Student Rights Forum
Best Past Posts
on the
School Dress Code Protest.
WARNING!! This forum promotes freedom of speech.
Some of the posts may contain harsh language and profanity.
All young children
and anyone else who might be easily offended
must STOP now and leave this site by clicking HERE!
Thank you.
Some of the most interesting posts in the Student Rights Forum concerned the Santa Barbara
School Dress Code Protest.
These have been saved here for history.
This was the first post concerning the proposed student dress code:
From: Zardaz
Date: 19 Aug 1997
Has everybody seen the letter which was sent home about the new dress code the school board will enact one week before school starts? What is this, a school or a Nazi concentration camp? Doesn't the school board believe in the US Constitution? Every day the thought police will examine your t-shirt, backpack, etc. for graphics which THEY believe are distasteful or controversial and should be BANNED from the view of impressionable, weak minded students. The letter sent home shows the obvious problem that is going to occur with enforcement of the dress code because it is VAGUE and it will be left up to individual school enforcers to police the students and cite them for violations. Also, I predict that some fanatic students are going to be complaining that others are violating the dress code by wearing clothes or carrying backpacks with graphics that the fanatics believe are provocative and violate their moral or religious beliefs. And of course the school board thinks it has come up with a great plan that will solve the problems of education. What the hell is going on here!?!
From: Azag-Thoth
Date: 19 Aug 1997
They aren't making you wear uniforms you know.
From: Speedie
Date: 19 Aug 1997
Well, fukwit, the SB school board is pushing uniforms at one of the SB middle schools. Many of the same people want uniforms in all SB schools. And what's the difference from a student's rights standpoint between uniforms and a dress code that is so vague that it makes any image a violation just because a teacher thinks it's inappropriate?
From: Simply Obnoxious
Date: 19 Aug 1997
If you are at all disturbed by the possible new dress code in the Santa Barbara School District, please join us when we picket and protest at the School Board Meeting on Aug. 27 . Show your support for this worthy cause.
From: Val
Date: 20 Aug 1997
Check this out. http://www.sbceo.k12.ca.us/sbhighsd/.
Anybody find a web site with meeting dates, agenda, board members e-mail, etc? Or does the board prefer to be a secret society?
From: Simply Obnoxious
Date: 20 Aug 1997
WE FOUND OUT WHERE THEY MEET! We called the Superintendent's Office and found out that the School Board
meets in the East wing of Santa Barbara Junior High. the Meeting is at 7:00 p.m. on Aug 27. We should meet at least by 6:00.
From: Val
Date: 21 Aug 1997
Yes, be there if you care about your liberty! And even if you don't care about your liberty, be there anyway, for the following reasons: 1. Support the people who care more about your liberty than you do. 2. You don't have anything better to do anyway. 3. It will be entertaining to watch some board members contrive to explain how the sacrifice of your constitutional rights will somehow solve the problems of public education in SB. And, perhaps most important, 4. After this little depiction of elected representative democracy, SB school board style, everybody can meet somewhere downtown for some refreshments!!
From: Simply Obnoxious
Date: 21 Aug 1997
Thanks for your support. Look for us and our Lime Green flyers around town and at SBHS this morning. We are going to attempt to get a copy of the official proposal and the agenda for the meeting. We better know exactly what we are getting into.
In my opinion even if they still pass the new policy at least we DID SOMETHING. Then we can complain because we tried to do something about it and they did not listen.
From: Max
Date: 21 Aug 1997
Are these not the same school board members that were alarmed and called for the formation of a coalition of parents, teachers and political leaders to address a rapidly growing problem: the alarmingly low quality of teenage suicide notes in SB??
From: Venus
Date: 23 Aug 1997
I want to respond to the comments that the HS dress code is no more severe than the one we had to live with in JH. A dress code, (or a book list, or curriculum, library, etc.) that is appropriate for a JH should not be the standard for HS. Otherwise HS students can never have a school experience that is more interesting and mature than would be suitable for an immature and impressionable twelve year old.
From: R. Daneel Olivaw
Date: 22 Aug 1997
I do not yet know. First, I may be out of town at that point, and
second, I have yet to make up my mind about the dress code.
