I have previously written about D.A. v. Tri-County Area Schools, one of the worst free speech decisions to come out of the appellate courts in years. In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a school ban on high school students wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts. Sixth Circuit Judge John Nalbandian was joined by Judge Karen Nelson Moore in a deeply flawed holding that, under the “vulgarity exception,” the action was constitutional. The Supreme Court needs to grant review in this case and reverse this obnoxious decision.
As previously discussed, “Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against media bias. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud and clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.
In this case, an assistant principal (Andrew Buikema) and a teacher (Wendy Bradford) “ordered the boys to remove the sweatshirts” for allegedly breaking the school dress code. However, other students were allowed to wear political apparel supporting other causes, including “gay-pride-themed hoodies.”
The district dress code states the following:
“Students and parents have the right to determine a student’s dress, except when the school administration determines a student’s dress is in conflict with state policy, is a danger to the students’ health and safety, is obscene, is disruptive to the teaching and/or learning environment by calling undue attention to oneself. The dress code may be enforced by any staff member.”
The district reserves the right to bar any clothing “with messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane, or that advertise any product or service not permitted by law to minors.”
The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane. To the contrary, it substitutes non-profane words for profane words. Nevertheless, “D.A.” was stopped in the hall by Buikema and told that his “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt was equivalent to “the f–word.”
The district court showed an equally dismissive view of the free speech rights of these students, including that the phrase could “reasonably be interpreted” as profane. That was upheld by the Sixth Circuit in its 2-1 decision.
Judge John Bush offered an excellent dissent, stating:
“[T]he speech here—”Let’s Go Brandon!”—is neither vulgar nor profane on its face, and therefore does not fall into [the Fraser] exception. To the contrary, the phrase is purely political speech. It criticizes a political official—the type of expression that sits “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” No doubt, its euphemistic meaning was offensive to some, particularly those who supported President Biden. But offensive political speech is allowed in school, so long as it does not cause disruption under Tinker. As explained below, Tinker is the standard our circuit applied to cases involving Confederate flag T-shirts and a hat depicting an AR-15 rifle—depictions arguably more offensive than “Let’s Go Brandon!” …
The majority says the sweatshirts’ slogan is crude. But neither the phrase itself nor any word in it has ever been bleeped on television, radio, or other media. Not one of the “seven words you can never say on television” appears in it . Instead, the phrase has been used to advance political arguments, primarily in opposition to President Biden’s policies and secondarily to complain about the way liberal-biased media treats conservatives. It serves as a coded critique—a sarcastic catchphrase meant to express frustration, resentment, and discontent with political opponents. The phrase has been used by members of Congress during debate. And even President Biden himself, attempting to deflect criticism, “agreed” with the phrase.
We cannot lose sight of a key fact: the students’ sweatshirts do not say “F*ck Joe Biden.” Instead, they bear a sanitized phrase made famous by sports reporter Kelli Stavast while interviewing NASCAR race winner Brandon Brown at the Talladega Superspeedway. The reporter said the crowd behind them was yelling “Let’s go, Brandon!” She did not report the vulgar phrase that was actually being chanted. The Majority even concedes Stavast may have used the sanitized phrase to “put a fig leaf over the chant’s vulgarity.” That is telling….”
The Sixth Circuit opinion constitutes a significant infringement on the free speech rights of students. I readily admit that I am critical of some past cases, including Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Juneau-Douglas High School could suspend student Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” across the street from the school during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay. In my view, the courts have honored Tinker largely in the breach in such cases.
FIRE has filed the petition below, and hopefully, the justices will add this case to the docket.
Here is the petition: Petition for Writ of Certiorari – D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools
Great Britainistan!
Francistan!
Germanistan!
Europistan!
In other news, Trump unveils his presidential library that will be built in Miami literally next to the Cuban Freedom Tower. It was a brilliant move. IIRC, Trump usually constructed buildings under budget, before schedule, and outright gorgeous – at least the several Trump buildings I have visited from NYC to South Florida.
It will tall enough for Democrats to throw MAGA off of the building, conservatives to throw other conservatives off of the building, and Muslims to throw gays off the building, even if there are may gays in Miami/Ft Lauderdale than most places in the world, except perhaps Iran
Judge Leon says the construction of the WH Ballroom has to stop.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/politics/judge-rules-that-white-house-ballroom-contstuction-stop
Stop and put up a big sign saying JUDGE LEON MEMORIAL HOLE.
Meanwhile judge Moss ruled it violated the First Amendment to cut off funds to NPR.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/npr-pbs-federal-funding-trump-first-amendment
How did we end up such stupid, political judges?
But they know they can get away with it because Roberts is limp.
“But they know they can get away with it because Roberts is limp.”
I also despise Roberts, but I think you are well aware that the responsibility for disciplining Federal appellate judges falls to Congress, not SCOTUS. About all that the Supreme Court could do by way of punishment is to manipulate case assignments, which doesn’t really punish a judge directly, and would probably have some quite negative effects on scheduling.
How can the Supreme Court court manipulate district court assignments?
And The Revolutionaries And Founders Said, “Enough!”
_____________________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
This is a case that should be taken up by the Supreme Court. It is pure political speech. That in of itself is not going to be protected because the Court has not been the most protective of student speech. Yet, in this case it is purely the type of speech that drives people up the wall because it sways everything without saying anything offensive. If they take up the case, I am not so sure which way it goes because both ways are plausible as an outcome. At the same time, I can see the court backing the kids because this is the one case that fully gives a leg up on political side over the other side if it is upheld. I am also tired of the phrase of knocking down a student speech rights on the partial anything that calls undue amount to attention to one. That can mean anything as determined by anyone. There are plenty of cases of school choosing sides in speech cases depending if it agrees with the message. While I am the first to acknowledge that school education is hard to keep the kids attention, it does not mean one side should be preference over the other side in speech and that is the case this time.
Short of uniforms, a school could have a “no legibile clothing” policy to reduce distractions from classroom instruction. That would be good for learning and prevent school authorities from selectively censoring messages they disagree with.
PRIVATIZE PUBLIC SCHOOL
The freedom of speech is unqualified and, therefore, absolute, including freedom of defamation, and may only be amended through the exercise of Article 5.
Only the owners of private schools may “claim and exercise” dominion, including dress, speech, behavior, etc., codes, and public schools must be allowed the same latitude.
Compulsory public schools deny individuals their freedom to establish private schools and are, therefore, unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment states, “No State shall…deprive any person of…liberty…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” There is no such thing, for example, as a compulsory public restaurant.
All schools must be private per the Constitution, and any and all rational schools require uniforms and enforce against miscreants and misbehavior, including incitement by speech.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment, Section 1
No State shall…deprive any person of…liberty…without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
It amazes me, that almost 18 years after his death, George Carlin is referenced in this editorial by a Sixth Circuit Judge. If people were asked, where ‘Not one of the “seven words you can never say on television” appears in it .’ came from, very few people would know. He was the one who came up with that routine, in 1972. So, more than 50 years after he came up with it, we use it again.
Thank you, Mr. Carlin!
George Carlin was your mommy? Seriously?
Strike that under the “vulgarity exception.”
Check out today’s SCOTUS ruling shutting down the CO law banning so-called conversion therapy. The decision was 8-1 with KBJ getting taken to task by even Kagan.
Jackson is today’s product of today’s law schools. A radical deconstructionist posing as a Justice. Biden’s last gift to help ruin our country.
You MAGAs do not speak for “our” country. AND, Justice Jackson is correct–“conversion ‘therapy’ ” is BS. Government SHOULD defer to trained medical professionals on this issue, which was not “freedom of speech”–it’s stupid religious bigotry against gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians are not going to be talked out of their sexual orientation by some “therapist”. Sexual orientation is wired–not acquired– and is not only ineffective, it is harmful. From “Scientific Reports”:
“In conclusion, we showed that sexual orientation is associated with distinct changes in brain structure and that these effects vary with biological sex. Altogether, our findings show that sexual orientation has strong associations with areas primarily linked to processing and integrating incoming sensory, reward-related, and motor information. The findings aid the understanding of the neurobiology of sexual orientation and emphasizes the need of including or controlling for potential effects of the sexual orientation of participants in neuroimaging studies. Moreover, results provide new insights into sexual behavior in general and have implications for healthcare policies.”
Brain structure changes associated with sexual orientation
Mikhail Votinov, Katharina S. Goerlich, Andrei A. Puiu, Elke Smith, Thomas Nickl-Jockschat, Birgit Derntl & Ute Habel
Scientific Reports volume 11, Article number: 5078 (2021)
From “The American Psychological Association”:
“Conversion therapy” refers to attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or related behaviors. Sometimes called “reparative” or “reorientation” therapy, these practices stem from the scientifically discredited belief that being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness that should be cured.
APA uses the terms “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) and “gender identity change efforts” (GICE). These practices are not evidence-based therapy.
What does psychological research show about “conversion therapy?”
Decades of psychological research reveal these efforts are largely ineffective and pose serious risks of harm:
A 2020 review study in Clinical Psychology: Science and Practiceopens in new window found that reported success claims often contain methodological limitations, such as biased recruitment or a retrospective design, that weaken the validity or prevent the generalizability of results. Many studies report negative outcomes associated with SOCE and GICE, such as depression, relationship dysfunction, and increased homonegativity.
A 2015 study in the Journal of Counseling Psychologyopens in new window surveyed 1,612 people who underwent sexual orientation change efforts and found that only 3.2% reported even slight changes in sexual orientation.
APA’s 2009 task force review (PDF, 1.1MB)opens in new window found insufficient, low-quality evidence that conversion practices reliably change sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Another dump of lunacy from Gigi. Poor tortured soul.
Anonymous…because of your distorted posts, me thinks you could use conversion therapy. And quite alot of it. But not the kind being discussed.
“me thinks you could use conversion therapy. And quite a lot of it. But not the kind being discussed.”
Soylent Green conversion therapy might be appropriate…
“You MAGAs do not speak for ‘our’ country.”
– Nutchachacha
___________________
Did the American Founders speak for “our” country?
I rather enjoy this one:
“We the People of the United States…secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY.”
– Preamble to the Constitution of the American Founders
Yup, keep arguing for the trans insanity it will surely see you help candidates in your party. “Experts” tell other experts that they cannot discuss NOT TRANSITIONING and you support that. Fascist little pig.
Kbj is painfully not up to the task. It’s awful, HB.
Not sure about both “today’s law school” when the justice graduated law school in 1996 and “last gift” when Biden nominated her in February 2022.
Anyone who paid attention knew what “let’s go” meant in the slogan. The only question I have is proportionality in the simplest of terms. To interpret “let’s go” as an intransitive verb is a distant FAR-FAR-STREACH indeed, it takes imagination, just like “Pride”.
Check out this video, “footage of Pete hegseth overthrowing an Axe and hitting a bystander” https://share.google/KPLfnLaEOkwkF6btd
Nice AI fake.
That happens before AI came along Dustoff. Hegseth did throw an axe and hit the drummer behind the target.
DustOff,
Nah, it was not very good. The closest part to being accurate was CNN reporting that it was real.
“Friendly Fire”
Shhh!
It Happens!
I’ll never forget the night our platoon was sent on a patrol to interdict the source of the previous night’s mortar fire and the Firebase’s artillery opened up with a “counter-mortar mission” while we were out there. That 105 arty “friendly fire” stuff’s really hairy! Luckily no one was “dusted off” after that incident.
The district reserves the right to bar any clothing “with messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane, or that advertise any product or service not permitted by law to minors.”
“Let’s go Brandon” is no more lewd or vulgar than “Oh, sugar!”
(Back in the day that was a common way people sanitized “Oh s–t!”)
