School Sued Over Girl's Socks

[johnnymk]

I guess as long as they aren't smelly.

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/oddnews/sns-ap-cartoon-socks-lawsuit,0,278847.story?coll=all-oddnews-hed&track=email_newsletter

NAPA, Calif. -- A seventh-grader might end up in court for wearing Winnie the Pooh socks to school. Toni Kay Scott, 14, was sent to an in-school suspension program called Students With Attitude Problems last year for violating a dress code, according to a lawsuit against the Napa Valley Unified School District and Redwood Middle School.

She had donned socks with the Tigger character from the Winnie the Pooh cartoons on them, along with a denim skirt and a brown shirt with a pink border.


But the school's policy requires students to wear clothes with solid colors in blue, white, green, yellow, khaki, gray, brown and black. Permitted fabrics are cotton twill, corduroy and chino. No denim is allowed.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in Napa County Superior Court by The American Civil Liberties Union and a law firm on the girl's behalf, alleges that the dress code is unconstitutionally vague and too restrictive.

"We should be able to show everyone who we are and have a way to express ourselves, as long as we aren't showing off things that shouldn't be shown off at school," the teenager said in a statement.

The lawsuit said the policy goes too far and forces aesthetic conformity in the name of safety. The rules violate the California Education Code, said plaintiffs' attorney Sharon O'Grady.

A telephone message left Tuesday at Redwood Middle School was not immediately returned.

[Thesifer]

I guess as long as they aren't smelly.

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/oddnews/sns-ap-cartoon-socks-lawsuit,0,278847.story?coll=all-oddnews-hed&track=email_newsletter

NAPA, Calif. -- A seventh-grader might end up in court for wearing Winnie the Pooh socks to school. Toni Kay Scott, 14, was sent to an in-school suspension program called Students With Attitude Problems last year for violating a dress code, according to a lawsuit against the Napa Valley Unified School District and Redwood Middle School.

She had donned socks with the Tigger character from the Winnie the Pooh cartoons on them, along with a denim skirt and a brown shirt with a pink border.


But the school's policy requires students to wear clothes with solid colors in blue, white, green, yellow, khaki, gray, brown and black. Permitted fabrics are cotton twill, corduroy and chino. No denim is allowed.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in Napa County Superior Court by The American Civil Liberties Union and a law firm on the girl's behalf, alleges that the dress code is unconstitutionally vague and too restrictive.

"We should be able to show everyone who we are and have a way to express ourselves, as long as we aren't showing off things that shouldn't be shown off at school," the teenager said in a statement.

The lawsuit said the policy goes too far and forces aesthetic conformity in the name of safety. The rules violate the California Education Code, said plaintiffs' attorney Sharon O'Grady.

A telephone message left Tuesday at Redwood Middle School was not immediately returned.


My personal opinion is that only Private schools should have completely restrictive dress codes, and that Public schools should only be able to ban "hate" stuff and something that common sense would tell you would cause a major problem.

Also it depends on the school, like in the middle of Oklahoma, I don't think anyone is going to get killed or beat up for wearing a Raiders Jacket.

[VTGreg]

How exactly is this suing over socks? The girl wore a denim skirt and denim is not allowed. Now if the California Education Code does not allow schools to specify a dress code that is a different story.

I understand the desire to express ones self, but dress codes are in place for reasons (many which may seem silly and/or frivolous to us). If you violate the rules in a school, you will receive some sort of punishment.

I think you are seeing an increase in the penalties kids are facing today because the behavior has become more extreme and the old standards no longer deter students from exhibiting unapproved behavior.

[MikeD]

How exactly is this suing over socks? The girl wore a denim skirt and denim is not allowed. Now if the California Education Code does not allow schools to specify a dress code that is a different story.

I understand the desire to express ones self, but dress codes are in place for reasons (many which may seem silly and/or frivolous to us). If you violate the rules in a school, you will receive some sort of punishment.

:agree:

Hey, the ACLU is involved. That means I'm in total agreement with the school. :D

This is just like the "vagina" incident. Whether or not the dress code is acceptable and/or just is a completely different subject. That's not the point here...it's in place, the students should be abiding by it. Going against it is unacceptable, and should be met with the appropriate punishment.


I think you are seeing an increase in the penalties kids are facing today because the behavior has become more extreme and the old standards no longer deter students from exhibiting unapproved behavior.

