Dress+Code

**ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDE TO DRESS CODES** **1.** Local school dress codes developed by the school be approved by the board of education. Faculty, students parents, and citizens should be involed in the formulation of such regulations. 2. Policies and regulations governing dress should be communiated and discussed with students and parents. 3. Dress codes will be supported by the courts only when there is evidence that they are reasonable. 4. Dress and appearance restrictions based on taste, style, and fashion rather than healthy, safety, and order will not pass scrutiny. 5. Appearance that does not conform to rudiments of deceny may be regulated. 6. Dress that is considered vulgar or that mocks others on the basis of race, gender, religion, color or national origin my be prohibited
 * Student Dress Code Board Code 7312**

Yes, in some circumstances. The clothing must constitute symbolic speech representing a student's statement of either political or religious expression ( Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969); see also Appeal of Conley , 34 Ed Dept Rep 376 (1995); Appeal of Mangaroo , 33 Ed Dept Rep 286 (1993); Appeal of Pintka , 33 Ed Dept Rep 228 (1993)). It also must be neither disruptive of the educational process or in conflict with the rights of others ( Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist. ; see also Appeal of Pintka ) nor lewd, vulgar, or offensive ( Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986); see also Appeal of Pintka).
 * 22:17. Do free speech protections extend to the way students dress while they attend school?**

For example, where school officials ordered a student not to wear a pro-life t-shirt that stated "Abortion is Homicide" a court awarded the student preliminary injunctive relief preventing enforcement of the district's dress code against him. According to the court, the school officials objected to the contents of the t-shirt and there was insufficient evidence of disruption or interference with the rights of other students ( K.D. v. Fillmore CSD, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33871 (W.D.N.Y. 2005)). Similarly, another court also granted a preliminary injunction to a student who wanted to wear a t-shirt that said "Be Happy Not Gay" after finding the statement was only tepidly negative and it was highly speculative to presume the t-shirt would provoke substantial disruption ( Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist . #204, 523 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2008)).

**22:18. What types of free speech restrictions apply to a school district's adoption of a student dress code?** Student dress codes may not suppress expressions that are entitled to free speech protections (see 22:17 ). However, a student dress code that banned all shirts with printed messages except those related to district-sponsored curricular clubs, organizations, athletic teams or school spirit approved by a school principal was found to be content neutral and, therefore, constitutionally permissible ( Palmer v. Waxahachie Indep. Sch. Dist., 579 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2009)).

In addition, student dress codes may not be vague, subjective, or overly broad ( Appeal of Parsons, 32 Ed Dept Rep 672 (1993); see also Newsom v. Albemarle Cnty. Sch. Bd. , 354 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2003); Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Reg l Bd. of Educ., 307 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2003)). A student dress code might be overly broad and therefore unconstitutional if, for example, it simply bans all clothing with weapons-related messages. Such a ban also would prohibit lawful non-violent and non-threatening symbols such as the fighting insignia of military units in overseas operations in which student family members might serve ( Newsom v. Albemarle Cnty. Sch. Bd. ; see also Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Regional Bd. of Educ. ). However, a student dress code provision stating no tolerance for clothing or accessories that have inappropriate symbolism, especially that which discriminates against other students based on race, religion or sex and a specific rule banning displays of the confederate flag was found not to be unconstitutionally over broad or vague ( A.M. v. Cash, 585 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2009)).

**22:19. Are there restrictions other than free speech considerations that limit the ability of school districts to regulate student dress at school?**

Yes. The commissioner of education has indicated that school districts may not regulate the way students dress while in school based solely on fashion or taste considerations ( Appeal of Pintka, 33 Ed Dept Rep 228 (1993)). Instead, student dress codes must address legitimate educational concerns, such as teaching socially appropriate behavior, eliminating potential health or safety hazards, ensuring the integrity of the educational process, or avoiding school violence ( Id .). Such would be the case if a student refuses to wear long pants in a lab area ( Appeal of Bartlett, 33 Ed Dept Rep 234 (1993)), or remove his hat during a class exercise on demonstrating personal appearance as part of learning how to present one-self in a competitive job market and during a job interview ( Appeal of Conley , 34 Ed Dept Rep 376 (1995)). Similarly, a federal appellate court upheld a student dress code that prohibited the wearing of pierced jewelry other than in the ear at school based on a legitimate safety concern ( Bar-Navon v. Brevard Cnty. Sch. Bd., 290 F.Appx. 273 (11th Cir. 2008)).

In addition, school districts must develop their student dress code in consultation with teachers, administrators, other school services professionals, students, and parents (8 NYCRR 100.2(l)(2)(i), (ii)(a)) to ensure it reflects current community standards on proper decorum and deportment ( Appeal of Pintka ; see also Appeal of Phillips, 38 Ed Dept Rep 297 (1998)).

**22:20. Can school districts prohibit students from wearing symbols of political or controversial significance?**

Not generally. As in the case of spoken statements (see 22:6 ), students have a right to wear or display buttons, armbands, flags, decals, or other badges that are symbolic of personal expression. However, the wearing of such symbols may not materially and substantially interfere with the orderly process of the school or the rights of others ( Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)). Accordingly, courts have upheld bans on displays of the confederate flag on school grounds in districts with documented hostile racial relations among students ( A.M. v. Cash, 585 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2009); B.W.A. v. Farmington R-7 Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2009); Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2008)).

In addition, such symbols may not contain lewd, vulgar, or indecent material (see Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)). Thus, a school district may take disciplinary action against a student who wears clothing displaying a phallic symbol and sexual metaphors without violating the student's free speech rights ( Appeal of Parsons, 32 Ed Dept Rep 672 (1993)). Neither may such symbols advocate illegal drug use (see Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)).