Well ‘cheese and crackers’, your right oldman! I was just talking about that with a colleague and we started rattling off a few. The worst one of all is just using the word Trump. That’ll trigger emotions across the spectrum.
OldManFromKS, OLLY,
Well, the hit TV show Battelstar Galactica used the word “frak” to get around the FCC and the seven dirty word list. We all knew what it meant but it was not censored. I use “arse” on a fairly regular basis.
Dont forget Felgercarb
Upstate – somewhere in the Marcellus Shale states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, an institution has been founded to train engineers on how to do hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. It’s called Frack U.
(My little dad joke from when my kids were applying to colleges)
You would be banned in England.
You are an arse, Upstate Farmer
Show how this is irrelevant to the current discussion, “ OldManFromKS, OLLY,
Well, the hit TV show Battelstar Galactica used the word “frak” to get around the FCC and the seven dirty word list. We all knew what it meant but it was not censored. I use “arse” on a fairly regular basis.”
Relevant not irrelevant.
You shouldn’t talk about yourself.
Upstate, you’re mixing up TV censors with school principals. The FCC regulates airwaves for the general public, but schools regulate a mandatory learning environment for minors. Just because a TV show found a loophole to avoid a federal fine doesn’t mean a student has a constitutional right to use the same loophole in math class. Schools have the legal authority to ban ‘substitute’ profanity because they are judging the disruption to the educational environment, not just checking a list of banned words.
Since schools are legally allowed to restrict speech that is lewd, vulgar, or disruptive regardless of how it’s ‘packaged,’ what makes you think your version of the statement is exempt from those same rules?
“Let’s go Brandon” is neither lewd, vulgar, nor disruptive. It’s like saying “Gosh darn.”
Oldmanfromkansas, nope. Everyone knows what it meant when it was created. Even the court knew what it meant. The kids wearing it knew what it meant. That ‘s why he wore it and why the school recognized it was inappropriate. It’s pretty basic and it’s why SCOTUS agreed with the lower court.
X – First, Scotus did not agree with the lower court. Scotus has not weighed in on this (re-read Turley’s article).
Second, you should at least admit what is obvious to everyone, if you want to engage in rational discourse.
“Let’s go Brandon” is no more vulgar than “Gosh darn.” or “Oh, sugar!” Everyone knows what words those sayings are substituting for too. It doesn’t make them vulgar. You’d have to be puritanical-on-steroids to take offense to “Let’s go Brandon” based on vulgarity. As I pointed out before, the only reason people like you object is because it’s making fun of a Democrat rather than a Republican. That’s what this case is all about.
If a reporter had covered for a politician where people were yelling, “XXX – F.U.” by saying, “Listen to the crowd, they’re chanting ‘The sky is blue'”. Then someone shows up at school with a shirt saying “The sky is blue.” That’s not vulgar.
Your position is not reasonable, it is a transparent attempt at derailing the conversation by denying the obvious and getting people to spend time discussing the obvious rather than the central point.
(TACO) Trump Always Chickens Out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out
In light of recent events, the saying “Trump Always Chickens Out” is about like saying, “Bill Clinton never cheats on his wife,” or “Joe Biden’s brain is sharp as a tack,” or “Barack Obama is a Reagan Republican.”
OldManFromKS,
When I see TACO, I see it as people who do not under stand how negotiations work.
Trump doesn’t know now negotiations work. It’s obvious he doesn’t know how to negotiate anything.
Right, and Albert Einstein knew nothing about physics (eye-roll).
I seem to recall EU Chief Ursula von der Leyen, saying something to the effect of, that Trump was “known as a tough negotiator and dealmaker.”
Any serious educational institution requires discipline and uniforms.
Donald J. Trump was reportedly “apoplectic with rage” on Saturday after a tiny crowd showed up for his heavily-publicized “Pro Kings” rally.
An advance team led by Eric Trump had scheduled the event at Lexington, Kentucky’s Kroger Field, a stadium with a 61,000-seat capacity, but later engaged in what was called “an orgy of finger-pointing” after only 17 people turned out.