It does not seem to me to be particularly harsher than that at
the Jr. High School, but this all depends on how the code is
enforced. Still, it would interest me to listen to the debate.
From: Val
Date: 22 Aug 1997
R. Daneel, how does the saying go? Something like "First
they knocked at my neighbors door and took him away, but I did
not protest because it wasn't me. Then they knocked at my
brother's door and took him away, but I remained silent because
it
wasn't me. Then they knocked at my door."
From: R. Daneel Olivaw
Date: 22 Aug 1997
It is somewhat longer than that, so I will not quote it in its
entirety. What, however, does this quote have to do with my
wishing
further matter on the subject before I make my mind up? It is, of
course, hurtful to limit freedom of expression, but there are
some modes of expression that are hurtful as well. It seems to me
that the dangers of this code lie in the wording. 'Groups with
histories of violence,' include practically every group in
existance, so a student wearing a shamrock would be as
susceptible to
punishment as a student wearing the Confederate flag. But having
teenagers fight over gang signs worn on clothing is
undesirable as well. Also, the occurances at San Marcos are
enough to pursuade me that racial violence is not absent in the
student body.
I have acually not yet heard many real objections to the dress
code. I heard someone complain about bare mid-drifts being
banned, but they were banned at SBJH, too.
From: igit
Date: 22 Aug 1997
Hey Rotifer, you being one of the regulars to this forum, you gotta be there, right???
From: Rotifer
Date: 22 Aug 1997
I want (need) to know who's organising this. Who is Simply Obnoxous? Who is Val? And who are you, igit? Who started this idea and who is planning it??? I can probably go if someone gives me a ride. I don't really understand why it's such a big deal.
How is this dress code different from last year at SBJHS? I'll protest if we ever have to wear uniforms.
These are the reasons (I can be convinced otherwise, with some motivation and a ride) that I am probably not going: I don't wear anything the code restricts, I'm trying not to think about school (and when I do think about school, more threatening things come to mind than the dress code that almost every school has and I've lived with, without much thought, since I startedschool.), and, insult me if you want, but I'm just not a doer. I just don't go out do things that unless I really want to. And besides, I'd have to explain it all to my parents, which I do not enjoy.
Obviously, us kids do not have the same rights as adults. That is something we cannot change because most adults think it is good. And, as someone else is saying, there are worse things than a dress code that probably won't have much effect on us anyway
From: igit
Date: 22 Aug 1997
EXACTLY as said by the Jews of Western Europe in 1936.
From: Rotifer
Date: 22 Aug 1997
EXACTLY? Wow, you really know your history. THANKS A LOT FOR NOT ANSWERING ANY OF MY QUESTIONS AND DISCOURAGING ME FROM DOING SOMETHING YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO DO!!!
From: Chainsaw
Date: 22 Aug 1997
Hey, Ladies and Gentlemen, please take it easy. Igit, I know you have strong feelings about this, but not so harsh. Remember, you are both essentially on the same side because you are both students. And also remember, it's a free country, which means anybody is also free NOT to participate if that is what they decide is best for them.
At this point I am looking forward to seeing the actual language of the code. I hope you guys can post it soon. I suggest that no final decision can be made by anybody until they see the code for themselves.
From: Rotifer
Date: 22 Aug 1997
Thanks, Chainsaw. Obviously igit did not understand that I'm keeping an open mind, which I tried to make clear in my post. Unfortunately he has pretty much discouraged me from going, by not answering my questions and not acknowledging my open mindedness. Evidently he only read the last part of the post.
From: Velfire
Date: 23 Aug 1997
I believe that I may be able to help with some of your questions. Matt and his sister are organising this, and I believe that SIMPLY OBNOXIOUS may be Matt's sister (Courtney is her name, right?). Anyway, I'll be going, if at all possible, and it would be good to see you (along with many others) there, too. Before they start knocking on your door, raise what pathetic voice you have, and maybe if there's enough squeaking, the giants will listen, and not step on us mice down here.
From: Simply Obnoxious
Date: 24 Aug 1997
You are almost correct. Simply Obnoxious is me (Courtney, Matt's sister) and my friend Lea Anna. We are going to be seniors at SBHS this year and when I read the letter that went home I freaked out and had the idea to show up at the meeting(in a large group) to show what our feelings are about the issue.