And it should continue. Schools need to reclaim authority over these students (and parents) who think they can do whatever they want, and blatently disregard policies that have been put in place.

[TruckStuff]

The lawsuit... alleges that the dress code is unconstitutionally vague and too restrictive. How can something that is "vague" be "too restrictive?" Doesn't the fact that it is vague pretty much preclude it from being too restrictive? :confused:
How exactly is this suing over socks? The girl wore a denim skirt and denim is not allowed. :stupid:

[Napoleon54]

The article's title and first paragraph are misleading. They focus on the socks, but it was essentially her whole outfit that was in violation of the dress code. Deceptive and alarmist.

But that being said, I don't understand the desire or sense of need to control students to this level. Maybe if they weren't so stressed out about constantly being monitored and having to follow 50 million senseless rules, perhaps they'd be better students and people. Instead, it's just a maze of flaming hoops they have to jump through every day for no apparent reason. You can't raise kids in an environment where things don't make sense, unless you accept the fact that they're not going to learn what common sense is.

I do not at all like this trend in modern society.

[Napoleon54]

How can something that is "vague" be "too restrictive?" Doesn't the fact that it is vague pretty much preclude it from being too restrictive? :confused: :stupid:

That entirely depends on the exact wording of the dress code and California law, not upon the article's paraphrase of the law suit.

[MikeD]

Maybe if they weren't so stressed out about constantly being monitored and having to follow 50 million senseless rules, perhaps they'd be better students and people.

Or maybe, with even fewer rules and less structure, things would be even worse than they are now. :2far:

I truly don't understand this viewpoint. All it takes is one trip to your local mall, or one evening watching the local news, to see how bad it's gotten with kids today. And it's not only the older teens, it's younger kids too...try 11, 12, 13 year olds.

I'm talking a general sense of how they handle themselves, respect others, how they dress...it's all deteriorating at a surprising rate. We need parents to stand up and start raising their kids better, and schools to follow suit as well.

[cheapie]

i think dress codes help the kids that don't want to/can't afford to buy the newest and most expensive outfits. or don't want to look like little whores. it evens up the playing field a bit.

[Napoleon54]

Or maybe, with even fewer rules and less structure, things would be even worse than they are now. :2far:

I truly don't understand this viewpoint. All it takes is one trip to your local mall, or one evening watching the local news, to see how bad it's gotten with kids today. And it's not only the older teens, it's younger kids too...try 11, 12, 13 year olds.

I'm talking a general sense of how they handle themselves, respect others, how they dress...it's all deteriorating at a surprising rate. We need parents to stand up and start raising their kids better, and schools to follow suit as well.

Personal responsibility. If you don't trust them to act responsibly and don't give them the freedom to act responsibly, then don't expect them to be responsible once your back is turned. Responsibility begets more responsibility. Rules beget more rules.

[cheapie]

do you have kids? that's really, REALLY an overstatement. some kids will do well with having less rules and more responsibility. some will do far worse and take advantage of the situation.

[Markel]

On a similar note (link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070321gay-suit,1,2785801.story?coll=chi-news-hed))

Teen sues school over her anti-gay shirt

A student at Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville filed suit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Chicago, arguing that her school violated her civil rights by refusing to let her wear a T-shirt opposing homosexuality on moral grounds.

The student is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization based in Arizona that has filed at least eight similar lawsuits across the country, said Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the group.

McCaleb said the group is trying to "enable Christian students to express a contrasting viewpoint on homosexuality."

According to the suit, Heidi Zamecnik, a 17-year-old Naperville resident and a senior at Neuqua Valley, wore a T-shirt to school last April stating, "Be Happy, Not Gay."

Zamecnik donned her shirt in response to the Day of Silence, a national event recognized by many schools. Students can refuse to speak during the school day—even in response to faculty questions—to bring attention to the harassment of homosexuals.

Zamecnik opted to wear her own T-shirt the following day as a counter viewpoint.

The suit claims the dean of students pulled Zamecnik aside and asked her to remove the shirt. When she refused, another dean instructed a counselor to mark out the words "not gay" and the shirt then read, "Be Happy," the suit states.

Zamecnik and her parents tried to discuss the incident with school officials, McCaleb said. He said the parents also tried to work out an agreement that would allow their daughter to wear a similar T-shirt next month, again following the Day of Silence.

McCaleb said school officials denied the parents' request.

Attempts to reach school officials were unsuccessful Wednesday.

I think this "Day of Silence" should be ignored by schools. I have some friends where a teacher declared the entire class period to be one of silence. (I think it was a music or vocal class.) Great job of teaching the subject. :rolleyes:

[MikeD]

do you have kids? that's really, REALLY an overstatement. some kids will do well with having less rules and more responsibility. some will do far worse and take advantage of the situation.

:stupid:

Don't want to sound condescending to anyone who isn't a parent, but it's simply a different story once you have kids. Once you walk in those shoes, you may sing a different tune.

Kinda like how you don't know what's it like to be black and face racism if you aren't black. :fro:

[Napoleon54]

:stupid:

Don't want to sound condescending to anyone who isn't a parent, but it's simply a different story once you have kids. Once you walk in those shoes, you may sing a different tune.

I've been on the other side of the coin. That's how I was raised and I'm very glad it wasn't any other way. I know other people who were raised similarly and differently, and I have friends who are parents that go similar and different ways as well. In my experience and observations, it always works much better to let kids have responsibility and trust rather than breathing down their necks 24/7.

[Napoleon54]

I'm not saying that responsibility = no rules, they run amok and do whatever they want. I'm saying that parents need to set better examples for their children and trust them to follow it. Loosen the reigns and let them use their own judgement, but be ready to occasionally smack them in line if they do something stupid. Let them make mistakes they can learn from.

When I was growing up I knew very well that disappointing my father was much worse than any other kind of punishment. That's what kept me in line because I respected him. And I respected him because he respected and trusted me. It's a two way street. There were no hard and fast rules, they weren't necessary.

[VTGreg]

On a similar note (link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070321gay-suit,1,2785801.story?coll=chi-news-hed))


I think this "Day of Silence" should be ignored by schools. I have some friends where a teacher declared the entire class period to be one of silence. (I think it was a music or vocal class.) Great job of teaching the subject. :rolleyes:

I wonder where the ACLU was on this one?

If it was against school policy, she shouldn't have been able to wear the t-shirt.

[Markel]

I wonder where the ACLU was on this one?

If it was against school policy, she shouldn't have been able to wear the t-shirt.
Yeah, I noticed that. The ACLU's silence on this one is deafening.

[The Happy Squirrel]

dress codes are in place to help create a netural envioment where everyone is "equal" there is no gang BVS going on as far as colors and flags and the elimination of risque outfits helps premootes a positive learning enviorment

that being siad i think dress codes are fairly stupid
they dont work and they create more drama then they prevent

although, if the scholl has one in place then the4n kids should abide by it no questions asked
yeah it sux but you know what life aint fair shut up and deal with it you kids <and stop eating fast food too, your getting fat pretty soon the dress code will call for moomoos for everybody>

[MikeD]

In my experience and observations, it always works much better to let kids have responsibility and trust rather than breathing down their necks 24/7.

:agree:

Hey, I agree with that. I have a 10 year old, and she has more responsibility and freedoms now than she did 2 years ago. And she'll have more at 12 than she does now as well.

But how does this tie into dress code? The school had one in place, the girl chose to ignore it. To me it's a black/white, open/shut case. Exact same thing as the vagina incident, which we also didn't agree on. :shrug:

I'm all for a dress code in schools. It's their way of doing the parents job for them. Nice! :D

[fillup0215]

isnt the times now so different when we were kids? so much political BS!...damnit!

[Chgoman]

Blanket statements like dress codes are stupid show a lack of understanding. Sometimes dress codes are arbitrary and sometimes they are a neccessity. When you work at a school like my wife does where a lack of a dress code results in kids wearing local gang colors and signs, they are an absolute necessity. Believe it or not, in this case I am talking about an elementary school. Now I know some will say it's ridiculous to think about gangs with elementary students. All I can say is be glad you live in area where this isn't a problem, because in a lot of areas it is.

[The Happy Squirrel]

i stated that they are used against gang activity, i still maintain they are stupiud becuase they are not effective and are more of a hinderance then a solution

[InfiniteNothing]

So, can a school dress code tell a kid he can't wear a yamaka (for example an over restrictive "no hat rule" that was written so vaguely as to cover any head covering).

How about an armband protesting a war? (The answer is no: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District)


My point is: there is a line where a student's freedom trumps the authority of the school and we can't be arbitrary about where this line is.

[MikeD]

No offense, but I can't wait for some of you all to have kids. Bank on some people singing a different tune then.

[VTGreg]

So, can a school dress code tell a kid he can't wear a yamaka (for example an over restrictive "no hat rule" that was written so vaguely as to cover any head covering).

How about an armband protesting a war? (The answer is no: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District)


My point is: there is a line where a student's freedom trumps the authority of the school and we can't be arbitrary about where this line is.

I agree that the line is very important. In my opinion, anything deemed offensive or disruptive should not be allowed. Obviously, this definition is subjective but there will always be a gray area and determining the policy is part of being a school administrator. If the administrator abuses their power and develops policy that is not just then they should be replaced.

Schools should be a place of learning, not an open forum to demonstrate anything (political or not) a student wishes.

[LPMiller]

No offense, but I can't wait for some of you all to have kids. Bank on some people singing a different tune then.

I have kids. I'm singing their tune. Dress code rules grate on me badly.

[InfiniteNothing]

No offense, but I can't wait for some of you all to have kids. Bank on some people singing a different tune then.Are you just assuming who has kids and who doesn't?

I wouldn't assume a parent has a more objective view on child rights than a childless person.

[InfiniteNothing]

I agree that the line is very important. In my opinion, anything deemed offensive or disruptive should not be allowed. Obviously, this definition is subjective but there will always be a gray area and determining the policy is part of being a school administrator. If the administrator abuses their power and develops policy that is not just then they should be replaced.

Schools should be a place of learning, not an open forum to demonstrate anything (political or not) a student wishes.


Offensive is an unacceptable line. Everything is offensive to someone. Kids praying around a flag pole is offensive to some. Now disruptive... that line is much thinner.

[MikeD]

Are you just assuming who has kids and who doesn't?

I have a fairly good idea of some members, yes. Rock solid, 100% certain? Of course not...but a pretty good idea nonetheless.


I wouldn't assume a parent has a more objective view on child rights than a childless person.

Well, you may not...but I would. I strongly disagree with your assessment. :shrug:

[InfiniteNothing]

I have a fairly good idea of some members, yes. Rock solid, 100% certain? Of course not...but a pretty good idea nonetheless.

Well, you know what they say about assumptions.


Well, you may not...but I would. I strongly disagree with your assessment. :shrug:

That's because you're a parent. :P You are biased. It's like a cult member saying they aren't brainwashed... you wouldn't know it if you were because... you'd be brainwashed.

[MikeD]

Well, you know what they say about assumptions.

Cliche. Here it holds weight. :)


That's because you're a parent. :P You are biased. It's like a cult member saying they aren't brainwashed... you wouldn't know it if you were because... you'd be brainwashed.

Oh please. This line of thinking could go both ways. Try again.

[cheapie]

I have kids. I'm singing their tune. Dress code rules grate on me badly.

the comments about parent not having kids was related naps comments


Personal responsibility. If you don't trust them to act responsibly and don't give them the freedom to act responsibly, then don't expect them to be responsible once your back is turned. Responsibility begets more responsibility. Rules beget more rules.

[cheapie]

Are you just assuming who has kids and who doesn't?

I wouldn't assume a parent has a more objective view on child rights than a childless person.


again, the exchange about who might have a better perspective wasn't connected to child's rights, just nap's comments.

[MikeD]

I have kids. I'm singing their tune. Dress code rules grate on me badly.

That's why I said SOME. :D

[The Happy Squirrel]

heres the thing just because a person is a parent doesnt mean that 1) they are intelligent, 2) they are a good parent and also 3) they take an intrst in thier kids lives


there are tons of people who have kids who have no clue what the he|| is going

[cheapie]

what's your point? i'm just saying that anytime a non-parent tells me about raising kids, how to modify their behavior, or what they'll do when they have kids, i take it with a grain of salt.

[The Happy Squirrel]

the point is that just becuase someone has kids doesnt make their opinion, knowledge base, or views any less valid or articulate. this is not a subject that you need to ahve kids to have a solid standpoint on i am a parent and i would not have a different standpoint if i wernt nor would i care any less about the education system in our country or the future of our young ones

[MikeD]

the point is that just becuase someone has kids doesnt make their opinion, knowledge base, or views any less valid or articulate.

