School Uniforms Are Inefficient And Unnecessary Summary

One of the biggest controversies in the United States is whether or not public school students

In the article “How Ugly Schools Uniforms Will Save Education” by Belinda Luscombe found in Time, the author explains how various school problems which lead to crime and disobedience of law could be solved by introducing school uniforms. There are often arguments about what to wear at school. “It's a debate that sucks up a lot of time for school administrators. And parents. But it's the world's easiest education problem to solve: school uniforms.” The author's main point is to make people aware of the need of school uniforms and how it helps solve many crucial problems.

The debate about public school uniforms in America is an issue that has been around for a very long time. This issue was even mentioned by President Bill Clinton in a previous State of the Union address in 1996. In his 1996 State of the Union Address, President Clinton decreed,” I challenge all of our schools to teach character education, to teach good values and good citizenship and if it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms” (Clinton 1996). Public schools requiring mandatory uniforms for their students are a major topic as it deals with moral and economic concerns about how America’s public schools are operated.

The 1960’s was the height of many civil rights and anti-war protests. During this time, student activist became more radical. It began mostly on college campuses when students would organize “teach-ins” to express their opposition to the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case called Tinker v. Des Moines. This case changed the history of America because it gave students freedom to voice their opinions. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the question of whether or not the First Amendment’s free speech rights extend to students’ symbolic speech can be analyzed by examining the background, considering the arguments, and reviewing the impact.

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

Significance: The case Tinker v Des Moines broadens the interpretation of student’s First Amendment rights. The students do not shed their First Amendment right when they enter school grounds. Thus extending their right of free speech, press, etc. in their school. They have the ability to freely speak about issues in their schools, etc. However, their rights are still limited in a way their speech may not disturb the learning of

The Tinker vs. Des Moines case helped determined and interpret legal rights of young citizens for the first time. A group of students made a decision to wear black armbands to school to support a peace establishing agreement during the Vietnam War. As a result, the participating students; Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and John Tinker got suspended for their actions (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District).The school outlawed and attempted to penalize petitioners for a “silent, passive expression of opinion”, that didn’t cause any commotion (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist). The parents decided to sue the school for disrespecting the student’s constitutional rights of expression.

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

In 1969, a group of students filed a lawsuit against their school district claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated because the school district wrote a policy that prohibited them from wearing black armbands in a silent protest of the Vietnam War. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) ruled that students are entitled to their First Amendment rights as long as they are not causing a disruption to the school environment. This paper outlines the procedure and rulings in the case as well as other legal rulings that have expanded on when censorship of students is protected in public school settings as well as provides a personal reflection on how such matters can impact my future as a school administrator.

The case of Tinker vs. Des Moines demonstrated the need to find a balance for students and staff in schools to have protection under not just the first amendment, but all of them, while still giving schools authority. John Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore armbands to school to protest their hostilities for the Vietnam War. They were suspended from the school for wearing them. The school board decided it was too much of a disruption for the school. Eventually the case was then taken to court by the fathers of the protestors. The case Tinker vs. Des Moines is significant even today, for it shows that not always will constitutional rights win in the court of law.

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

The Tinker case of 1969 expanded students’ 1st Amendment rights in school and established the Tinker Test for future cases, whereas, if there was not a disturbance, and others were let alone, students First Amendment rights were intact. LaMorte (2012) notes “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” (p. 87). Freedom to express societal, political, and/or economic issues even if they are unpopular, are permitted in school as long as work is not disrupted and there are no threats of violence. Tinker’s right to wear an armband protesting the Vietnam War, a controversial societal issue, was upheld and begin the trend toward promoting students’ 1st Amendment rights in schools.

The idea of uniforms being required for public school students has been a widely controversial topic in the recent past. In the 2003-2004 school year, only one in eight public schools required students to wear uniforms (ProConorg Headlines). In the 2013-2014 school year, one in five public schools required students to wear uniforms (ProConorg Headlines). This essay will discuss the reasons that uniforms restrict the individuality of students, burdens families that cannot afford two sets of clothes for each of their children (Farrell), and serve little to none purpose in benefitting the education of students. Uniforms are meant for the workforce, not school children.

“Students … [do not] shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gates.”

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