From: omnimax
Date: 22 Aug 1997
Face it. No one will care about a couple 14-year old nerds who want to be able to wear their "Penises on Parade" T-Shirts to school. No offense to 14-year old nerds, I myself am one. Consider this: They can already conduct random locker searches, mandatory drug tests, strip searches. Why don't you seem to be upset about those basic rights?
From: S. O.
Date: 22 Aug 1997
You have missed the point. There are all sorts of reasons to go out their and try to make a difference. There is a pretty good chance that the school board will just ignore us but at least we are going to do something. We are not going to sit on our butt's and watch our schools become more and more like prisons. Have you even read the note that went home? I am sure if you read it more carefully you will see that while some parts are reasonable others are not. What we want is a dress code that allows the students to still express themselves and is reasonable. We also think that people should be punished for their actions not their clothes. T-SHIRTS DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES. Rage Against The Rising Tide Of Conformity!
From: omnimax
Date: 22 Aug 1997
Yes, but they could punish you for your clothing anyway, now they just write a rule about it. And is "Freedom to wear" in the Constitution. No. What about the frequent banning of books by the school? You don't seem to be upset about that. No, schools are becoming LESS like prisons. The new rules are just about new ways of living for some teenagers. Also; I'm not going to SBHS. Ha-Ha.
From: Speedie
Date: 22 Aug 1997
For a self-proclaimed nerd you are indeed a dumbass.
There ARE such constitutional rights. Didn't you read the "Student's Rights" info Matt posted on this site??
Nobody is saying other violations of student's rights don't exist, like banning some books in the school library, illegal searches and more. But that's no reason to ignore the new dress code issue. And the fact is that most teachers and school administrators try to be fair and reasonable and care very much about their students. But this dispute is with some members of the school board and those teachers and school administrators who abuse their authority and have no appreciation for student's constitutional rights. Are you really going to tell us you lead such a sheltered life you don't know any teachers or administrators like that?
The proposed dress code is for the entire SBHS DISTRICT, not just SBHS. That means it will apply to SMHS and DPHS. But maybe you don't live in the district. Or maybe you go to a private school that can make it's own Kafkaesque rules. Eh?
From: omnimax
Date: 22 Aug 1997
What I am saying is that you are wasting your energy on a rule like this instead of other important rights that are pulled from you every day. Just be thankful that you do not have to wear uniforms. Accept the fact that school sucks, and that there are better things and better ways to protest.
From: Max
Date: 19 Aug 1997
The letter says no midriff exposure on girls will be allowed!! What!?! No bellyshirts!?! I love bellyshirts on girls! Sob! Now I got nothin' to look forward to when school starts! This calls for civil disobedience of the most profound sort. Maybe I'll wear my Gwar T-shirt and chain myself to the flag pole.
From: S. O.'s Posse
Date: 22 Aug 1997
We got the School Board agenda for the Aug. 27 meeting AND a copy of the proposed dress code. We will try to have it scanned and posted here by Matt sometime this weekend.
Wait til you see the language of the code. VAGUE!
How do you like the fact that ANY graphic you wear can be BANNED and get you cited for a violation merely if a teacher or administrator considers it "inflammatory"? So all you people who think the code doesn't apply to you, think again. And it gets worse! The code then gives any teacher the power to make even stricter, UNSPECIFIED standards depending on the class situation!
From: R. Daneel Olivaw
Date: 22 Aug 1997
Which is what I have been saying all along. The vagueness is what I object to. The Irish have a history of violence. There are Jewish extremist groups committing acts of violence as we speak. Are they to keep students from wearing shamrocks and stars of David? This could be abused by teachers, which is the problem with it.
From: Rotifer
Date: 19 Aug 1997
The letter says something about you can't wear clothing related to a group that is violent or has a violent history...such as...Christianity!! If you wear a shirt with Jesus or a cross, you get expelled? No, no, it's only for "bad" groups like gangs and pagan religions. Oh, I see...
Also, it said they have a voluntary uniform program at some school(s). Who the hell would wear a uniform to school voluntarily? Anyone who did would get beaten up. Who's idea was this?
