student appearance (school law cases and concepts, p. 174 -185) michelle duke med 6490 february 2,...
TRANSCRIPT
Student Appearance
(School Law Cases and Concepts, p. 174 -185)
Michelle Duke
MED 6490
February 2, 2010
Challenges to dress and
grooming began in the 1960s,
with a markedly reduced
number of suits in more
recent times.
In recent cases, school officials
frequently contend that dress and
grooming violations are gang
related and, therefore, pose a
serious threat to safety in
the school
May violate the First
Amendment and include gender
and racial discrimination
Courts generally contend that such “expression” does not have protection under the First Amendment when there is violence in the community or school such as intimidation of students and faculty, shootings or knifings, rampant drug use, or racial turmoil that is related to gang or hate-group activity.
A policy prohibiting the wearing or display of any gang symbol, any act of speech showing gang affiliation, and any conduct in furtherance of gang activity was also upheld by a federal district court.
Olsen v. Board of Education, 676 F.Supp. 820 (Ill. 1987)– The wearing of earrings by males was not
protected under the First Amendment, since that could be an indication of gang membership for boys
Hines v. Caston School Corporation, 651 N.E. 2d 330 (Ind. App.1995)– Although not involving the issue of gang
membership, a 4th grade male was prohibited from wearing an earring
Bivens v. Albuquerque Public Schools, 899 F.Supp.556 (N.M. 1995), aff’d, 131 F.3d 151 (10th Cir. 1997)
Two-Part Test
for nonverbal conduct to be
Protected Under the First Amendment:1. Intent to convey a particular message
2. A great likelihood that the message will be understood by those who observe the conduct
Phillips v. Anderson County School District, 987 F.Supp. 488 (S.C. 1997)
~ not being allowed to wear a Confederate flag jacket to school was upheld as not violating a student’s freedom of expression
Isaacs ex.rel. Isaacs v. Board of Education of Howard County, 40 F.Supp.2d 335 (Md. 1999)
~ A “no hats” policy was upheld when a girl wasnot allowed to wear a headwrap in celebrationof her African American and Jamaican culturalheritage
Harper v. Edgewood Board of
Education, 655 F.Supp.1353 (Ohio 1987)
~ Students were not permitted to attend a high school prom because they were wearing clothing of the opposite sex
Fowler v. Williamson, 251 S.E. 2d 889 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)
A dress regulation requiring proper attire to participate in a graduation ceremony was upheldThe student was entitled to receive his diploma separately after the program
School UniformsRequiring the wearing of uniforms is common in private and parochial schools, and is increasingly being adopted by public schools across the country
Courts have generally upheld mandatory school uniform policies
Littlefield v. Forney Independent School District, 268 F.3d 275 (5th Cir. 2001)
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
Grooming
Federal appellate courts in the 5th, 6th, 9th, & 10th Circuits either upheld grooming regulations or contended that grooming regulations were unworthy of their attention.IN CONTRAST, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 8th Circuits found regulations limiting the length of hair valid.State courts in Oklahoma, Oregon, and Alaska have held that schools do NOT have the authority to regulate hairstyles.HOWEVER, Supreme Courts in Texas, Missouri, and Kansas have not held similarly.
Pregnancy, Parenthood, and Marriage
Enactment of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 addressed the issue on the basis of prohibiting gender discrimination in any educational programs receiving federal funds.
- Pfeiffer v. Marion Center Area School District, 917 F.2d 779 (3rd Cir. 1990)- Pregnant student NOT allowed in NHS
+ Chipman v. Grant County School District, 30 F. Supp. 2d 975 (Ky.1998)
- Pregnant students WERE allowed in NHS
Issue
Does a double standard continue to exist that brands sexually active girls but not their male partners?
Legal Doctrine
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
P.L. 95-555,42 U.S.C. 2000E
Prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy