A Stitch in Haste

Heard about the "Tigger Socks" case?

Toni Kay Scott, 14, was sent to an in-school suspension program called Students With Attitude Problems last year for violating a dress code, according to a lawsuit against the Napa Valley Unified School District and Redwood Middle School.

She had donned socks with the Tigger character from the Winnie the Pooh cartoons on them, along with a denim skirt and a brown shirt with a pink border.

But the school's policy requires students to wear clothes with solid colors in blue, white, green, yellow, khaki, gray, brown and black. Permitted fabrics are cotton twill, corduroy and chino. No denim is allowed.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in Napa County Superior Court by The American Civil Liberties Union and a law firm on the girl's behalf, alleges that the dress code is unconstitutionally vague and too restrictive.

Granted, this teenager has clashed with administrators over the dress code before. Nevertheless, if I were a parent I'd be pretty happy if the worst "attitude problem" that my 14-year old daughter had was insisting on wearing Tigger socks.

As for the law and lawsuit: I'm a great believer in striking down laws that are unconstitutionally vague, but I don't see that here. If anything, the dress code isn't vague enough — it apparently doesn't even accommodate the most de minimis exceptions, such as socks.

On the "too restrictive" front: It seems to me that if a student has a right — and she does — to wear a black armband, then she must also have a right to wear whatever socks she likes — so long as such socks do not "undermine the school's basic educational mission" — anyone care to argue that Tigger "undermines" anything?

I also wonder whether this is a good fact pattern to revisit the notion of — dare I say it? — "rational basis with bite." Let's assume for the moment that this were not even a First Amendment case (is wearing socks "expressive conduct?"). The dress code would still have to satisfy "mere rationality" — the school must demonstrate that the dress code, this specific code, is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Fine. Let's start by assuming that "preventing gang violence" is indeed a legitimate government interest. How is "no stripes" or "these eight colors only" or "these four fabrics only" or "no cartoon characters" rationally related to that government interest — or any other? Of course it isn't.

If the school has a particularized reason to believe that a particular garment or color has become a gang symbol, then perhaps — perhaps — they could ban it on school grounds. If skimpy beach wear can be shown to be detrimental to the classroom environment, then perhaps — perhaps — the school should be allowed to ban it.

But banning Tigger socks? That's a long way from rational.

I love the First Amendment, but I also yearn for a return to meaningful rational basis review and would love to see a judge simply strike down the ban as just plain irrational.

---

Speaking of irrational: U.K. headmaster bans student neckties as a safety hazard. So a Tigger tie would be a double penalty?