From: Val
Date: 19 Aug 1997
How about my good ol' U.S. Army surplus jacket? With the patch of the 101st Airborne Division? Now that's a group with a history of violence. But if it's patriotic, institutionalized, government violence for God, Country and the American Way then it's ok, right??
From: Gimpie
Date: 19 Aug 1997
1. Pagans don't have a history of violence, dickie-my-wad. Its just a few fringe wackos and high school kids trying to be cool who say they do evil things to worship "Satan".
2. Who says someone cannot get in trouble for wearing a Christian theme. Is the phrase "Jesus is an exception" in the booklet? Methinks not.
From: Rotifer
Date: 21 Aug 1997
Yes, dumbass, and it's those "wackos"(obviously you are no better than the dress code formulators by calling them wackos) who say they worship "pagan gods" who are going to get in trouble. And some pagan religions are known for such things as cannibilism and human sacrifice, which could be considered violent. Ok, lets say a Christian kid goes to school with a picture of Jesus on his shirt, and gets suspended or punished in some way. What are his parents and all their christian friends going to do about it? Sue? Riot? Who knows? But NO school in this country would risk anything like that, and they probably wouldn't even think about doing it in the first place. Duh. And besides, idiot, I was KIDDING.
From: Satagimpixathoth
Date: 22 Aug 1997
Isn't it better to let the rules pass without protest? After the rules are in effect, examples of the imperfections of the new rule will force the Powers that Be to withdraw them.
From: SImply Obnoxious
Date: 24 Aug 1997
Matt is helping with the protest. His sister Courtney (that would be me) is in charge.
From: Val
Date: 25 Aug 1997
I don't go to school in that district. But you have my full support. I was once suspended because of my clothes. They were only objected to by one teacher who was a very strict religious fundamentalist who used to teach in a strict, church run boarding school. The teacher didn't like me and wanted to use me as an example. The other teachers and the principal knew it wasn't fair but they didn't have the courage to stand up to him. The rules said basically that you couldn't wear or do anything that was "offensive". So I was suspended because this one teacher was offended. I admit I didn't handle the situation very well. I wouldn't have been suspended if I had just agreed to stop wearing anything that pissed off that teacher. But I protested so they suspended me for the few days before spring break. By the end of spring break my parents wanted me to give up the protest and get back to school. So I did. The whole thing taught me that you can't always depend on good teachers or a principal to protect student's rights from a from a pushey, loudmouth, unreasonable teacher.
It started when I wore my Marylyn Manson "Sweet dreams" t-shirt. MM looks weird on the shirt, but it is not nasty like some of the other MM shirts I've seen. The teacher said MM promotes satanism and dis-respect for millions of religious people throughout the world. I said it was only a band and I liked some of their music, particularly "Sweet Dreams", which I thought was very original and cool, I told them the outrageous stage stuff was just a showbiz decendent of 70's bands like KISS, Alice Cooper and Black Sabbath. I'm sure most of the teachers agreed, but this one teacher came up with some things in the press that claimed MM was trying promoting satanism. Then the teacher got some of the other parents involved. The principal wanted the whole thing to end. He said just promise you wont wear it to school. I refused. Out I went.
From: S.O.
Date: 24 Aug 1997
We will be circulating petitions at district high schools and downtown. We need volunteers. Thanks for your interest and support.
From: Holmes
Date: 24 Aug 1997
The Tinker v. Des Moines, Supreme Court case is awesome! Check out this language:
"First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years."
"The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures - Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes."
"The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans"
"In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained."
"In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. As Judge Gewin, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, school officials cannot suppress 'expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend.'"
"The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. The classroom is peculiarly the `marketplace of ideas.' The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth 'out of a multitude of tongues, rather than through any kind of authoritative selection.'"
Awesome!
From: Zeus
Date: 26 Aug 1997
The code BANS kids wearing caps or any "head coverings" in junior high and middle school What about the kids that wear caps and head coverings for religious reasons, like Jewish boys and Muslim and Hindu girls. This code violates their rights beacuse because it doesn't say they have a RIGHT to do it to practice their religion. Even if they are allowed to do it they have to depend on some teacher or principal saying they wont be punished when they break the rule.
From: Matt
Date: 26 Aug 1997
Courtney got interviewed for the News Press Today. Check Wed. newspaper for an article about the protest. It may include the web address of the forum, so expect newcomers.