Having kids gives you the ability to make accurate statements about being a parent, much more so than those who aren't parents. You're living the life, for chrissakes.

What's so hard to get about that? If I'm black, I suppose I can make accurate statements about being a black person in America. If I'm female, I'll have a better perspective about sexual harrassment in the workplace...or the glass ceiling in Corporate America. Having kids, being a parent is no different.

[MikeD]

heres the thing just because a person is a parent doesnt mean that 1) they are intelligent, 2) they are a good parent and also 3) they take an intrst in thier kids lives

Who said anything about any of that? :gle:

[The Happy Squirrel]

i tihkn you misinterperet what i said
i am saying just becuase one is a parent doesnt automatically qualify them there are alot of idiots out there

yeah sure there is much more oppertunity for knowlegde and a better opinion but my interpertation of the previous statement was saying ifr your a parent your an expert and i just dont believe that to be true

just like you said about someone being a woman or black i dont think just becuase someone belongs to a certian group automatically makes them an expert
i am sayinbg that there are lots of people who just dont have a clue and dont pay attention it should be taken on a case by case basis to determine if someone has any idea of what the heck is going on

[ialsohaveadream]

Yeah, I noticed that. The ACLU's silence on this one is deafening.
Maybe you aren't aware of how the ACLU network operates. Generally, people seeking free legal counsel on constitutional cases contact an ACLU member attorney. There isn't some sort of bat signal that goes off every time there's a free speech issue, causing a throng of ACLU lawyers to come swooping in.

[ialsohaveadream]

Having kids gives you the ability to make accurate statements about being a parent, much more so than those who aren't parents. You're living the life, for chrissakes.

What's so hard to get about that? If I'm black, I suppose I can make accurate statements about being a black person in America. If I'm female, I'll have a better perspective about sexual harrassment in the workplace...or the glass ceiling in Corporate America. Having kids, being a parent is no different.
And yet, when someone speaks about racism from a black perspective, or someone familiar with the immigrant experience speaks about that, I don't see deferential respect from others here...

[cheapie]

the point is that just becuase someone has kids doesnt make their opinion, knowledge base, or views any less valid or articulate.


heck yes it does. are you kidding me? that's like saying that you'd listen to a construction worker tell you how to write code, or ask a florist how to put in your home theater. you can study all you want, and actually know some things about parenting. but until you have one, it's all book knowledge and i'm not going to give it the same weight as someone that's actually been through it.


am saying just becuase one is a parent doesnt automatically qualify them there are alot of idiots out there

well, i'm the parent that said it. i said making a blanket statement saying that making rules make kids more rebellious and giving them more freedom makes more responsible is something that is less likely for a parent to say.

[cheapie]

Maybe you aren't aware of how the ACLU network operates. Generally, people seeking free legal counsel on constitutional cases contact an ACLU member attorney. There isn't some sort of bat signal that goes off every time there's a free speech issue, causing a throng of ACLU lawyers to come swooping in.


yeah. he's thinking of sharpton and the reverend. and instead of a free speech issue, insert a spotlight. :wavey2:

[The Happy Squirrel]

my statements are being taken out of context and my views not being cvonsidered so i am going to gracefully step out of the way as no solution can become of this and its getting out of control

[cheapie]

ah...no worries mate. (sorry. i've been hanging out with aussies for the last day or two.) i'm just having fun arguing. :hihi:

[MikeD]

And yet, when someone speaks about racism from a black perspective, or someone familiar with the immigrant experience speaks about that, I don't see deferential respect from others here...

Ahh, I was waiting for this post. Hoping, actually.

Good to see the roles finally reversed. Maybe now both sides will know how the other feels. As for the other million times that the above mentioned items were discussed here, I always ended up feeling like this:


my statements are being taken out of context and my views not being cvonsidered

:D

[VTGreg]

Maybe you aren't aware of how the ACLU network operates. Generally, people seeking free legal counsel on constitutional cases contact an ACLU member attorney. There isn't some sort of bat signal that goes off every time there's a free speech issue, causing a throng of ACLU lawyers to come swooping in.

The ACLU interjects itself where it sees fit. If the case, a free speech issue or not, aligns with their agenda they typically find a way to get involved.

