Mandatory school uniforms and freedom of expression

Abstract

On 10 December 2007 the Akron City School Board – following the precedent set by many school systems across the United States and the world – instituted a policy of mandatory school uniforms for all students in grades K–8. The measure was met with mixed reviews. While many parents supported the measure, a small group of parents from a selective, arts-focussed, middle school (grades 4–8) objected to the policy. It was their contention that children attending this particular school should be exempt from the policy since their children were particularly creative, and the new policy constituted an unjust infringement of their child's freedom of expression. In this article I argue that the actions of the school board, while antithetical to freedom of expression in general, do not violate the children's freedom of expression since such a right cannot properly be said to apply to the majority of children within this age group. In arguing this position, I draw on two primary ideas. The first is based on the idea that children's rights exist on a continuum from rights that protect their interests to those that protect their choices. Since the majority of children at the age specified by the policy fall on the interest side of the rights spectrum, restricting their liberty with respect to dress is not morally problematic. Secondly, I draw upon the idea of the distinction between mere expression as opposed to substantive expression to argue that most children, particularly those in the pre-teen years, lack the cognitive ability to exercise the latter.

Keywords:

• children
• uniforms
• expression
• rights
• autonomy

Notes

Notes

1. 393 US 503, 514 (1969).

2. 393 US 503, 514 (1969, 2).

3. 393 US 503, 514 (1969, 4).

4. 268 F.3d 275 (5th Cir. 2001).

5. 268 F.3d 275 (5th Cir. 2001, para 8).

6. 391 US 367, 377 (1968).

7. Littlefield v. Forney Independent School District 268 F.3d 275 (5th Cir. 2001, para 29).

8. 240 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2001).

9. 240 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2001, para 10–12).

10. The age range here is an approximation based on the work of individuals such as Piaget and Kohlberg.

11. Social conventions are of course relative, but children will require an understanding of the conventions in order to evaluate, follow, or at time violate those conventions for expressive purposes. Children need to know what the rules are before they can voluntarily break them.