Taking to Truth Social, the elder Trump called the minuscule Pro Kings crowd a “total disgrace,” adding, “Especially this year, when we’re celebrating the 250th anniversary of the last time we had a King!”
What does Trump have to do with this case? He apparently lives in your head rent free. TDS is real.
Pro Kings Rally? That was not a real story, just satire.
The Progressives would likely defend true vulgarity.
They wallow in it.
They are mostly responsible for the coarsening of public speech that Professor Turley rightly criticized in an earlier post.
They hate and censor “Let’s Go Brandon” precisely because it IS political speech.
Young,
Funny thing is, there was a article highlighting how Democrats have taken to using the F-bomb in public since Trump’s second term started.
And? It’s called free speech. Heard of it? So what’s the issue?
The issue is the hypocrisy and faux outrage. They willingly use vulgarity in public, then pretend to faint and swoon over supposed “vulgarity” when someone says “Let’s go Brandon”
OldManFromKS,
Well, Democrats are failing on nearly all policies with their 80/20 stances, they need to look like they are fighting against . . . something, so they resort to vulgarity to look tough.
And they fail.
Again.
They had a chance to show themselves as more reserved and proper than the business-dealing president, and instead of taking a moral high road, they dug a new trench. Instead of looking stronger, they are swearing like 5 years olds just now learning the word and understanding it is bad.
They hate and censor “Let’s Go Brandon” precisely because it IS political speech.
They don’t mind political vulgarity when aimed at Republicans (think of those “Buck Fush” bumper stickers when W was POTUS). They just don’t like any speech critical of Dems. That is what this is all about.
OldManFromKS,
“They just don’t like any speech critical of Dems.”
Exactly!! That is why so many of the trolls come here and demand the good professor talk about what they want him to talk about. Or how they criticize the good professor when he is pointing out how far the Democrat party has become, failed Democrat policies, failed or failing Democrat states and cities.
Nope, it’s a code for a vulgarity. Everyone knows what it meant.
The point that is constantly lost amongst you nuts. Is the fact that the expression which is still a vulgarity in code is inappropriate in school. Schools have the authority to ban such content because it is exactly what the court and everyone else knows it is. A vulgarity in disguise.
Burger explained why the Tinker rule did not apply to Fraser: “Unlike the sanctions imposed on the students wearing armbands in Tinker, the penalties imposed in this case were unrelated to any political viewpoint.”
But the speech prohibited hear is entirely related to a political viewpoint. No one thinks it relates to actually having carnal knowledge, as in Fraser.
Michaeldix, Chief Justice Burger wasn’t saying Fraser’s speech wasn’t political—it was a campaign speech! He was saying the punishment wasn’t about the politics; it was about the smut. Fraser proved that even explicitly political speech (nominating a candidate) loses protection if you deliver it in a lewd or vulgar way. Therefore, wrapping a vulgar message in a political flag doesn’t give a student immunity; the school still has the right to regulate the ‘manner’ of the speech to maintain a civil environment.
What is the political message behind saying s candidate is “firm in his pants”? There is none. It is purely sexual. Whereas “Let’s Go Brandon” is a condemnation of Biden’s politicat stances, policies, and beliefs. Nobody thinks it signifies having coitus.
OT: The Supreme Court just ruled 8-1 that Colorado cannot enforce it’s ban on conversion therapy. Any guesses as to who was the 1?
As soon as I heard it was 8-1 I knew exactly who the 1 was. I heard someone read an excerpt of her dissent. It was all about social policy goals. She is a politician in a black robe.
Oldman– “She is a politician in a black robe.”
Please permit a minor correction: :She is an IDIOT n a black robe.”
It figures who it was. Remember this women who has no idea what a women is.
She claimed not to know. But she did admit it was a matter of biological truth, not psychological fads.
++
She echoes Potter Stewart: “I know a woman when I see one.”
Difficult to reconcile the difference between a black female SC justice and an anonymous troll? Can you help?