[VTGreg]

Offensive is an unacceptable line. Everything is offensive to someone. Kids praying around a flag pole is offensive to some. Now disruptive... that line is much thinner.

Isn't disruptive just as subjective? I think we all agree that there are some things that are easily identified as offensive or disruptive but then there are other cases where it is very subjective.

In the end, if we don't trust our school administrators to put in place rules that align with the circumstances at their school, we will end up with no rules or incredibly restrictive rules. (either no dress code or one that only allows one to wear a white shirt and khaki slacks)

[ialsohaveadream]

The ACLU interjects itself where it sees fit. If the case, a free speech issue or not, aligns with their agenda they typically find a way to get involved.
The ACLU can't become your attorney without your consent. It's not a carjacking.

They could always file amicus briefings, but even if they did that it's unlikely you'd read about it in the papers. And it's so easy to forget how the ACLU wanted to come to Rush Limbaugh's defense over his medical privacy.

Yes, there are crazies in the ACLU who are on the liberal fringe, just as there are crazies in the NRA who are on the conservative fringe. Both give their groups a bad name, but when a group's membership is so large, it's hard to control for the quality and sanity of all your members.

[ialsohaveadream]

Good to see the roles finally reversed. Maybe now both sides will know how the other feels.
I wouldn't count on it. :)

[MikeD]

I wouldn't count on it. :)

Ha! Imagine that...

Well, I can always dream of equality. :)

[ialsohaveadream]

Ha! Imagine that...

Well, I can always dream of equality. :)
I actually wasn't speaking for myself, since I don't come around as much anymore.

And as for the actual issue here, it's fine for the school to have a dress code. But man, how oppressive. The kids don't even get casual Fridays? Worse than my work- but at least I'm getting paid to be at my work. :)

[Napoleon54]

Parenting aside, everyone here was a kid in school at some point.

Anyone have personal experience with a dress code?

I'm all for very limited restrictions in the interest of keeping chaos in schools to an acceptible level. No nudity, no profanity on your tshirt, etc? Sure, that's reasonable. But no Tigger socks in a public school? No denim skirts, no brown shirts with a pink border? C'mon, what's the point of that?

I think part of the problem is that such policies effectively take judgement out of the hands of the administrators and hand it to a strictly worded rule book. There's no human element in the decisions. School administrators don't look at a student's clothing and directly make a judgement such as "is that objectionable?". Rather, they defer to a rule book ask "is that against the rules?". There's a difference. The rules are too specific. They should be vague and open for interpretation, such as "nothing objectionable should be worn". Administration should be smarter, and more capable of making decisions, than a rule book. I think we're all capable of deciding what's objectionable and what's not. It's damn near impossible to effectively remove the human side of things and write rules to reflect that. And yes there'll be some grey areas where we disagree, but running that risk is more acceptible than specific blanket policies.

[MikeD]

I'm all for very limited restrictions in the interest of keeping chaos in schools to an acceptible level. No nudity, no profanity on your tshirt, etc? Sure, that's reasonable. But no Tigger socks in a public school? No denim skirts, no brown shirts with a pink border? C'mon, what's the point of that?

I think part of the problem is that such policies effectively take judgement out of the hands of the administrators and hand it to a strictly worded rule book. There's no human element in the decisions. School administrators don't look at a student's clothing and directly make a judgement such as "is that objectionable?". Rather, they defer to a rule book ask "is that against the rules?". There's a difference. The rules are too specific. They should be vague and open for interpretation, such as "nothing objectionable should be worn". Administration should be smarter, and more capable of making decisions, than a rule book. I think we're all capable of deciding what's objectionable and what's not. It's damn near impossible to effectively remove the human side of things and write rules to reflect that. And yes there'll be some grey areas where we disagree, but running that risk is more acceptible than specific blanket policies.

Oh man, I was with you for a bit. And then it all fell apart. :P

Yeah, rules can be too stringent. And it sounds like, in some cases, it's getting to that point. I'm definitely with you on that.

But rules should be very clear, concise, detailed. Leaving them open to interpretation is the worst thing one could do. Then every parent would want the rules bent for their kid; things would be a mess. What one parent (or administrator) would think was unacceptable dress might be considered acceptable by another.