From: Cartman
Date: 26 Aug 1997
COOL! THAT KICKS ASS! I KNOW IM DEFINITELY GONNA BE AT THE THING TOMMOROW.
From: Chainsaw
Date: 26 Aug 1997
Parts of this code are certainly vague. It allows a teacher to punish a student for wearing any "symbol or insignia that is inflammatory." What does that mean? Looks like a student could be punished for wearing a symbol that is "Inflammatory " just because it is the teacher that is being "inflamed" by the sight of the symbol.
Also, how about the violation when " a student's general attire or appearance attracts undue attention to the extent that it becomes a disruptive factor in the school." So it's a violation just because it attracts the teacher's "undue attention" and the teacher causes a disruption over it, even if the other students couldn't care less.
And how about "teachers may impose more stringent dress requirements to accommodate the special needs of certain classes." That would win a prize for vagueness.
The vague parts of this code would give an unreasonable teacher the power to punish a student for doing exactly what the Supreme Court said a student has a right to do at school. For example it would give a teacher the power to stop students from wearing black arm bands to protest government action, just because the teacher decided they were "inflammatory" or might "attract undue attention and become a disruptive factor." Sure, most teachers would never use the code to abuse the rights of their students. But that's not the point. A code should not make a citizen's (yes , students are citizens) exercise of constitutional rights depend on the teacher's good judgment in not using the abusive power of the code.
And how about that change they made in the proposed code. Someone protested the banning of "religious pride" articles so they took that out so they would not infringe on the constitutional rights of students who want to express strong religious beliefs. Good. But how about the students with strong secular beliefs about government, society, culture?? Too bad for them, eh?
From: S.O.'s posse
Date: 27 Aug 1997
Please see the article on the Dress Code in todays Santa Barbara News Press which is covering this important matter. Thanks.
From: sunday's slave
Date: 27 Aug 1997
Did you see the article in the paper? it's all chopped off and f**ked up! They printed it wrong! I called the editor of the newspress, who has yet to return the call.
From: S.O.'s Posse
Date: 27 Aug 1997
There was a problem with the layout of the story. Those things sometimes happen. We appreciate the attention the NewsPress gave to the issue, especially with a front page story. The reporters and editors were very interested and gave us a lot of their time.
From: Rotifer
Date: 28 Aug 1997
In today's paper they put in what they had cut off.
From: S.O.'s Posse
Date: 28 Aug 1997
We had a major but partial victory last night! But we must continue the fight!
Thanks for everybody's awesome effort!
From: Omie Da Poomie
Date: 28 Aug 1997
When I sat above the Board during the meeting last night in my hiding place in the rafters, I was shocked to find that these Board people were not exceptionally smart, precise, or quick in their remarks and in no way other than their rudeness did they stand out from the others in our society. They did not seem to have any special knowledge on our subject, and nor did they seem to care enough to have patience or kindness towards us. I noticed Board members seemed to completely ignore us when we gave it our best out there. They were a total group of morons. I cant believe that they ever got in charge of such huge matters.
The worst part was when I found out that those guys did not need To answer our questions after we asked them. I HATE THAT! If we ask a question, they don't have to answer it! THAT IS A WASTE OF OUR BREATH! we could have wiped those yawns right off their faces if they had to answer questions such as Samaras, Andrews, and that little girl too, they would have killed themselves! What could they have said?
"Uh well let me ask The Ast. Chairman of the board chairman?" "Oh of course, yes lets consult the District consultant for Public Schools Without Funding " "Oh he is not here, next question...."
Or it's possible they could ramble incomprehensible crap to us such as this: "well prop 413 sections 3 and 12 both state that in a situation like this we must follow a 533 procedure in witch all things listed under the SIB Chanson agreement should be ignored... Thank You."
At least they backed off, but it's not over yet, we are still gonna fight!
From: Rotifer
Date: 28 Aug 1997
Absolutely! Notice how those lobotomized "borg" members couldn't show any emotion. They were afraid, though. They're like, "no clapping, resistance is futile, we are the board, you will be assimilated." Damn, I really wish we all had time to prepare speeches and stuff. The board seems to think kids are some kind of animal with no brain, that should be herded to school and herded back home. Did they ever stop and think, maybe, we are PEOPLE TOO!! Clothes are just goddam clothes! The idiots seem to think that certain clothes will take kids attention away from the teacher. Well, maybe they should get some better and interesting teachers that actually make class more than a boring cesspool of stupidity!