FCS, Yup, even Kagan was critical of Jackson’s dissent.
Of course Jackson was another Autopen appointment. Its really time to start questioning whether these people are legitimate. If not, impeachment may not be necessary to clean the stables.
What is the basis for saying this is an autopen appointment? Biden spoke at her nomination announcement event so he was certainly aware of her nomination.
Seems like conversion therapy is free speech which may not be abridged.
This “Let’s Go Brandon” slogan perfectly illustrates the difficulty in defining indecency, vulgarity, or other affronts to norms of public behavior. Humans are infinitely creative beings, and can out-fox any rule-based-system — simply because at the time rules are made or revised, they cannot anticipate all the clever ways the rule will eventually be gamed.
Justice Potter Stewart put his finger on the dilemma in regards to a supposed red line defining obscenity when he proclaimed in sheer exasperation: “I know it when I see it”.
That reality then begs two questions:
1) Should we just give up on trying to uphold public standards of conduct because the standards are nebulous?
2) If the answer to 1) is “no”, then who decides in each instance what behavior steps over the line as unacceptable?
Personally, I don’t think robed judges should be making these decisions, mostly because there are always going to be quicker, less costly ways of deciding — speed is important — low-cost is important. Even more important, the upholding of public standards of behavior should be widely distributed throughout society, not able to be concentrated in a few individuals. Concentration of power invites abuse of power.
Generally speaking, the way our free society stays focussed on essential purposes and maintains cohesion is by doling out power in proportion to responsibility-taking. Wherever power is claimed while eschewing responsibility, that’s where we find dysfunction brewing.
The principal of a school carries heavy responsibility for the daily outcome of hundreds of teachers and students.
A positive learning environment kept free of banal distractions and disruptions is his/her responsibility. No other individual in the school carries such weighty responsibility. Therefore, the principal needs to have the power to put fires out, and prevent ones from outbreak. Good principals consult with office colleagues on tricky edge cases before projecting authority.
A student carries a tiny responsibility compared to the principal. The student has no idea what it takes to run a school. Neither do parents. Therefore, who are they to try to overrule the judgment of the principal for how to manage the school?
By the same token, who is a Federal Judge to 2nd guess what it takes to run an orderly school?
pbinca,
Excellent comment.
There used to be a time where, with a few exceptions, there were commonly agreed up social and civil standards that guided society, even if they were not codified or enshrined in law.
Today, those standards have gone out the window. Teachers questioning six year olds what their sex is, when the child does not even understand the concept of sex in that regard. States passing laws to interfere and get in between a parent and their child. Students who think they are cats. And there are some schools that tolerate that kind of behavior.
commonly agreed up social and civil standards. And who and how did one agree to those standards? Is there a school book that sets it out?
You want the straight, non-fluff answer?
Our nation was founded by a long line of God-fearing men. The principles eschewed in the Christian Bible were a guiding rod for the writing of our founding documents. (P.S. if you take the Bible as a moral/history book, instead of just a religious document, there are a lot of good guidelines in it).
The other half is regular human decency, which is a learned trait from family and community. Oh wait, you don’t have that anymore, other ATS. You gladly spit on the graves of military, call for anyone not progressive enough to be put in camps or to death, and will absolutely be the second man against the wall if your ‘counter-revolutionary’ leaders win.
” The principles eschewed in the Christian Bible were a guiding rod for the writing of our founding documents.”
Um. I don’t believe “eschew” is the word you wanted there.
“The meaning of ESCHEW is to avoid habitually especially on moral or practical grounds : shun. ”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eschew
The law should prevent school dress codes from censoring messages based on content, but allow the banning of them altogether. That way, schools can opt to have needless disruption or beneficent order.
It seems that you are making an argument for school uniforms. If so, I agree. School uniforms would encourage an identity with the school, lasting long after graduation. It also would prevent competition, esp among females, as to dress. Parochial schools have had school uniforms for many years, with good results. Obviously, messages of any kind on these uniforms would be banned.