It would be great if common sense reigned supreme here, and schools were able to make logical decisions. God, what a novel concept. Too bad there's not enough of it to go around. :shrug:

[Napoleon54]

Oh man, I was with you for a bit. And then it all fell apart. :P
Sorry, I guess that was bound to happen :heh:

It focuses way too much on procedure and ritual and rules, rather than the intent and faith itself. Yeah, rules can be too stringent. And it sounds like, in some cases, it's getting to that point. I'm definitely with you on that.

But rules should be very clear, concise, detailed. Leaving them open to interpretation is the worst thing one could do. Then every parent would want the rules bent for their kid; things would be a mess. What one parent (or administrator) would think was unacceptable dress might be considered acceptable by another.

It would be great if common sense reigned supreme here, and schools were able to make logical decisions. God, what a novel concept. Too bad there's not enough of it to go around. :shrug:

I had a clear example of "vague and open for interpretation" in mind when I was writing my last post: the US Constitution. IMHO the US Constitution is a brilliant document in that it is fluid. It's more of a set of guidelines than it is a set of specific rules. That's why a number of the founding fathers objected to the addition of the Bill of Rights: they objected to enumerating specific rights and would've preferred to leave it open to interpretation. Granted, I disagree with A LOT of how that document has been interpreted in the last 150 years or so, but I'm willing to accept that as a minor flaw which has been greatly exploited. But enough of politics.

As far as school dress codes go, I'd rather see a set of guidelines rather than rules. "Nothing offensive or disruptive" is fine with me, then let administration interpret that as they see fit. I'm willing to give them power as judge, jury, and executioner, but they'd also need to be held accountable to the students, parents, and the community in general regarding their decisions.

In hindsight I guess my train of thought, as usual, comes back to the idea of personal responsibility. Administrators are ducking responsiblity, ducking judgement, and substituting a rule book. "Hey, don't blame me, it's in the rules", etc.

[MikeD]

I'm willing to give them power as judge, jury, and executioner, but they'd also need to be held accountable to the students, parents, and the community in general regarding their decisions.

Hey, back with you again! :D

If the schools are given unconditional final say, then sure...leave it open to interpretation. I'm simply saying we need to avoid the free-for-all element, where everyone thinks they're right and no one is willing to cede to another's views.

Hey, kinda like G/A Pol Forum. :hehehmm:


Administrators are ducking responsiblity, ducking judgement, and substituting a rule book. "Hey, don't blame me, it's in the rules", etc.

Maybe so...but man, what a tough gig (school administration). Seems like they can't do anything right, some parent or kid is always jumping and down talking about how they've been wronged. :shrug:

[bachviet]

When I was in high school (back in the early '90s when gangs activity was high in SoCal), there was kind of a dress code at my school (T-shirts to be tucked in, no baseball caps, no initial belt buckles, no sports teams logo shirts or T-shirts, and no baggy pants). But there was no suspension over this though.

[riskykougra]

Im curious to know if the girls parents were aware of the dress code when they enrolled her in the school. My oldest son is graduated from highschool now but he went to a catholic highschool and we were fully aware before he went that they required specific uniforms. The students were aware as well so they knew what they could and could not wear. The uniform policy was strictly enforced. This was the schools way of making sure there was never any offensive clothing,half naked students of any kind of gang colours. Did the kids always like it...nope...but they knew when they enrolled. They went there because of the outstanding education they knew they would receive. Not only were the uniforms good at making it an equal playing field in regards to style....the kids couldnt make fun of anyone else's clothing...it was also great for school security. Anyone entering the school not in uniform stuck out so that they were approached immediately. No unauthorized kids looking for trouble got passed the front doors. They had a dress down day the last Friday of every month and my son never complained about the uniform. He was upset once because he got sent home for having one of those wallet chain things but he knew it was a violation because he had already been asked previously to remove it. I guess my point is if you are aware there is any kind of dress code at your childs school then you have two choices...adhere to it or switch schools. Why should your child be the only one that doesnt have to follow the rules set out for everyone?

[gwilks98]

Bah...you're 14, you're not allowed to have an opinion, much less express yourselves through clothing. There's nothing wrong with a dress code and you need to have the sense of respecting the rules. Violating school rules because you disagree with them is not the proper way to challenge them.
We're not talking about the school oppressing their right to safety or whether the menu is healthy enough. The school put a standard in place to avoid conflict and some little ass thought she was above what everyone else could adhere to.

And furthermore....your winnie the pooh socks suck. Don't wear those if you're over 6.