed that they were suspended for essentially expressing their views on the war. They thought this move made by the school

Introduction of Case: In the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, three students, John F. Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and Mary Beth Tinker were all suspended from school for wearing black armbands to school to protest the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. The three students who had been suspended from school filed a claim stating that the banning them from wearing the armbands and the suspension was against their Constitutional right, under the First Amendment (Tinker

This Supreme Court case involved First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District involved three public school students (petitioners) in Des Moines, Iowa who were suspended from school, because they wore black armbands in protest of the government's policy in Vietnam. The petitioners sought damages and an injunction against the regulation preventing them from wearing the armbands. Their complaint was dismissed by the District Court on February 24, 1969, because the Court determined that the regulation was within the authority of the Board's power though there was no proof that the behavior had "materially and substantially" interfered with the school's ability to conduct school activities.

The School made a statement that said if anyone wears the armbands to school and that they will be suspended. The Tinker kids still showed up with the armbands leading to a suspension. The Tinker family of Course took this case to the supreme court since the armbands fall under the 1st amendment freedom of expression. The school argued that the armbands were a distraction to school activity and that they had a right to enforce the use of armbands to control the classroom environment. There was a testimony that the armbands did indeed affect the school. The armbands drew comments and students with the armbands were being made fun of for wearing them. A math teacher said he "Had his lesson period practically wrecked chiefly by disputes with Mary Beth Tinker, who wore her armband". If this is true it would be in favor of common good since the class can operate without any disturbance if they made the Tinker kids take the armbands off. The court did not rule this way and opted to protect the individual rights of the Tinkers. The court ruled that the evidence was not enough to suspend the Tinkers. Justice Abe Fortas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority,

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a group of high school students in Des Moines, Iowa wanted to show their opposition to the deployment of U.S. troops in Vietnam, and decided to wear black armbands during the holiday season. The school system found out about the student’s plan to wear black armbands, so the principals of the Des Moines schools adopted a policy that required students to remove the armbands or be suspended until the student would return to school without the band. Several students, including John Tinker, wore armbands and were suspended from school. As told by the United States Courts, the parents of the suspended students sued the school district because they believed the school district violated the students rights to free speech. The parents lost in the Court of Appeals, and went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the students on February 24, 1969, because, “Students don’t shed their constitutional rights at the school gates.” (United States Courts)

The district court determined that the student’s First Amendment rights had not been violated. The court viewed the school paper as an extension of a journalism class. It was intended to be a learning experience, therefore must follow board rules for curriculum (Open Jurist, 2008). Laws mandate balancing the rights of the students to freedom of speech and the protection of other students to speech that is lewd, vulgar, or creates a substantial disturbance. The Supreme Court held this case differently from previous cases, such as Tinker v. Des Moines, which ruled in favor of the students (2008). Students were allowed to wear allow black armbands in a silent protest to the Vietnam War. This was not a part of the curriculum and was not found to be

Imagine picking up your child from school to find her in tears. Through her sobs she tells you that her day was spent in In-School-Suspension (ISS) for refusing to remove her head scarf, part of your family’s religious attire; I’m sure that you would be outraged. Your child’s uniform policy does not allow for any type of head gear to be worn, which left her stuck outside of the classroom and in ISS. In the words of the United States Department of Education, “A school uniform policy must accommodate students whose religious beliefs are substantially burdened by a uniform requirement (“Manual on School Uniforms”), this mandate is distributed to all public schools that want to implement or are currently utilizing a uniform policy. What the school did to your child is considered a violation of her religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A school district in North Carolina came to an out-of-court settlement after being slapped with a lawsuit due to the fact that they denied any exemptions from the uniform policy based on religion. Our great country was founded on the basis of Freedom of Religion, so why should we allow for it to be taken away because of a school board’s decision to adopt a uniform policy that does