From: S.O.'s Posse
Date: 29 Aug 1997
Courtney was interviewed by The Santa Barbara Independent. It will probably have an article about the dress code protest.
Watch for it. The fight goes on!!!
From: Val
Date: 30 Aug 1997
I saw some of the school board meeting on tv. You guys who spoke to the board were awesome! Courtney, Justine, Matt, Samara, Andrew, that little girl who showed them her dress and then zinged them with the question, the tall girl, the girl ffrom san marcos, the latino guy, the dad who said he used to dress like a hippy when he was an A student, and all the others! I was amazed that not even one speaker supported the code! The board just acted rude and patronizing because they knew they couldn't respond to you without making themselves look even more ridiculous. They didn't have the courage to admit they were wrong and the code went way too far. When they backed down they tried to save face by making it seem patronizing.
They tried to make it seem that students only care about fashion, spaghetti straps, short skirts, etc. They took out the shoe part because they thought that would be enough to calm down female students--Wrong! Then they said no discipline for breaking the rules before Jan., and all that crap about how students should not worry, try to get used to it, it's not so bad, teachers will just use common sense, blah, blah, bs, bs, blah blah. They didn't have the courage to answer all the first amendment objections that the speakers were making.
So their message to students is "We want you to learn about your constitutional rights. Just don't try to use them."
From: static
Date: 30 Aug 1997
I don't see why the majority of the people here would really CARE about the stupid dress code, because the rules don't really affect you. I don't see Eric (rotifer) sagging, or matt wearing spghetti strapped tops, or Sam Cross wearing flip flops. I can see the point that you want your first amendment right to be protected, but besides that, there isn't a whole lot to fight for. I guess you all are just being rebellious.
From: Azag-Thoth
Date: 31 Aug 1997
Ditto.
From: Courtney
Date: 31 Aug 1997
The fact that they don't wear these clothes has nothing to do with why they are fighting against it. Have you ever thought that maybe a dress code such as this is just the first step toward more and more policies and rules that limit students rights?
From: R. Daneel Olivaw
Date: 31 Aug 1997
I am not likely to do anything prohibited by the dress code, but
I was there in any case, to protect the right of OTHERS to do
these things that are protected by the law. I am not being shot
in the head, but I am still conserned if other people are.
Admittedly, a dress code is not as serious a case, but it is a
parallel situation of consern.
From: Zeno
Date: 31 Aug 1997
This is why. The Supreme Court said it in the Tinker case:
"The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans"
"In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained."
A right lost to any student is lost to all students. That's why we care.
From: static
Date: 31 Aug 1997
thanks for the explanation. I was expecting some bone head response, but that makes sense.
From: Zeno
Date: 31 Aug 1997
Today the Santa Barbara News Press, Sunday Edition editorial is about the school dress code! Not only did the SBNP publish two front page articles on the dress code fight this week, with color pictures, now they made it the subject of the main editorial for the week! Check it out!
The editorial tried to give the positions of both sides. But in the editorial the paper also said it AGREED with us on MAJOR points we have been trying to make.
This is part of what the paper said in the editorial:
"Of course there is fierce opposition to these new standards. We understand and are sympathetic to some of the misgivings that exist. Limitations on personal expression should never be accepted lightly."
"Clothing is certainly one of the primary outlets for expressing oneself at any age, but particularly at school age. And while it has been established that schools can and must have the power to promote the good order in which education can take place, that authority must be balanced against reasonable personal liberty."
"Students do not lose all their rights at the schoolhouse door. In this instance we share a concern that teachers or administrators may go overboard on ambiguous parts of the policy."
"Is any color associated with a gang unacceptable, for example? How about vulgarity? What is vulgar to one person is often appropriately amusing or delightfully flippant to another. What about political speech? Would a T-shirt condemning someone else's beliefs be regarded as profane or likely to incite violence? By entering into the arena of passing judgment over what clothing says on it, the school board invites the opportunity for inconsistent and indefensible rulings. Further, it creates the risk of turning teachers and administrators into fashion police."
