Student Dress Code: Constitutional Requirements and Policy Suggestions

Student Dress Codes: Constitutional Requirements and Policy Suggestions

June 21, 1999

* Author(s):
* Max Madrid

* Download Article

Summary
Public schools are delegated with the responsibility of educating students and maintaining an effective and orderly environment conducive to learning. American public schools are facing violence on campus at an unprecedented rate. The National School Board Association estimates that approximately 135,000 guns are brought to America's 85,000 public schools on a daily basis.(2) To counter violence in classrooms and to improve the quality of education, dress codes are being implemented throughout our nation's public schools. Dress codes promote school safety by decreasing school violence and serve to enhance the learning environment of schools.
"If it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be allowed to require the students to wear school uniforms."(1)

-President William Jefferson Clinton

I. DRESS CODES

A. Introduction

Public schools are delegated with the responsibility of educating students and maintaining an effective and orderly environment conducive to learning. American public schools are facing violence on campus at an unprecedented rate. The National School Board Association estimates that approximately 135,000 guns are brought to America's 85,000 public schools on a daily basis.(2) To counter violence in classrooms and to improve the quality of education, dress codes are being implemented throughout our nation's public schools. Dress codes promote school safety by decreasing school violence and serve to enhance the learning environment of schools.

Many public school administrators maintain that dress codes reflect community values and create a positive educational environment. According to educators, dress codes promote student self-respect, maintain classroom discipline, discourage peer pressure to buy extravagant clothing, and make classrooms safe. Moreover, some educators have reported that dress codes have reduced the number of fights in schools and improved scholastic achievements and student attendance.(3) Almost twenty five percent of the nation's public elementary, middle, and junior high schools are expected to implement dress codes.(4)

An educational institution may prescribe reasonable dress codes. Recent court decisions have noted that an educational institution must demonstrate that the dress code is reasonable and rationally related to a legitimate pedagogical purpose.(5) Public schools have enacted a wide array of dress codes. Some schools have elected to establish mandatory dress codes or school uniforms. Other districts have prohibited certain types of clothing or have adopted a voluntary dress code. In public schools where violence is a recurrent problem, dress codes proscribe gang-related clothing, such as jewelry, insignias, and certain types and colors of clothes.

The Long Beach Unified School District was the first public school district to enact a mandatory uniform policy. The Long Beach dress code policy affects nearly 60,000 elementary and middle school students.(6) Long Beach Superintendent Carl A. Cohn documented that the enactment of a school dress code resulted in a 32% decrease in school suspensions, a 51% decrease in fighting and an 18% decrease in vandalism with a significant improvement in attendance rates.(7) While California law allows parents to request an exemption from school uniform requirements, less than 1% of Long Beach parents have requested such an exemption.(8) Additionally, local organizations have helped donate funds to disadvantaged children who could not afford the school uniform.(9)

B. Constitutional Requirements

The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution govern the legality of public school dress codes. The First Amendment expressly provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."(10) While the language of the First Amendment can be read expansively, the Supreme Court has noted that freedom of expression is not an absolute right.(11) The government can restrict speech at certain times and in certain contexts. Courts will apply different levels of scrutiny when analyzing the constitutionality of a dress code. According to current constitutional jurisprudence, speech with high value, i.e. political speech, receives a high level of protection whereas speech with no value, such as fighting or obscenity words, receives a low level of protection. Pure speech, such as wearing protest armbands, or political buttons, receives a higher degree of First Amendment protection than symbolic speech, such as the wearing of sagging pants to school, as an expression of an individual's style.(12) Regulations which are content neutral are more likely to be viewed favorably by courts than regulations that focus on the content of the speech. Accordingly, the type of expression governs the level of permissible government restriction of speech.

The First Amendment rights of public school students are limited in the school environment. Although students retain constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression while in public schools, the Supreme Court has held that these rights are limited.(13) Because students First Amendment rights are not coextensive with those of adults, courts do not apply traditional First Amendment jurisprudence when examining regulations affecting speech in the public schools. Instead, courts examine the necessity of the regulation for maintaining the classroom environment. Recently, the Supreme Court has enunciated a new inculcative theory of education. The inculcative theory is based on the premise that schools inculcate state sponsored values and ideals.(14) Accordingly, school officials may prohibit expression if it is inconsistent or disruptive to this mission.

Dress and grooming codes are generally legally permissible.(15) The wearing of a particular type or style of clothing usually is not seen as expressive conduct protected under the Constitution.(16) Various school dress codes have been upheld including a prohibition against sagging pants, earrings, and clothing containing advertisements or objectionable statements.(17) Student speech which is indecent, lewd or profane is not entitled to constitutional protection. However, some conduct by students involving the wearing of "symbolic speech" expressive items, such as political protest buttons, will be protected by First Amendment free speech principles. In Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974), the Supreme Court established a two prong test for determining when conduct receives First Amendment protection: First, is there an intent to convey a particularized message; and second, is there a great likelihood that the message will be understood by those who view it?(18) For example, courts recognize that wearing political buttons or armbands are forms of conduct that carry First Amendment protection because these choices convey a message about the wearer.(19) Students generally have the right to wear symbolic expressive speech buttons, badges or other insignia, unless there is evidence that wearing the insignia will materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.(20) Additionally, student conduct such as the wearing of religious attire (yarmulkes, head scarves, Native Indian long hair, display of crosses, etc.) should be accommodated under federal principles mandating permissible accommodation of religious practices or beliefs.

The wording of a dress code can be significant in determining the legality of a dress code.(21) A school administrator's decision will be given great deference if the court interprets the code to address conduct that materially disrupts or interferes with a school's educational mission or threatens the safety of students. However, if the regulation is not based on a rational purpose related to the educational process, the court is unlikely to uphold the dress code.

The key to upholding dress codes is to convince courts that dress codes are necessary to the operation of the school. Dress code policies that are adopted to combat real and substantial dangers associated with gang activity will likely be upheld so long as the school district can reasonably demonstrate that such policies are needed to meet the legitimate objectives of the school. School officials who carefully document the benefits of a dress code policy may find success against challenges to their dress code.

B. Uniforms

The debate over mandatory school uniforms has surfaced as a contentious issue in school law. As of date, the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of school uniforms. In fact, the issue of school uniforms is a matter of first impression for all circuit court of appeals and most federal and state courts.

In an effort to promote school discipline and decrease violence, public schools are requiring that uniforms be worn by students. Public institutions across America have adopted school uniform requirements.(22) School officials credit the uniforms for a decrease in crime and an increase in scholastic performance. Opponents of school uniform policies have argued that school uniform policies run counter to the First Amendment and free expression.

Only one reported case has directly addressed the issue of school uniforms. In Phoenix Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Green, 943 P.2d 836, 839, 120 Educ. L.R. 1170 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997), the court upheld a mandatory school uniform policy. The dress code provided that those students who refused to comply would be given the opportunity to transfer to another school. Some students refused to comply and claimed that they were entitled to stay at the school and opt-out of the dress code because the dress code violated their First Amendment rights. They were transferred to another school in the district which did not have a dress code. They subsequently went to their former school and distributed information disparaging the dress code. Testimony was presented at trial that the uniform policy reduced clothing distractions, increased campus safety, improved school spirit, leveled socioeconomic barriers, ensured that students dress appropriately, and reduced staff and faculty time required to enforce the dress code. Moreover, the court noted that the dress code involved was adopted because it:

• Promotes a more effective climate for learning.

• Creates opportunities for self-expression.

• Increases campus safety and security.

• Fosters school unity and price.

• Eliminates "label competition".

• Ensures modest dress.

• Simplifies dressing.

• Minimizes costs to parents.

The court concluded that the dress code was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical purposes, including promoting a conducive learning environment and securing campus safety.

Schools should have a clear and reasonable basis for their policy. Policies adopted to combat substantial dangers associated with gang activity or non-gang clothing crimes are generally going to be upheld so long as the school district can reasonably demonstrate that uniforms are needed to meet the legitimate objectives of the school. Legitimate pedagogical concerns also may support uniform policies, although such policies may be considered overbroad and unconstitutional in the absence of a disruptive school environment. School officials must establish regulations that balance the individual's freedom of expression with the public interest of quality education.

Important cases pertaining to school dress codes and school uniforms are listed below.
STUDENT DRESS

Bivens ex rel. Green v. Albuquerque Public Schools, 899 F. Supp. 556 (D.N.M. 1995).

Student brought action against school based on claim that Del Norte High School dress code prohibiting sagging pants violated students' First Amendment rights and that procedures used in imposing long term suspension violated students' right to procedural due process.

