Punished For Looking Good In a Tux

Gotta be a southern thing.  Even way back when when I was having my senior photo taken we were allowed to wear whatever we wanted.  It was just accepted that you'd dress up even nicer than for prior year's photos.  

Okay, let's see if I can clear this up a bit...

The narrow focus by Bennet is on Free Speech rights.

What we have is a case where a student wants a publication owners and/or editors to publish a photograph of her wearing a tuxedo in said publication, a school yearbook.  That the female student is openly lesbian, gets top grades, is active in extracurricular activities is not relevant.

What is relevant is whether or not any individual, group, or organization has the right to force a publisher (or broadcaster) to publish (or broadcast) an image.  While Amendment I does state we have Free Speech rights, Amendment I also protects the Press.  I have yet to find one case since 1981, when Ronald Reagan suspended the Fairness Doctrine (which applied only to news reporters and commentators), in which the courts have stated a publication or broadcaster must publish or broadcast a particular point of view, whether an original or rebuttal statement.

That Democrats currently support the continued suspension of the Fairness Doctrine won't help matters, either.  Because of this, publishers and broadcasters are not required to publish an oppositional statement (or other forms of free speech) in rebuttal to a previously published or broadcasted statement.  Prior to the suspension of the Fairness Doctrine, I can find no case in which the courts have ordered that a publisher or broadcaster MUST publish or broadcast original statements (or other forms) of free speech.  BTW, the media isn't even required to tell you the truth, thanks to Reagan.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) was weakened significantly by the US Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., (1988).  In that decision, free speech rights within school publications were sharply curtailed.

Also, Morse v. Frederick has been used by schools not only to stop "pro-drug" messages, but also political statements of all sorts, from oppositional to supportive positions on candidates, issues, events, etc.  It is also being used as an excuse to suspend or expel students for free speech activities outside of school hours, off school property, that have no school involvement whatsoever.  All a school need claim, it seems, is that somehow the form and content of free speech was either disruptive to school functions, or posed a safety risk within the school to one or more persons.

And, Jeperson v. Harrah's has been used in the courts, repeatedly and selectively, to justify employment termination or school suspension/expulsion of transgender workers/students.  So long as the dress code does not directly interfere with the employee's/student's ability to work/study as required, nor effects said worker's/student's safety, the dress code is typically upheld.  SInce Title VII does not specifically address differential gender specific dress codes, the various courts tend to lean in the direction of how the 9th Circuit Court ruled in this case.

What is probably needed is a school version of ENDA to address this issue, or an update to Title VII which addresses the issue of gender specific dress codes in school and the workplace. 

The easiest way to get her desire to wear the tux allowed under "free speech" and thus protected under the 1st Amendment is to have it rest on political basis. That's why they're using that specific language. This is so they can use Tinker v Des Moines as precedent should it get to court. I don't think it will get that far.

Tinker was a Vietnam War era case. The Tinker kids wore black arm bands to school to protest the war. The Court ruled it was protected speech.

Sometimes I forget to say thank you......I never had to wear a dress to school....I was allowed to wear my tough skins ....Also...I was allowed to play sports!

Thank you ladies for opening the doors to all the opportunities!!