posted by (anonymous) at 10:24am on 2009-03-20
Is the ACLU going to go after publicly-funded schools that require uniforms next? (There are some; they're usually charter schools funded by municipal block grants, or magnet schools.) I'm afraid I really don't see much of a difference between a school enforcing one kind of dress code or another, as long as it applies equally to all students. No rainbows means no rainbows, gay, straight, or polka-dotted.

I don't particularly agree with curtailing students' expression in school, but on the other hand, I don't exactly see that there's a bright line between saying "No, you can't wear a rainbow" and "No, you can't come to school in a see-through top and Daisy Duke shorts," or "No, you can't come to school barefoot and wearing only a sarong," and schools do the latter all the time.
 
posted by (anonymous) at 11:57pm on 2009-03-20
I don't believe the school had a rule against wearing rainbows before someone came in with a rainbow wristband with a positive gay message. The principle stated it was because some teachers were offended. That's selective enforcement, and clearly censorship-driven.

-- Selki on LJ
 
posted by (anonymous) at 08:12am on 2009-03-21
I do have to disagree totally on any uniform question for several reasons:

Uniform - "one form" - means that all students have to comply equally.
Also, buying 2 sets of uniforms (wear one, wash one) means a huge
diminution of expenses - a bonus for poor parents. It also cuts down
on peer pressure, bullying, and teaches children that school is for
learning. The whole "self-expression" thing is fabulous - and can be
done outside of school where it doesn't (as it sometimes does)
interfere with schoolwork..

Links

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31