Student persisted in wearing his sagging pants to school and was given numerous verbal warnings and subjected to a few short term suspensions. Plaintiff had five documented warnings of sagging pants, low grades, and accrued absences. Due to these documented violations of the school dress code, Plaintiff was given a long term suspension.

Wearing sagging pants was not speech for First Amendment purposes.

Long term suspension procedures comported with due process requirements.

Dress code was not unconstitutionally vague.

Baxter ex rel. Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., 26 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 1994).

Elementary school students' rights not violated where student was prevented from and disciplined for wearing expressive T-shirt reading: "Unfair Grades," "Racism" and "I Hate Lost Creek." Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a clearly established right by elementary school student to wear expressive T-shirt while in school. The court indicated that age can be a relevant factor in assessing the extent of a student's free speech rights.

Chalifoux v. New Cancy Independent School District, 976 F.Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997).

The New Cancy Independent School District's dress code prohibited the wearing of gang-related apparel in school or at any school related function. Local police officers identified rosaries as "gang-related apparel". Subsequently, the school administrators prohibited students from wearing rosaries as a necklace outside of their clothing.

The student handbook's list of gang-related apparel did not include rosaries.

The court found that the plaintiffs' rosaries were akin to pure speech and applied the Tinker standard. The evidence demonstrated that the students wore rosaries with the intent to communicate their faith to others.

The school must show that the plaintiffs' religious speech caused a substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities. Even in the school setting, more than mere speculation about disruption and interference is required: "Undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right of freedom of expression."

There was minimal evidence of gang members wearing rosaries as gang identifiers and the suppression of students' medium of expression was equivalent to censorship of their message. The court ruled that the symbolic speech at issue was a form of religious expression protected by the First Amendment.

School regulation prohibiting students from wearing rosaries as necklaces violated First Amendment right to free exercise of religion of students seeking to wear rosaries as a sincere expression of their religious belief. Accordingly, the regulation placed an undue burden on the students' religious exercise and did not bear reasonable relationship to its stated purpose of regulating gang activity.

The court noted that there was insufficient evidence of actual or anticipated disruption to infringe upon the student's religiously-motivated speech.

The school district's policy on gang-related activity was void for vagueness. The policy failed to provide adequate notice to students regarding prohibited conduct. Moreover, the court stated that it would not be overly burdensome for the district to provide a definite list of prohibited items and update that list as needed.

Hines v. Caston School Corp., 651 N.E.2d 330, 101 Educ. L.R. 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the following rule: "Students are not to wear jewelry or other attachments not consistent with community standards or that could pose a health or safety hazard to either the student himself or to other students in his presence."

The court noted that evidence was presented that the enforcement of a strict dress code was a factor in improving students' attitudes toward school, and that this change in attitude had led to improvements in school attendance, drop-out rates, and academic performance.

Evidence was also presented that under local community standards of dress, earrings were considered female attire, and that the earring rule discouraged rebelliousness. Evidence was also presented that the wearing of earrings by males was inconsistent with community standards in the area. School administrators testified that the earring ban serves to prevent "disrespect for authority and disrespect for discipline within the school" by maintaining "a basic standard for the children to live by...."

The court stated that a community's schools be permitted, within constitutional strictures, to reflect its values. Moreover, the court maintained that "it is a valid educational function to instill discipline and create a positive educational environment by means of a reasonable, consistently applied dress code."

Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District, 827 F.Supp. 1459 (C.D. Cal. 1993).

Students brought action challenging constitutionality of dress code which prohibited clothing identifying any professional sports team or college.

The court ruled that the school district policy (prohibiting students from wearing clothing identifying any professional sports team or college on school grounds or at school functions) violated the First Amendment free speech rights of elementary and middle school students.

The First Amendment does not require school officials to wait until a disruption actually occurs before they may act to curtail free speech. In fact, school officials have a duty to prevent disturbances. Justification for curtailment of free speech does not demand certainty that disruption will occur.

The state has a vested interest in education and that the level of disturbance required to justify intervention is relatively lower in a school than it might be on a street corner. Therefore, a court may consider all circumstances confronting the school administrators which might reasonably portend disruption.

Under the First Amendment, school officials have the burden to show justification for imposing discipline resulting from a public school student's use of free speech. In the absence of such justification, a school may not discipline a student for exercising First Amendment rights.

