Needless to say this article does not say. The Suit continues!
http://www.educationweek.org/ew/ew_printstory.cfm?slug=04uniform.h22

Education Week
American Education's Newspaper of Record

September 25, 2002

Court Throws Out
Lawsuit in Uniform Fracas

By Mark Walsh
Education Week

Mandatory school uniforms almost met their match in the form of a
blue-collar Pennsylvania family.

When the Mount Carmel Area School District in eastern Pennsylvania adopted a
strict dress code for its elementary school in 2000, it did not sit well
with Carmine and Maria Scicchitano and a handful of other district parents.
The families, offended by what they regarded as sartorial tyranny, have
since given their children a two-year lesson in civil disobedience, the Bill
of Rights, the American legal system, and the vagaries of iron-on patches.
And they're not done yet.
"I just don't think a public school has a right to refuse to educate a child
based on what he is wearing," Ms. Scicchitano said last week.

The 1,800-student district's policy requires boys to wear red, white, or
blue shirts with khaki or dark slacks. Girls must wear blouses or shirts,
and pants or skirts, also in the authorized colors. Cargo pants and jeans
are out, as is the baggy look popular among many young people.

On the crucial topic of logos, the policy was clear: Children could wear the
Mount Carmel Elementary School tornado logo, but no corporate or cartoon
emblems. Walt Disney characters, sports logos, and prominent Abercrombie &
Fitch tags were out.

"This way, you would have less of some kids wearing the Nike logos and the
less wealthy children not being able to keep up," explained Michele J.
Thorp, a lawyer for the district.

But the Scicchitanos and other families objected that the uniform policy
actually required them to shell out more for new children's clothes that met
the code.

"It cost me $400 just to clothe my child," said Carlos Montoya, a truck
driver. "This is not about educating children. This is about crushing their
spirits."

Protest Slogans
All They Are Saying ...

The first protest slogan shown below was prohibited by officials in the
Mount Carmel (Pa.) Area School District, who viewed it as demeaning to those
students conforming to the district's uniform policy. District officials,
however, gave the OK to other slogans.

Prohibited

"Followers wear uniforms. Leaders Don't."

Allowed

"A uniform is a terrible thing to wear."

"The MCA School Board voted and all I got was this lousy uniform."

"Looking alike is absurd."

"I take the fifth."

"I love MCA, I hate school uniforms."

"...you took away our clothes, what's next, our crayons?"

The Scicchitano family began leading a dissident movement. Ms. Scicchitano
said she used a computer program to begin printing iron-on slogans that
protested the dress code. While it appears the district did not immediately
recognize the students' right to wear the protest slogans, it eventually
allowed several to be worn as long as students were otherwise in compliance
with the policy.

But one battle cry adorning the uniform of Filippo Scicchitano, who was then
in 6th grade, met with complete disapproval from school administrators. On
at least two school days, Filippo wore the slogan "Followers wear uniforms,
Leaders don't." He was banished to the "student support room," and faced
other discipline because administrators found the slogan demeaning to other
students, casting them as sheeplike if they complied with the uniform rule.

"We thought it was upsetting to teachers and students," said Richard F.
Beierschmitt, the superintendent.

Ms. Scicchitano, a mother of five, said Filippo was on the verge of being
expelled when the family pulled him and his sister out of Mount Carmel
Elementary and began homeschooling them. The Scicchitanos and three other
families sued the district in federal court, alleging that the dress-code
policy violated the First Amendment free-expression rights of their
children.

Ironing Issues
U.S. District Judge Malcolm Muir of Williamsport, Pa., granted summary
judgment to the district on most of the lawsuit's claims in July 2001. The
dress code by itself did not violate the First Amendment, he ruled. And
after a trial over the "followers" slogan, he sided with the district on
that issue, too.

The "followers" slogan hinders the school's mission "to create a caring and
safe environment and to foster leadership qualities in students," the judge
said in an opinion in October of last year.

The Scicchitanos and one other family appealed the rulings to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in Philadelphia. In an Aug. 26 opinion, a
three-judge panel of that court appeared eager to address the merits of the
case, calling the First Amendment issue "interesting." It was prepared to
analyze just how Filippo's slogan fit under such rulings as the Supreme
Court's 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District,
which upheld students' right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam
War.

But the appeals court held that the uniform policy suit had to be dismissed
on procedural grounds.

Because the Scicchitanos had withdrawn their children from the district, and
because they were seeking only an order to change the policy, they no longer
had legal standing to sue. The parents of student Samantha Jo Stancavage
might have had standing, but there was no evidence she had ever worn the
"followers" slogan.

The court noted that the girl's mother had tried to iron on one of Ms.
Scicchitano's slogans to her daughter's shirt. But, like the lawsuit, it
failed to stick.

"I guess she didn't do it the right way," said Ms. Scicchitano.

In any event, Ms. Scicchitano vowed, her family has just begun to fight its
legal battle against the district. They may try to target the state law that
authorizes districts to adopt such policies.

Superintendent Beierschmitt lamented that the Scicchitano children have not
returned to district schools. Their father, he said, used to help the
district get hand-me-down equipment through his job as a technician for a
television network. For obvious reasons, that's no longer occurring.

Some districts are said to be tiring of mandatory uniforms, a policy that
many public schools adopted in the 1990s. But the district is not only happy
with its dress code, it recently extended it, in modified form, to its high
school.

"There are so many variations allowed, it's not really a uniform policy,"
Mr. Beierschmitt said. "It's just a standardized dress code. It's going
well."

On the Web

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

"Disagreeing Over Dress," a January 2001 article from the American School
Boards Journal, discusses problems that arise when the values that a school
promotes may infringe upon students' freedom of expression.
"School Uniforms: Where They Are and Why They Work," 1996, from the U.S.
Department of Education's "Manual on School Uniforms," addresses the
potential benefits of a school dress code in improving discipline and school
safety.

The American Civil Liberties Union has posted "Free Expression," a guide for
young people about their rights to freedom of expression within the
education system.

This page is maintained by

The Rivermouth Action Group Inc

as a community service.

E-mail: activist@rag.org.au