Court Rules Charter School’s Skirt Requirement for Girls is Unconstitutional
“The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-6 that Charter Day School violated three female students’ equal protection rights”
As someone who went to Catholic school for many years, I remember a time when required skirts for girls was standard practice.
The New York Post reports:
Charter school’s skirt requirement for girls unconstitutional, court rules
A North Carolina charter school’s requirement that girls wear skirts based on the view that they are “fragile vessels” deserving of “gentle” treatment by boys is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-6 that Charter Day School violated three female students’ equal protection rights by adopting the skirts policy based on gender stereotypes about the “proper place” for girls in society.
The school implemented a dress code that its founder, businessman Baker Mitchell, in an email and testimony said would “preserve chivalry” and ensure girls are treated “courteously and more gently than boys.”
The state-funded school in Brunswick County argued the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment did not apply to it because it was a private entity, not a “state actor.”
But U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan said it was one since North Carolina delegated to it its duty to provide free, universal education to students. A contrary ruling would mean North Carolina could ignore “blatant” discrimination, she said.
The Richmond, Virginia-based court also allowed the students to pursue a claim under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally-funded education.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Anddddd, right in middle of the article was an ad promoting the type of photos men are supposed to leer at. The come-on was a shapely cheer leader.
Edit: “Warning, Graphic Photos.”
Why do they waste the hot chick ads on the gay guys?
All I ever get is “grandma in [my town] attacked by coward.”
And nail fungus. Lots and lots of nail fungus.
Well, charter schools are government entities, and thus subject to the constitution. That’s why they can’t be religious in character.
But the idea that sex-appropriate dress codes violate the equal protection clause is absurd. Each student is equally required to dress appropriately for their sex.
If our society had evolved different dress standards for different races then requiring students to adhere to those would also not violate equal protection. But it never did, so that hypothetical is irrelevant. Sex and race are not interchangeable.
You hit the crux of the problem: they don’t want a male/female distinction, but they will permit (enforce) a 96 “gender” variation for, um, diversity or something.
I doubt that uniform dressing would promote gender confusion or same-sex attraction. We don’t need a school to teach the difference after all, that’s what parents are for. What it might do is reduce the hard-ons that boys have to deal with. And that would be a good thing.
Not that today’s culture cares about what boys have to deal with.
Things are starting to change I think, with the feminists screaming every step of the way. Be clever though. The feminists probably like the “butch” no-skirt look. Let them have it! The place for sexy dress isn’t in school.
Make everyone wear exactly the same uniforms, right down to the asphyxiating ties.
I wonder; are bras required?
You seem to have the delusion that that would be a problem. At the Catholic school my son recently graduated from: Boy’s clothes: khaki pants or navy pants, white button down shirt, v neck blue sweater vest(optional), tie – Girl’s clothes: Grey skirt, white button down shirt, v neck blue sweater vest(optional), blue string tie or plaid dress with white button down shirt, blue string tie (Modesty shorts or tights required under both skirt and dress.)
The two or three girls who routinely wear the guy’s uniform are mostly ignored as long as they don’t wear it on a day a visitor from the Diocese is there.
The boys at my son’s school basically wore the school sweatshirt and shorts, every day of the year. I appreciate their efforts at seeing the letter of the law even if it wasn’t within the spirit. That school was worth every penny!
You take the king’s coin, you play the king’s tune.
You can’t be a “private entity” and be dependent on government grants. Ask Hillsdale.
Even as an entirely private entity, my first employer had to swear to language in every federal contract that they didn’t violate scads of crap including the Clean Air and Water Act. (Luckily, none of our computers consumed diesel or produced sewage. At least BEFORE Carter’s EOP got their hands on them.)
When I wasin school many years ago, girls were required to wear skirts cor dresses. The result was that we could not climb high on the monkey bars or go high on the swings because our underwear might be seen. I think many dress codes are appropriate, but no one should be required to wear clothing that restricts their freedom of movement.
As a guy, I certainly agree. Although then I would miss the opportunity to peek. There’s a time and place for proper behavior, and the playground is the time to loosen up on that and let kids be kids. We’re all animals, not just the boys.
> no one should be required to wear clothing that restricts their freedom of movement
But.. that’s _why_ I wear some of the skirts I wear.
Although I guess that’s choice, not an imposed requirement. So I do agree with you.
Anything that teaches “chivalry” to boys (acting like knights serving ladies, their noble superiors) is not doing right by the boys.
I think civilization would beg to differ.
More court over-reaching