In this case, the events showed only a negligible gang presence in the middle and elementary schools and showed no actual disruption of elementary/middle school activities. However, the district did present evidence supporting a gang presence at San Jacinto High School, which could result in the disruption or disturbance of school activities and thus may justify curtailment of student First Amendment rights to the extent found in enforcement of the school district's dress code.

The court held that a "student's free speech rights may not be abridged in the absence of facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities."

McIntire v. Bethel Sch., 804 F.Supp. 1415 (W.D. Okla. (1992).

Students and their parents brought a § 1983 action against the school district, school board, and superintendent, alleging First Amendment violations and sought an injunction to enjoin them from applying the school dress code provision to T-shirts worn by students. Specifically, the T-shirts worn by public high school students bore the phrase, "The Best of the Night's Adventures are Reserved for People With Nothing Planned."

The court noted that the school dress code provision proscribing the wearing of apparel bearing a message which advertises alcoholic beverages was not facially constitutional.

However, the court held that the dress code was unconstitutionally applied to students because the district failed to meet its burden of proving that the policy as applied to the students in question did not unconstitutionally infringe upon the students' free expression rights. In this case, the school offered no proof of any facts which might reasonably have led school officials to forecast that the T-shirt message would be perceived as an advertisement for alcoholic beverages and would result in substantial disruption or material interference with the work or discipline of the school, or that it would abridge upon the rights of other students.

Oleson v. Board of Education of School District No. 228, 676 F.Supp. 820 (N.D. Ill. 1987).

A high school student brought a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a school board policy prohibiting male students from wearing earrings as part of an effort to curb the presence and influence of gangs in the school.

The school district provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity and resulting violence in its schools.

The policy prohibiting the wearing of earrings by male students did not violate the student's First Amendment rights because the student's message was one of his individuality and such message was not within the protected scope of the First Amendment.

The court upheld the District's dress code policy, concluding that the Board's concern for the safety and well-being of its students and the curtailment of gang activities was rational and did not violate the First Amendment.

Pyle ex rel. Pyle v. South Hadley Sch. Comm., 861 F.Supp. 157 (D.Mass. 1994).

Students brought action against school officials to challenge school dress code and sought injunction against the enforcement of the dress code.

School could prohibit students from wearing T-shirts that have slogans: "Co-Ed Naked Band: Do It To The Rhythm" and "See Dick Drink. See Dick Drive. See Dick Die. Don't Be A Dick" as disruptive to school's basic educational message and to prohibit "obscene, profane, lewd or vulgar" apparel, even if such messages were political.

First Amendment permits minimal, if at all, discretion of school officials to restrict vulgar speech, including speech containing sexual innuendo.

Reasonable limitations on vulgarity do facilitate a school's educational mission.

However, the provision of the dress code that prohibited clothing "directed toward or intended to harass, threaten, intimidate, or demean" because of sex, color, race, religion, handicap, national origin or sexual orientation was unconstitutional as being directed to speech rather than disruption or vulgarity.

Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997).

An honor student, who had a small tattoo of a cross between her thumb and index finger, was ordered by the district to remove or alter the tattoo or face expulsion. The student had no record of disciplinary problems and there was no evidence that the student was involved in gang activity. Moreover, the student denied that the tattoo was a gang symbol.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a school regulation aimed at preventing gang activity in school was void for vagueness.

The school regulation on forbidden gang activities provided that: "Gang related activities such as display of colors, symbols, signs, etc. will not be tolerated on school grounds. Students who violate the regulation will be suspended from school and/or recommended to the school board for expulsion."

High school students challenged the school district's regulation prohibiting gang symbols, as void for vagueness required lesser standard of scrutiny due to the public school setting, but proportionately greater levels of scrutiny because the regulation breached the exercise of free speech by forbidding common religious symbols.

The Eighth Court of Appeals held that the school regulation violated the purpose of the void for vagueness doctrine because it did not provide adequate notice regarding unacceptable conduct nor offered clear guidance for those who apply it.

The school district's regulation prohibiting gang symbols without providing any definition of "gang" was void for vagueness because it allowed school administrators and local police unfettered discretion to decide what represented a gang symbol.

SCHOOL UNIFORMS

Phoenix Elementary School Dist. No. 1 v. Green, 943 P.2d 836 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 1997).