That's awesome language. When students made these same points at the board meeting, the school board just ignored them like they were not even worthy of response. Now the SBNP says it agrees with these major points! This should show the skeptics that this fight is important and students who are objecting to the dress code are being thoughtful and reasonable and are not mindless radicals.
From: Max
Date: 03 Sep 1997
HEY GUYS, look what I just found out!!!!
At the last meeting of the SB School Board, while the board was
in "closed session," the board voted to start a new
program to combat "drug related" problems in the high
schools. The program was sold to the board by a consulting
company which is being paid 6.4 million dollars to run the
program in the high schools for two school years. The program is
called the Unrestrained Zeitgeist Interdiction Project, with the
acronym UNZIP! I got a copy of the official, secret board
resolution and this is what it says:
"Many parents and principals have asked that the board take
a more proactive roll in the war against the drug menace in our
society. To respond to this problem the board has entered into a
two year contract with Scientific Education Systems, Inc. to
establish the famous Unrestrained Zeitgeist Interdiction Project,
(UNZIP!) in Santa Barbara district high schools. The board notes
with pleasure that SES, Inc. is owned by former government agents
with extensive experience in the DEA, FBI and CIA. The board has
committed 6.4 million dollars for this two year program, but we
are aware that the final cost may be much higher."
"There are two main points in the UNZIP! Program: 1.
Teachers, administrators and security guards have full authority
and are encouraged to perform full body cavity searches on any
student whom they suspect might now be involved in any way with
drugs, or might possibly become involved with drugs in the
future. 2. Psychological and appearance profiles will be used to
target students for program action. The extensive profiles will
include such items as: A. Does the student’s clothing,
backpack, water bottles, personal items, etc. have any style,
design or symbol that any person anywhere on the planet might
even ever so slightly believe is associated in any way with drugs
or any other controlled substance of any kind whatsoever? B.
While in class does the student appear bored or inattentive in
any way, especially while the teacher is talking? C. Does the
student fail to turn in a homework assignment, indicating that
the student was probably unconscious on drugs and was in no
condition to complete the assignment?"
"The UNZIP! program will begin Sept. 8, 1997. The board
members are aware that there may be some ridiculous opposition to
this program by some people who are ignorant of the board’s
good intentions. But the board is sure that if these people will
only give the program a chance they will see that it will be
carried out with common sense and that it shows the board's
creativity in solving the problems of education in Santa
Barbara."
From: Holmes
Date: 10 Sep 1997
More than fifty percent of the students at SBHS would NOT pass
the dress code in the attire worn at school this week. The
dress code is like prohibition in the 1920’s. It was passed
by moralistic do-gooders and it is nearly universally ridiculed
and
violated by the people it is supposed to save. I predict massive
civil disobedience if the board does not modify the code and
demands strict enforcement in January.
From: Val
Date: 12 Sep 1997
Well, here it is the end of the first week of school. The dress
code was passed by the board but is not being enforced until
January. So, school must have been worse than hell, with
everybody trying to learn while being constantly subjected to
"disruptions" and "interference with the
educational process and mission of the school" caused this
week by all the:
A. "writing, pictures or any other insignia which are crude,
vulgar, profane or sexually suggestive, which bear drug, alcohol
or
tobacco company advertising, promotions and likenesses, or which
bear any symbol or insignia that is inflammatory or
indicates/advocates hatred based on group membership".
B. "clothing which represents any group, gang, organization,
or philosophy which advocates violence or disruption, or has any
history of violence."
C. "fishnet fabrics, halter tops, spaghetti straps,
off-the-shoulder or low-cut tops, bare midriffs and skirts or
shorts shorter than
mid-thigh."
D. "Clothing which is unduly revealing or attire which
detracts in any way from the educational mission of the school's
instructional program."
The school board said it was a big problem, so there must have
been disruptions everywhere. Right? Uh, I guess I must have
missed it so somebody please help me out. Please tell me about
all the students who were freaking out over the dress of other
students. How about all the students raging over the inflammatory
symbols worn by other students. Oh yeah, also be sure to tell me
about all the clothing you saw that represents gangs and hate
groups. And describe all the evidence you saw of the
school’s "raging hormones" problem (in the
memorable words of the president of the board), and all the males
who ran amok this week at the sight of girls wearing spaghetti
straps and shorts above mid-thigh.