**22:21. Can school districts prohibit students from wearing gang-related clothing and accessories from school premises?**

It depends. School districts may ban such items if there is evidence of gang presence, activity, and violence in the schools that might reasonably lead school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of school activities. A broad ban on gang-related apparel such as rosaries or sports team logos, or the wearing of earrings by male students would violate student First Amendment rights absent connection of such items or the student wearing them to any gang ( Grzywna v. Schenectady City Sch. Dist., 489 F.Supp.2d 139 (N.D.N.Y. 2006); see Chalifoux v. New Caney Indep. Sch. Dist. , 976 F.Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997); Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified Sch. Dist. , 827 F.Supp. 1459 (C.D. Cal. 1993); Olesen v. Bd. of Educ. of Sch. Dist. No. 228 , 676 F.Supp 820 (N.D. Ill. 1987)). So would a ban on clothing with messages that might create ill will, such as the Top Ten Reasons You Might Be a Redneck Fan, but which are not related to gangs at a particular school ( Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Regl Bd. of Educ., 307 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2002)).

In addition, school rules banning gang-related clothing and accessories from school can violate student First Amendment rights if they are vague. For example, it is not sufficient to merely state that [g]ang related activities such as display of colors, symbols, signals, signs, etc., will not be tolerated on school grounds. Such a bare statement fails to provide adequate notice regarding unacceptable conduct, or offer clear guidance of its application ( Stephenson v. Davenport Cmty. Sch. Dist., 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Lopez v. Bay Shore UFSD, 668 F.Supp.2d 406 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)). On the other hand, a school rule prohibiting specific activities, such as membership recruitment, and threatening or intimidating students to commit acts in furtherance of gang purposes would be sufficiently clear as to what activities are prohibited ( Fuller v. Decatur Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. No. 61, 251 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2001)).

Not generally. The commissioner of education has ruled that under New York law, a school district lacks authority to compel students to wear a uniform or particular kind of clothing or force exclusion from school ( Appeal of Dalrymple, 5 Ed Dept Rep 113 (1966)). However a federal district court upheld a New York City School District policy mandating that students in prekindergarten through grade 8 wear a uniform, but which also allowed parents to secure an exception from that mandate. In addition, the policy provided that discipline for noncompliance could not include suspension from class or school, or affect an academic grade or participation in an extracurricular activity. Instead, the policy limited corrective measures to parent or student-teacher conferences and reprimands ( Lipsman v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3574 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)).
 * 22:22. May school districts require that students wear a school uniform?**

Concerning the possibility that a school uniform policy might violate student First Amendment rights, one federal appellate court ruled that a mandatory school uniform policy implemented to reduce student behavior problems and improve the educational process did not violate such rights ( Canady v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 240 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Jacobs v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 526 F.3d 419 (9th Cir. 2008); Blau v. Ft. Thomas Pub. Sch. Dist., 401 F3d 381 (6th Cir. 2005)). According to an Arizona state court, a mandatory uniform policy that allowed students who did not wish to wear a uniform to transfer to another district school without such a policy or to a school outside the district did not violate student First Amendment rights either ( Phoenix Elem. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Green, 943 P.2d 836 (Ariz. App. Div. 2, 1997)). **Hornell CSD** Student’s dress shall be **safe, appropriate and not disrupt or interfere with the educational** process. Some examples of inappropriate clothing would be: high cut shorts, plunging necklines, see-through clothing, baggy pants with underwear showing, indecently torn clothing. These examples are not intended to be a complete list and final determination is made by the building administration on an individual basis. 2. Footwear is required at all times. Footwear that is a safety hazard will not be allowed. 3. Any item which by slogan or illustration is vulgar, gang-related, obscene, libelous or denigrate others on account of race, color, religion, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or disability is not acceptable attire for school. 4. Clothing that promotes and/or endorses the use of alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs and/or encourages other illegal or violent activities is unacceptable. 5. Clothing which is indecently patched or torn should not be worn to school. Underwear will be completely covered at all times.


 * STUDENT DRESS CODE Southwestern CSD**

The responsibility for the dress and appearance of students shall rest with individual students and parents. They have the right to determine how the student shall dress, provided that such attire does not interfere with the operation of the school or infringe upon the general health, safety and welfare of District students or employees. Student dress and appearance must be in accordance with the The administration is authorized to take action in instances where individual dress does not meet these stated requirements. While the school administration may require students participating in physical education classes to wear certain types of clothing such as sneakers, socks, shorts, and tee shirts, they may not prescribe a specific brand which students must wear. This policy does not mean that student, faculty, or parent groups may not recommend appropriate dress for school or special occasions. It means that a student shall not be prevented from attending school or a school function, or otherwise be discriminated against, so long as his/her dress and appearance meet the above requirements.

**STUDENT CONDUCT 7312 STUDENT DRESS CODE Amherst** The responsibility for the dress and appearance of students shall rest with individual students and parents. They have the right to determine how the student shall dress, provided that such attire does not interfere with the operation of the school or infringe upon the general health, safety and welfare of District students or employees. Student dress and appearance must be in accordance with the //District Code of Conduct//. The administration is authorized to take action in instances where individual dress does not meet these stated requirements.

While the school administration may require students participating in physical education classes to wear certain types of clothing such as sneakers, socks, shorts, and tee shirts, they may not prescribe a specific brand which students must wear.

This policy does not mean that student, faculty, or parent groups may not recommend appropriate dress for school or special occasions. It means that a student shall not be prevented from attending school or a school function, or otherwise be discriminated against, so long as his/her dress and appearance meet the above requirements. A school function shall mean a school-sponsored or school-authorized extracurricular event or activity regardless of where such event or activity takes place, including any event or activity that may take place in another state.