The Court of Appeals of Arizona upheld a mandatory dress code requiring students attending a particular school in the district to wear uniforms.

The dress code had a reasonable relation to the pedagogical purpose of the school, including the promotion of a more effective climate for learning and increased campus safety and security.

II. POLICY SUGGESTIONS CHECKLIST(23)

Consult your school district's dress code.

Policy should focus on pedagogical and school safety concerns.

Parental support of a dress code is instrumental in garnering support for the policy. Determine whether parents support school dress code requirements. Seek input on designing the uniform.

Content of uniform defined by students, parents and school administrators.

Consider including justifications in school dress code policy, such as student safety, decreasing criminal activity, preventing gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school, maintaining classroom discipline, promoting student self-respect, discouraging peer pressure, and enabling school officials to recognize intruders who come to school.

Determine whether to have a mandatory v. voluntary school policy.

Treat school uniforms as part of an overall safety program.

Allow some variety and flexibility in the dress code policy.

Be able to justify the action by demonstrating the link between a certain kind of dress and disruptive behavior.

When drafting a dress code policy, proscribe general types of clothing or dress and refrain from including specific references to a certain brand of clothing.

Provide students with notice of the dress code policy.

Protect student's other rights of expression.

Consider financial assistance to students unable to afford school uniforms.

Do not require students to wear a particular message on a school uniform..

The school dress code should have flexibility to accommodate students whose religious attire may be inconsistent with school dress code.

To avoid challenges on the basis of gender equality, uniforms should be gender neutral. For example, a school should offer a skirts and pants option for young female students.

Provide for an appeals process to allow for student due process.

Apply dress code impartially, consistently, fairly, and in an equal manner.

Strive to maintain empirical evidence, such as reduction in criminal activity and student discipline reports, in order to establish the effectiveness of school dress code policy.

Consult school attorney.

Update school dress code on a consistent basis.

III. REFERENCES

American Jurisprudence 2d, schools, § 265, Dress and Grooming Regulations.

Alison M. Barbarosh, Comment, Undressing the First Amendment in Public Schools: Do Uniform Dress Codes Violate Students' First Amendment Rights? 28 Loy. La. L.Rev. 1415 (Summer 1995).

Baxter ex rel. Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., 26 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 1994).

Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Bivens ex rel. Givens v. Albuquerque Public Schs., 899 F.Supp. 556 (D.N.M. 1995).

Peter Caruso, Individuality vs. Conformity: The Issue Behind School Uniforms, nassp bulletin 8, 581 (September 1966).

William Celis 3d, Schools Getting Tough on Guns in the Classroom, N.Y. Times, Aug. 31, 1994 at A1, B8.

Chalifoux v. New Cancy Independent School District, 976 F.Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997).

President William Jefferson Clinton, State of the Union Address (January 23, 1996), 1996 WL 8619985.

Freeman v. Flake, 448 F.2d 258 (10th Cir. 1971), cert denied, 405 U.S. 1032 (1972).

Hatch v. Goerke, 502 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir. 1974).

Hines v. Caston School Corp., 651 N.E.2d 330 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

Lynne Isaacson, Student Dress Policies, eric digest, Number 117 (1998).

Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District, 827 F.Supp. 1459 (C.D. Cal. 1993).

Kaff v. Schmidt, 460 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1972).

Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961).

Wendy Mahling, Note, Secondhand Codes: An Analysis of the Constitutionality of Dress Codes in the Public Schools, 80 Minn. L.Rev. 715 (February 1996).

McIntire v. Bethel Sch., 804 F.Supp. 1415 (W.D. Okla. 1992).

Paul D. Murphy, Note, Restricting Gang Clothing in Public Schools: Does a Dress Code Violate a Student's Right of Expression, 64 S.Cal. L.Rev. 1321 (July 1991).

Oleson v. Board of Education of School District No. 228, 676 F.Supp. 820 (N.D. Ill. 1987).

Phoenix Elementary School Dist. No. 1 v. Green, 943 P.2d 836 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 1997).

Pyle v. South Hadley Sch. Comm., 861 F.Supp. 157 (D.Mass. 1994).

Alison Ray, Note, A Nation of Robots? The Unconstitutionality of Public School Uniform Codes, 28 Marshall L.Rev. 645 (Spring 1995).

