Standardized Arguments: Uniforms in Public Schools and the First Amendment - Essay Example

Standardized Arguments: Uniforms in Public Schools and the First Amendment Introduction As part of the introduction to this essay, it is of essence to write a background review of the main topic. In this regard, Caruso (1996, p. 23) wrote that, “There is increased implementation of school uniform policies in public schools within the United States, ever since Long Beach public school first introduced school uniforms in their school in the year 1994.” According to Ohio, State Commissioner of Common Schools (2012), 10 per cent of public schools in the country have already implemented this policy. However, over the past few years there have been widespread debates for and against school uniforms in public schools, with each side highlighting on the advantages as well as the disadvantages of uniforms in public schools. It is of essence to note that this essay will be inclined towards the debate against uniforms in public schools. This essay will present standardized arguments against uniform that are in the article under the subject heading of, Uniforms in Public Schools and the First Amendment: A Constitutional Analysis. The standardized arguments that are in this essay will be from the literature review and constitutional analysis, which are in the aforementioned article. Literature premises: argument against uniform a) Uniforms tend to restrict student, parent, and family rights from freedom of expression in dress. b) Urban youths, their parents, families, and community members may view dress codes and uniforms as restrictions on students’ cultural expressions of dressing. c) Uniforms restrict youth engagement in normal developmental task of identity experimentation with dress. d) Uniforms contribute to punitive zero tolerance in student discipline policies. e) Uniforms represent and encourage the interference of local and state lives in the private lives of students and parents. f) There is little empirical evidence to prove the effects of uniforms on academic achievement and social behaviour of students. Conclusion Public school students’ First Amendment right to free speech outweighs the interest of the state to eliminate the competition and expenses associated with some clothes, to increase self-respect, reduce discipline problems and violent behaviours that are seemingly associated with school uniforms (Mitchel and Knechtle, 2003). The first amendment premise: arguments against uniform a) The first amendment states that the congress shall not make any law that infringes upon the freedom of speech. b) Under the fourteenth amendment, the freedom of speech protection is enforceable in all states and local governments within the United States. Conclusion The first amendment right speaks in absolute terms; that is, the first amendment protects all speech that also includes dressing (Mitchel and Knechtle, 2003). Premises under types of speech: arguments against uniform a) The constitutional courts acknowledges two form of speech that include; pure and symbolic speech, b) The constitutional courts maintain that all speech categorized as verbal or pure speech receive some form of first amendment protection. c) The constitutional courts consider a nonverbal act as a symbolic speech if it contains some form of communicative value d) The constitutional courts protect some forms of conduct as expressive symbolic speech within the meaning of the first amendment. Conclusion Conduct, and not solely words, can communicate self-expression and dress constitutes symbolic speech. Conclusively, dress is conduct where it conveys message about the person and suggest countless qualities about identity, attitudes, values, and moods. Secondly, individuals’ dress communicates nonverbally to others and this can affect the way others view individuals, and quite possibly, the way that individual view himself or herself (Mitchel and Knechtle, 2003). Summarily, clothes meets all the criteria for a type of speech, which is under protection by the first amendment and therefore, forcing public schools’ students to wear uniform is an infringement upon their freedom of speech of which the first amendment of the constitution guarantees. Premises under type of restrictions: arguments against uniform a) Content-based restrictions and content-neutral restrictions, qualify as symbolic speech that are worthy of first amendment protection. b) Content-based regulations involve the elimination of a specific conduct by prohibiting the expression of one’s viewpoint. c) School uniform statues do not prohibit certain categories of dress; rather, they completely ban all choices in dress. d) Content-neutral regulations are those that prohibit speech to avoid negative behavior unconnected to the content of the speech. e) Content-neutral regulations often interfere with speech by regulation the time, place, and manner of speech. f) A regulation whose purpose is unrelated to the content of the expression is content –neutral, despite an incidental effect of some speakers or message. g) School uniforms fall under the content-neutral regulations because they permit a complete ban and do not select between viewpoints. Conclusion Content-based restrictions normally prohibit a single form of speech and not all forms of speech, and considering all the parameters that the courts use to analyze the constitutionality of regulations on expressions, it is highly unlikely that the court can consider a total ban on expression through dress, under the