More Than a Dress Code: Cultural Expression and Student Rights
In many public schools, dress codes are presented as simple rules meant to keep students focused and classrooms orderly. However, for some students, these rules extend far beyond clothing, going as far as to regulate identity. Policies that ban certain garments and hairstyles often force students to choose between following school rules and expressing who they are. While schools defend these restrictions as necessary to maintain professionalism or discipline, critics argue that such policies unfairly target individuality and personal expression. Because public schools are government institutions, their rules must comply with the Constitution. The Supreme Court has made clear that students do not lose their constitutional rights when they walk into a classroom, yet schools are still given authority to manage behavior and maintain a productive learning environment. When dress codes restrict cultural expression, the question becomes whether schools are enforcing reasonable standards or crossing a constitutional line. This conflict raises serious concerns under both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Clothing and appearance can be forms of expression, particularly when tied to culture or religion. Restrictions on that expression may violate free speech protections and disproportionately impact students of certain ethnic or religious backgrounds. As schools continue to enforce appearance-based policies, it becomes increasingly important to examine whether these rules protect learning or silence identity.
The Supreme Court has clearly established that students do not lose their constitutional rights in a public school setting. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court ruled that students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War were engaging in protected public speech. It recognized the students’ right to freedom of speech, laying the foundation for modern student speech law by emphasizing that schools may only restrict student expression when it causes a substantial disruption to the educational environment. This case is especially relevant to modern-day dress code disputes. Clothing, appearances, and symbols can convey meaning just as clearly as words. Cultural clothing and hairstyles often represent heritage, identity, or religious belief. For many students, these forms of expression are deeply personal and tied to their sense of self. Restrictions on this type of expression require strong justification, not just vague concerns about appearance or conformity.
Beyond the First Amendment, dress codes that restrict cultural expression also raise serious Equal Protection concerns. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying individuals equal protection under the law. While dress codes are written in neutral language, they disproportionately impact students of certain racial or religious backgrounds. For example, bans on hairstyles frequently target styles such as braids and locs, closely associated with Black identity. Similarly, restrictions on head coverings can affect Muslim, Jewish, or Sikh students, whose religious practices entail specific attire. When a rule consistently disadvantages one group while leaving others unaffected, it suggests that neutrality on paper does not always translate to fairness in practice.
In response to growing concerns about discriminatory dress codes, several states have passed legislation aimed at protecting cultural expression. The most notable example is the CROWN Act; first passed in 2019, it prohibits discrimination based on hair texture and protective hairstyles in workplaces and schools. Since then, versions of legislation have been passed in many states, such as New York and Texas, and are under consideration at the federal level. As more states adopt similar measures, institutions may find themselves reevaluating dress codes that prioritize uniformity over inclusion.
School dress codes that restrict cultural expression raise significant constitutional concerns under both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. Supreme Court precedent makes it clear that student protection is protected unless it causes substantial disruption, and it is rare that cultural attire meets this standard. At the same time, the disproportionate impact of these policies on certain ethnic groups highlights the need for change. Schools undeniably have legitimate interests in maintaining safety, order, and a positive learning environment. However, these interests must be balanced with a student’s constitutional rights. When schools restrict expression without clear evidence of disruption, they risk violating both free speech and equal protection principles. Protecting cultural expression in schools is not only a constitutional obligation, but a necessary step toward ensuring that education reflects the diversity of the students that it serves.
Bibliography
“Facts and Case Summary - Tinker v. Des Moines.” United States Courts. Accessed January 2, 2026. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities/tinker-v-des-moines/facts-and-case-summary-tinker-v-des-moines.
“The Official Crown Act.” The Official CROWN Act. Accessed January 2, 2026. https://www.thecrownact.com/.
Why school dress codes are often unfair | high schools | U.S. news. Accessed January 2, 2026. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/articles/why-school-dress-codes-are-often-unfair.
“The Crown Act.” Legal Defense Fund, July 2, 2024. https://www.naacpldf.org/crown-act/.
School dress codes perpetuate sexism, racism, and transphobia | planned parenthood new hampshire action fund. Accessed January 3, 2026. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-new-hampshire-action-fund/blog/school-dress-codes-perpetuate-sexism-racism-and-transphobia.