Thank god the principals and school board members devote so much
of their time and infinite wisdom to the dress code
problem. Otherwise they might have to waste themselves on truly
trivial problems, like the fact that many classes do not have
enough desks or books.
From: Mencken
Date: 05 Nov 1997
It is interesting to compare our illustrious Santa Barbara school
boards written policy regarding school newspaper freedom
with the new draconian dress code. The Board's policy for the
school newspaper claims to protect freedom of expression and
comply with the U.S. Constitution and California law. According
to the written policy adopted by the Board regarding
"Protected Speech", the school can NOT ban the
publication of anything "solely because it is controversial,
takes extreme
"fringe" or minority opinions, is distasteful,
unpopular, or unpleasant." The school newspaper policy
adopted by the Board also
states that the newspapers editors can Not be prevented from
publishing material UNLESS it will cause a "material and
substantial disruption of school activities." The policy
states " Material that stimulates heated discussion or
debate doesn't
constitute the type of disruption prohibited." The policy
also states " To be considered disruptive, specific facts
must exist upon
which one could reasonably forecast that a likelihood of
immediate, substantial material disruption to normal school
activity
would occur if the material were further distributed or has
occurred as a result of the material's distribution. Mere
undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance isn't
enough; school administrators must be able affirmatively to show
substantial facts that reasonably support a forecast of likely
disruption."
The vague and unreasonable dress code takes away this same
freedom of expression.
According to the Board's wildly inconsistent written policies,
the student editors would have a right to publish in the school
newspaper the same symbols, designs, graphics and photos which
would be BANNED under the dress code from student
T-shirts, backpacks and clothing styles on campus. More on this
absurdity later.
From: Mencken
Date: 08 Nov 1997
So, how is it that the school board can adopt a policy promoting
and protecting freedom of expression in the school
newspapers of the district but then enact a dress code that is an
anathema to such freedom. It would be interesting to see when
the board last considered the newspaper policy. It might have
been years ago when the board had different members. Some of
the current members of the board may not even know about the
newspaper policy and would be horrified if they found out.
Imagine the "closed session" of the next board meeting:
"This is a disaster just waiting to happen. Just think, one
of those crazy kid editors in journalism might try to print
something in
the school newspaper that someone, somewhere might find crude! Or
even vulgar! Or, even, ohmygod, inflammatory!!"
"Gasp!! No!!"
"Hey, didn’t we ban that kind of crap with the dress
code?"
"Yes, but some of our dreamy, ultra-liberal predecessors
adopted this ridiculous school newspaper policy protecting
student
rights of expression. Obviously they did not understand that
hormones are raging in these children."
"Well, when I was a high school student 35 years ago, we
couldn’t print any of that kind of crap in the school paper.
We just
printed mostly sports and announcements."
" Hey, let’s just make the dress code rules apply to
the school newspapers. Heh, heh, heh. That way we wont be getting
so
many of those goddamn calls from the same 10 or 15 loudmouths and
crazies that always raise hell because they think the schools are
not strict enough and should resemble boot camps and
prisons."
From: A most vehement supporter of the school
dress code!
Date: 23 Nov 1997
I saw the dress code flyers which you posted on campus and
decided to see your web site. I am so outraged and disgusted I
am nearly overcome! You seem to think you are very clever putting
"clouds" on the background of your web pages, but I see
through your disgusting little game. I have examined your
"clouds" with a powerful magnifying glass and my
unconscious mind
has been overwhelmed by the vile, subliminal messages you have
hidden there! Subliminal images resembling girls in spaghetti
strap dresses being ravaged by boys in gang attire! Subliminal
images of girls dressed in shorts above mid-thigh, strutting!
Hidden, inflammatory designs promoting sex and drugs! And
sickening, subliminal messages which force people to think about
depraved perversions! My mind is reeling! This is exactly why we
demanded the school board pass the dress code! You
students are impressionable, easily disrupted and cannot be
trusted. I am going to call the school board members again and
demand that they take severe action immediately!
For more information, go to the Student Rights Page .
Thanks for visiting.