Dena M. Sarke, Note, Coed Naked Constitutional Law: The Benefits and Harms of Uniform Dress Requirements in American Public Schools, 78 B.U. L.Rev. 153 (February 1998).

Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974).

Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997).

Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

U. S. Constitution, Amendment 1.

U.S. Dept. of Educ., School Uniforms: Where They Are and Why They Work (1996).

Amy Mitchell Wilson, Note, Public School Dress Codes: The Constitutional Debate, 1998 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 147 (Spring 1998).

1. President William Jefferson Clinton, State of the Union Address (January 23, 1996), 1996 WL 8619985.

2. William Celis 3d, Schools Getting Tough on Guns in the Classroom, N.Y. Times, Aug. 31, 1994 at A1, B8.

3. See Allison M. Barbarosh, Comment, Undressing the First Amendment in Public Schools: Do Uniform Dress Codes Violate Students' First Amendment Rights? 28 Loy. L.Rev. 1415 (1995).

4. See Lynne Issacson, Student Dress Policies, eric digest, Number 117 (1998).

5. See Pyle ex rel Pyle v. South Hadley Sch. Comm., 861 F.Supp. 157, (D.Mass. 1994); Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified Sch. Dist., 827 F.Supp. 1459 (C.D.Cal. 1993); See generally James Rapp, education law § 9.02 (8)(c).

6. The district did not include high school students on the premise that high school students would not accept the uniforms. See generally Troy N. Nelson, Commentary, If Clothes Make the Person, Do Uniforms Make the Student? Constitutional Free Speech Right and Student Uniforms in Public Schools, West's Education Law Reporter (July 1997).

7. See Peter Caruso, Individuality vs. Conformity: The Issue Behind School Uniforms. NASSP Bulletin 8, 581 (September 1996).

8. Id.

9. Id.

10. U.S. Const., Amend. 1.

11. See Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961) (rejecting the view that freedom of speech and association are absolutes).

12. Compare Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (the wearing of armbands in public school as a form of symbolic protest by students who were quiet and passive was protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment) with Bivens ex rel. Green v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 899 F.Supp. 556 (D.N.M. 1995) (the wearing of a particular type or style of clothing is not expressive conduct protected under the Constitution).

13. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) (recognizing that First Amendment rights are "applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment").

14. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 625 (1986) (schools have a legitimate interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially acceptable behavior as part of its educational mission).

15. Id. at 507-508 ("The problem posed by the present case [involving armbands] does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style, or deportment").

16. See Bivens v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 899 F.Supp. 556, 560 (D.N.M. 1995); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 507-08 (1969); Freeman v. Flake, 448 F.2d 258, 260-61 (10th Cir. 1971), cert denied, 405 U.S. 1032 (1972); Hatch v. Goerke, 502 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir. 1974); Olesen v. Board of Education, 676 F.Supp. 820, 822 (N.D. Ill. 1987).

17. Public school officials may take broad measures to create an environment that is conducive to learning. Accordingly, public schools may proscribe student conduct which is disruptive. See, e.g., Bivens v. Albuquerque Public Schools, 899 F. Supp. 556 (D. N.M. 1995) (upholding high school policy that banned sagging pants); Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District, 827 F. Supp. 1459 (C.D. Cal. 1993) (upholding school district policy that banned clothing with writing or insignia that identifies any professional or college sports team); Oleson v. Board of Education of School District No. 228, 676 F. Supp. 820 (1987) (upholding a school anti-gang policy that forbade the wearing of gang symbols, jewelry or emblems, as applied to a male student who wore an earring to school).

18. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11 (1974).

19. See McIntire v. Bethel Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 3, 804 F.Supp. 1415 (W.D. Okla. 1992); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

20. Id.

21. See generally Amy Mitchell Wilson, Note, Public School Dress Codes: The Constitutional Debate, 1998 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 147 (Spring 1998).

22. California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have enacted school uniforms. Many large public school systems-including Baltimore, Cincinnati, Dayton, Detroit, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Miami, Memphis, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Orleans, New York, Oakland, Phoenix, Seattle and St. Louis, Washington, D.C.-have schools with uniform policies. See U.S. Dept. of Educ., school uniforms: where they are and why they work (1996).

23. These policy suggestions are based on recommendations from the U. S. Department of Education, school uniforms: where they are and why they work (1996).