Codified in Convolution

undress it

The school dress code is regularly challenged, contested, or taken to court by junior high and high school students around America itching to exercise the First Amendment, the only constitutional law that relevantly applies to school-related affairs. A favorite topic of grade school essays,  school dress code seems to be a topic of perpetual debate. It is apparent that I, among many others, am a participant in this heated argument.

For many students across the United States, personal expression often fails to be verbal and usually takes form on a screen tee. However, incendiary responses to Mark Keppel High School’s newly updated dress code for the 2011-2012 school year have incited much disagreement among the student body. Female students are irked at the “mid-thigh or below” regulation for shorts, and a male student has expressed outcry in particular via Facebook regarding the prohibiting of male students to dress in muscle shirts (male equivalent of a tank top). In an attempt to rouse the student body to take action via petition, he has drawn on values stated in the Declaration of Independence and has asserted that the dress code is “sexist.”

The school regulations are by no means extreme. Many high schools around America have incorporated uniforms or only allow a narrow set of garments in a limited number of colors. But when a school instills a “free dress” policy, some form of backlash from any attempt to incorporate a “dress code” on top of the free dress policy should be expected; students see it as a laughable contradiction – wearing anything you want, except you can’t wear anything you want. Evenhanded enforcement of dress code is also necessary to prevent ambiguity/dissent among student opinion.

With the most controversial court cases on school dress code usually about the text of a shirt/accessory (see here and here), it is a challenge to argue that students have a right to uphold their lawful ability to wear short shorts or male tank tops in defense of any sort of “expression.” The school asserts that such clothes are a “distraction to the learning process,” educational jargon to root out any undesired object/event that may occur on school campuses. One student calls the reasoning a ‘carte blanche,’ and it is indeed, for both students and staff. Shorts with a pant length of less than 10 inches and shirts that reveal male shoulders, apparently, will create a decline in academic achievement.

It is imperative to review official codifications on dress code in California schools when discussing the issue. Notably, students’ rights on free expression on attire are defended by the landmark 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which incorporated the 14th amendment’s statement that no “State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...”

California Education Code Section 35183 (CEC § 35183) explains the following on dress:

• "Gang-related apparel” is strictly forbidden.
• Uniform policies may be enforced under the judgments of each individual school “to facilitate and maintain an effective learning environment.”
• Administrators cannot ban club (“nationally recognized youth organization”) attire on meeting days.
• "Both students and staff of the primary, elementary, junior and senior high school campuses have the constitutional right to be safe and secure in their persons at school.”

Alhambra Unified School District’s District Board Policy Section 5132 states:

• "Students' clothing must not present a health or safety hazard or a distraction which would interfere with the educational process.”

Alhambra Unified School District’s “Appearance/Dress Standards” section in page 16 of the AUSD Handbook for Parents and Students 2011-2012 denotes several specific rules regarding dress, including:

• "Clothing shall be [of] appropriate size, not too large or small or revealing”
• "Light (not too dark or excessive) make-up is permitted for students in grades 7-8.”
• "No clothing revealing bare shoulders.”
• "Any clothing which disrupts the educational process is prohibited.”
• Minimum actions range from warnings and changing clothes; maximum action is suspension.

The section also notes that “students shall not be allowed to wear buttons, badges, clothing or other insignia which”:

• "Are obscene.”
• "Are libelous or slanderous.”
• "Incite students, express or advocate racial, ethnic, sexual or religious prejudice so as to contribute to conflict or … unlawful acts on school premises…”
• "Advertise alcohol, tobacco or drugs.”

If we are to correspond with the administration’s actions with the following local and regional codes, MKHS is actually being too lenient on dress code, with disproportionate time and effort invested on the most visible violations of short length and such. Some accusations, statements, and facts:

• The writer has observed a student wearing a shirt from Mexico tourism hotspot Puerto Vallarta evidently advocating alcohol consumption. The administration has not taken any action.
• The writer has worn a shirt on campus with the text and logo of Dutch beer Heineken on numerous occasions. The administration has not taken any action. note: The writer does not advocate underage alcohol consumption in any way, shape, or form.
• The writer has observed a student with a pin on his backpack stating “that’s what she said,” which could be logically argued as being able to “incite … sexual prejudice.” The administration has not taken any action.
• Peers have explained that larger-bodied students are being discriminated against: between a thinner female student and her larger counterpart, both wearing shorts breaking the dress code, the larger figure has a higher chance of being “caught” by “narcs” (student services staff) who will force them to change into PE shorts, usually. 
• The male student mentioned above again cites gender discrimination against men in regards to wearing clothes with bare shoulders: females students are allowed to wear tank tops, while male students are given little leeway on the issue.
• The administration seems to be conducting minimal enforcement of sagging jeans which fail to “conceal undergarments at all times” (AUSD Handbook).
• Because Hi-Y and Tri-Hi-Y clubs in the WSGV YMCA have been disbanded, MKHS administration now has the authority to ban all ‘social club’ attire on school campus. Due to negligent amount of questionable behavior, the administration has taken little or no action on the issue.
• A male student who was told to change out of his sleeveless shirt has explained that the administration’s implied reasoning was the student’s excess body hair.
• Girls that wear spandex leggings under code-breaking shorts are still required to change out of the shorts.

These observations and codifications should allow the reader to draw a few conclusions about the attitudes of the school on dress:

• Female revealing of bare shoulders do not “distract from the learning process,” but is distracting when shoulder-revealing garments are worn by men.
• BMI is a determining factor in incriminating the female student on her legitimacy to wear shorts
• T-shirt designs advocating or advertising alcohol are less dire an issue than tank tops or shorts
• Women who wear skin-revealing shorts are a bigger impedance to the “learning process” then men who reveal their underwear
• Social conservatism is a deciding factor in whether the learning process is disrupted.

Besides the overtly subjective matter of dress code enforcement in MKHS, there are other factors that render the enforcement illogical:

• Male muscle shirts, female tank tops, and short shorts do not violate any other students’ “constitutional right to be safe and secure in their persons at school” (CEC § 35183)
• Nor do they “present a health or safety hazard or a distraction which would interfere with the educational process.” API scores have seen steady improvement for the last few years, concurrent with the short shorts fashion trend.

However, some existing codes do make the administration’s imposing of negative consequences on violations of said dress legitimate, as students cannot wear clothing that is “not too large or small or revealing,” which implies the bare shoulders statement. Nebulous statements such as "Any clothing which disrupts the educational process is prohibited” leave much space for a school to make their own decisions restricting dress and much more rationale for a student to challenge the logic behind any decision on dress code. Other codes, such as permission for “students in grades 7-8” to use “light makeup,” demonstrate gaping loopholes in district policy that can be exploited by both students and staff.

The MKHS administration seems to be appropriately doing its job of rule enforcement, but it apparently holds a double standard regarding dress code regulation: some rules are strictly enforced, more serious violations are left unchecked, and the same rules are not being enforced justly and correctly. These actions will prove detrimental in the administration’s efforts to build trust with the student body, a vital relationship that should best be symbiotic. Many a student may ask, is this the right way to repay us for the steady climb in API scores?

SAT Vocabulary:

1. Apparent – adj. easily understood
2. Incendiary - n. chemical or person who starts a fire-literally or figuratively.
3. Instill – v. to infuse
4. Ambiguity – adj. having a double meaning.
5. Dissent – n. disagreement
6. Denote - v. to designate by word or mark.
7. Lenient – adj. not harsh
8. Nebulous – adj. vaguely defined, cloudy
9. Detrimental – adj. causing damage, depreciation, or loss.