On the Job. Socks just want to be free.BTW There should be an official Free Republic toe sock. These would be close to the mark.
Posted on 05/16/2007 6:57:42 AM PDT by Candor7
In 2005, Toni Kay Scott, a student at Redwood Middle School in California, arrived at school wearing socks with a picture of the Winnie-the-Pooh character, Tigger. She was escorted by a police officer to the principal’s office and placed in in-school suspension because the socks violated her school’s dress code, which restricts students to solid-color clothing, free of logos, in only cotton, chino or corduroy fabrics. After efforts to resolve the dispute proved unsuccessful, Scott, along with five fellow students and the ACLU, is fighting back against the school and challenging the dress code.
Sharon O’Grady, a litigator in the San Francisco office of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and pro bono lawyer for Scott, working in conjunction with the ACLU, said in an interview today, “We are asking the court to hold that the dress code for the Redwood Middle School is unconstitutional and also violates California law and to enjoin the enforcement of the dress code.” The Pillsbury team was headed by Thomas V. Loran, III and also included John E. Janhunen and Alex A.L. Ponce de Leon.
When the MSNBC anchor challenged that school dress codes are not uncommon, O’Grady explained why the Redwood code violates the rights of the students. “There are other public schools that have uniforms, but the California statute requires that parents be allowed to opt their children out of the code,” she said. “Toni Kay's parents weren't allowed to do that in this case. They tried to, and they were told that they could not do that. So whatever you think about the merits of having a uniform policy, the California statute expressly provides that parents can make the decision whether their students have to comply with that uniform policy. And that right was denied the plaintiffs in this case.”
Uniform Socks ONLY
A kid suspended for wearing "Tigger" socks ... yeah, now THERE's a dress code that needs defending.
Even so, it's not the dress codes -- it's the idiots who enforce them. The whole idea is to crack down on "gang attire," a pursuit which doesn't seem to have much effect on gang activity, but it does seem to get good kids in trouble.
This is the same ACLU that does not have time (ever) to look into Father’s Rights abuses (in divorce and child custody matters) but has all the time in the world to take gay rights and islamo-terrorist cases and anti-God and Bible cases.
Seems like socks are becoming quite the hot topic...
On the Job. Socks just want to be free.BTW There should be an official Free Republic toe sock. These would be close to the mark.
I guess we know what the Mods day job is....
Well, in the California Socks case, its a matter of discrimination against the poor or those who are caught sockless and have to substitute a none code sock.
The logic is that government does not have the constitutional right to dictate sock usage, or the logos on socks.
Some people take their socks very seriously, but there ARE more important issues for those who have it socked to them in so many other ways.
Already on this thread we have a world wide sock response, and we also have a sock kntter on the thread.
In the military , socks can mean the difference between life and death, but I guess the ACLU is talking only about Tigger Socks.
Winny the Poo Socks tend to put the most sober educator off.
There is a lot of wind in some socks:
I, for one, take my socks VERY seriously.
And who wants to have the equivalent of two flat tires?
My favorite, cable knitted wool, with a kilt over!
I got a kick over your enjoying a new pair of socks (other thread). Its true, they feel so good , right after a good hot foot bath!LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.