content-based regulations. School uniforms statue is not selecting between viewpoints and therefore, the statues do not subscribed to the content-based regulations. However, school uniform statues satisfy the Spence test and they are symbolic speech of which the U.S’ constitution protects under the first amendment (Mitchel and Knechtle, 2003). Conclusively, school uniforms do not fall under the content-based regulations and even under the content-neutral regulations; the school uniforms are not enforceable because they infringe upon the freedom of symbolic speech (Mitchel and Knechtle, 2003). Premises under the O’Brien analysis: arguments against uniform a) Statues regulating symbolic speech will be justified if it is within the government’s interest. b) Statues regulating symbolic speech will be justified if it furthers an important or substantial government interest. c) Statues regulating symbolic speech will be justified if the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression d) Statues regulating symbolic speech will be justified if the incidental restriction on first amendment rights is no greater than necessary to further that interest. Conclusion When weighing the possible likelihood of eliminating school violence, creating an environment conducive for learning, structuring a level playing field, reducing competition, and enhancing school pride and self-esteem versus revoking the freedom of children to select their school wardrobe, it is evident that the sides of the scales are not even close to being in balance. Therefore, statues regulating symbolic speech of dress cannot be justified because there is no likelihood that school uniforms can guarantee all of the previously mentioned government interests. Furthermore, there is not enough empirical evidence that can prove that school uniforms can guarantee the above listed government interests (Mitchel and Knechtle, 2003). The premise under the context affecting the first amendment rights: argument against a) The context in which the symbolic speech occurs would be applicable in determining whether a content-neutral government regulation violates the first amendment. Conclusion Therefore, not wearing a school uniform inside a school compound even thou it can be interpreted differently by others, the conduct still fall under the scope of protected speech. This is because, in the school environment, the administrators allow and even encourage students to exercise their freedom of speech and not wearing the school uniform is a part of symbolic expression/ speech through the dress or clothes of which the students exercise their right to freedom of speech (Mitchel and Knechtle, 2003). The premises under the limitation of first amendment rights of minors: arguments against a) First amendment rights apply to all U.S citizens, but the government may limit these rights depending on the class of citizens involved. b) The government has broad discretion in limiting the rights of children than adults. c) The state has power to control the conduct of children that reaches beyond its scope of authority over adults. d) The first amendment limits the government’s ability to regulate speech less stringently when public school students’ first amendment rights are involved. e) The courts usually examine the necessity of the regulation that affects children’s freedom of speech for maintaining the classroom environment. f) The courts have not given school districts unlimited discretion in determining which speech is permissible. g) Public school administrators may not prohibit speech merely because they disagree with message of the speech. Conclusion Personal intercommunication is an integral part of the education process. Therefore, first amendment rights apply in all situations in which students seek to express themselves freely on the school campus, including in the cafeteria, and hallways, or during extracurricular activities (Mitchel and Knechtle, 2003). Overall conclusion of the essay The essay has highlighted on clear arguments against uniforms and in its conclusion, it will further refer to the argument given by Tiersma (1993) that, uniforms hinder students from expressing themselves and embracing their own individualism. Secondly, Tiersma (1993) states that, by prohibiting students from expressing their individualism and their belief in sub-cultures such as, punk, hip-hop, or preppy, it could negatively affect the transition of the students from childhood to adulthood. This is because the student socialization is controlled by the school system through the use of uniforms and will make him or her unprepared for the real world where individual are judged based on various aspects that include their appearances. Thirdly, uniforms overlook the crucial importance that, for students to learn effectively they have to be in a comfortable environment and this also includes what they are wearing, and not all students are comfortable in uniforms. References Caruso, P. (1996). Individuality vs. conformity: The issue behind school uniforms. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulleting, 80 (58), 83-88 Mitchel, H. and Knechtle, J. (2003). Uniforms in Public Schools and the First Amendment: A Constitutional Analysis. The Journal of Negro Education, 72 (4), 487-494. Ohio. State Commissioner of Common Schools. (2012). A Uniform Course Study in Agriculture for the Elementary Schools in Ohio. Ohio. Forgotten Book Publishers Tiersma, P. (1993). Nonverbal communication and the freedom of speech. Wisconsin Law Review, 6, 1525-1589 Read More