ACLU Releases Legal Analysis of Proposed SSA Policy

The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee has conducted a legal analysis of Metro's proposed standard school attire policy. Read the analysis here.

In response, MPASS has issued the following statement:

April 4, 2007 (Nashville, TN)—The proposed uniform requirement for Metro public schools is not just bad educational policy; it also exposes the school system to serious legal risks, according to a legal analysis released Wednesday by the ACLU of Tennessee.

The analysis indicates that the school board will risk costly and potentially successful lawsuits if it adopts the “Standard School Attire” (SSA) policy slated for a board vote next Tuesday. “We already knew that this proposal was based on a biased study process that drew flawed conclusions contrary to research evidence on school uniforms,” said Ashley Crownover of MPASS (Metro Parents Against Standard School Attire), a group committed to the distribution of relevant information and research about SSA and opposed to its district-wide implementation. “Now, experts are asserting that the board is on the verge of adopting a policy that is legally very troubling, and potentially costly for the taxpayers of Nashville.”

The ACLU of Tennessee’s letter to the school board identified a number of potentially serious legal problems with the policy recommended to the school board last week by its SSA study committee. Among them are constitutional questions raised by aspects of the proposal that permit students to use their clothing to convey certain messages (such as clothing brands and school emblems) while disallowing expression of all other viewpoints. Another troubling provision in the proposal allows for certain designated groups, such as athletes and student clubs, to receive exemptions from the SSA requirements. School administrators would have discretion to determine who qualifies for these exemptions and who doesn’t.

These policies invite legal challenges on grounds of impermissible “viewpoint discrimination” if school administrators are permitted to make subjective decisions regarding which student groups and messages are “acceptable” and which are not.

The proposed SSA policy also threatens students’ legally protected rights to privacy by virtue of the procedure it creates for opting out of the requirement. The policy gives students the ability to obtain an exemption for medical reasons, but then puts the burden on the student to reveal confidential health information to school administrators in order to justify an exemption.

Lastly, the proposed policy raises important concerns about possible infringements on students’ religious freedom. Although the policy does allow for a religious exemption, the exemption is narrowly constructed to include only “bona fide” religions as determined by a school administrator. School officials will exceed their bounds should they try to make such judgments, and doing so will invite legal challenges under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

“These legal hazards are neither theoretical nor remote,” said MPASS’s Crownover. “They are the very real risks of a policy that was poorly conceived and carelessly constructed. The school board next Tuesday should just say no.”