are student dress codes a violation of civil rights?

Question

are student dress codes a violation of civil rights?

Answer 1

Props to emilyrose



Nailed it before I could get in and answer the question.



Bravo

Answer 2

Good for Emilyrose! Kids make the mistake of thinking they have all these rights, but they aren't yet full citizens -- they haven't reached the age of reason, they aren't afforded all the rights and priviledges of citizenship. (Take for example the fact that the government can compell kids to go to school for 6.5 hours a day. That's not slavery even though we're trying to force them to work -- it's the idea that kids don't know what's best for them.) So even if there was some right to dress as you want, kids wouldn't have it.

Answer 3

Children are minors. They don't have many rights anyway......Depends on the school and most kids wear WAY TOO INAPPROPRIATE clothes for school anyway. Dress codes for private schools are mandatory in most cases. In Florida, all public schools have a semi dress code. Slacks, shorts or a skirt (not too short), of any type, HOWEVER, everyone must wear the same t-shirt denoting the school name on it (they come in various colors though).

Answer 4

no they are not, the dress code is there to protect the school from parents of other students who don't want/care if their kids to follow the dress code.

Answer 5

Last I checked there was no constitutional ammendment giving us the right to dress as we please. Besides which many civil rights are considered not to apply to school children as children cannot be afforded the same decgree of freedom as adults.

Answer 6

well law wise usually not but that dosen't mean that a student dosen't feel like their rights are being stepped on personally i think dress codes are a way to supress individuality

Answer 7

If you might recall the anxiety of your middle and high school years concerning the lack of "in clothes" or the pressures of wearing something socially acceptable to your peers...then you might disagree. I think standardized uniforms are a good idea. One: it prepairs them for adult life. It reduces anxiety and peer-induced stress and feelings of secularization/chastisement. It's just a good idea. Equalizes everyone. Noone's more popular or less desirable for what they wear.

Answer 8

If you wanted to push it, YES there is more than sufficient grounds on which to successfully argue this case.



Nevertheless, the U.S. legal system is extremely corrupt and decietful, you'd find it very difficult, I think mostly 'cause they need to maintain their fictitious authority!

Answer 9

No. Below is the 14th Amendment, which extended 'civil rights'. No where does it mention clothing:







Source: Library of Congress



Amendment XIV



Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.



Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.



Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.



Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Answer 10

They are when it comes to the freedom of expression of ones self.

Answer 11

i dont know but i like that idea.