They voted with virtually no discussion. Clearly, everyone's mind was already made up (in fact, they met privately before the public meeting), and all the protest, organization, attempts to establish dialogue to improve the climate of the school - all this was completely disregarded.
Jan. 22: At 9:00 on Friday, Jan. 22, about two hundred students walked out of class and assembled to organize the next phase. Parents came to show their support. There was considerable media presence.
Jan. 25: An unofficial planning meeting was held on Jan. 25 with students, parents, and teachers in attendance. It was determined that the SBDM council is now aware that they violated the open meeting laws (Kentucky State law) by having a secret ballot. As a result of that meeting, the following was decided:
1. We will be filing an official appeal to the SBDM council on this
matter. We would like the revote to take place after an open forum with
teachers, parents and students.
2. We will file a request to start the process over and not begin the
dress code issue as a second reading.
3. We would like to have in writing for open discussion from the
teachers: What is the rationale for the dress code? Where is the
research to back it, etc. We would like a parents position too.
Feb. 11: the SBDM re-voted on the dress code, since their earlier vote was determined to be illegal under the open meetings law of Kentucky. The results were 10 to 1. Mr. Harbison, the principal, did not cast a vote this time. The previous vote tally had been 10 to 2.
This is not over.
The decision has been appealed to the Atherton SBDM, who have to hold a public hearing. It can then be appealed to the State SBDM. Legal action is also a possibility.
We are now trying to inform community members (alumni too!) who are not on the Internet about our activities. A flyer will be circulated.
March 12: A parent opposed to the dress code reports: "I attended a meeting today with two SDBM reps., the Board's attorney, and our attorney to discuss the possibility of mediation. We have waived our time limit on the appeal (hearing), which is now postponed indefinitely, while the SBDM council meets in "Executive session" to discuss participating in mediation."
The Superintendent responded to our letter: read it here.
April 20: At a meeting of the SBDM Council this evening, parents and others opposed to the uniform-based dress code officially appealed the SBDM's vote on the code on both procedural and substantive grounds. Our attorney, Larry Simon, read a statment of the grounds for the appeal. The SBDM Council was not represented by a lawyer and did not read a statement, as they were allowed to do by law. Instead they asked Mr. Simon some questions about specific points of the law and their own bylaws, and then went into executive session. They have 10 days to respond in writing to the appeal. An audience of students, parents, teachers, and media watched.
Both sides had preliminarily agreed to mediation of the issue, but could not agree on the terms for the mediation. The SBDM Council insisted that what would be discussed was specific provisions of the voted-in new code only, not any other possible code or no code at all. The parents insisted that any mediators sent by the SBDM Council have full authority to make a binding decision. The SBDM Council rejected this, and mediation was cancelled. Therefore, the legal appeal process was restarted.
If the response of this SBDM Council to the appeal is not satisfactory, it moves to the level of the District SBDM Council for appeal. In the meantime, a presentation will be made to the Jefferson County School Board on the issue of parent involvement in the schools (the School Board does not have direct supervision over this issue).
Mr. Simon's presentation made the following points, among others:
Procedural errors include combining a "second reading" of the proposal with the vote, and inadequate representation of parents on the committee proposing the code, in violation of the SBDM's own bylaws. More substantive issues include ignoring community negative response in the form of petitions, letters, statements to the SBDM Council, and the survey, despite wording in the SBDM statutes emphasizing responsiveness to community. At the very least, the community deserved reasons for the Council's rejection of community opinion.
The code as proposed also does not allow for "opt-out" provisions, the needs of religious and ethnic minorities, and due process for students accused of violating the code. It also may be in violation of the student's right to free expression, as stated in the Jefferson County Student Bill of Rights, as well as the U.S. Constitution. Depriving them of freedom of speech and freedom of choice in dress can only be done when a clear danger has been identified and a reasonable set of solutions has been implemented, something which the SBDM Council has not even argued, much less proved.
early May: The SBDM Council rejected the appeal. They added an opt-out provision based on religious needs and physical disabilities, and circulated this revised policy. Their wording of the opt-out clause is open to legal challenge. We will pursue the next level of appeal, to the district, and will also address the School Board on May 24 on the topic of Parental Involvement.
May 24: A group of Atherton parents addressed the School Board on the topic of parental participation and felt that our case was favorably received. The School Board has no direct authority over this issue, but their support will undoubtedly help.
APPEAL: Our appeal of the Atherton SBDM Council's decision will be heard by the regional SBDM Council on TUESDAY, JUNE 1, at 2:30 pm at the Van Hoose Education Center, 3332 Newburg Road, Louisville. PLEASE BE THERE if you possibly can; this group has the power to overturn decisions of the Atherton SBDM Council. PLEASE let everyone who supports a no-uniforms policy - students, parents, alumni, community members - know about the appeal, and urge them to come! A LARGE TURNOUT will certainly help our case.
June 1: APPEAL DENIED: Our appeal to the regional SBDM Council was lost on June 1st. This was expected, but it's the process we have to go through before we can take legal action. We were forced to argue on technicalities, instead of on the merits of the case (that is, not that they made a bad decision, but that they made the bad decision incorrectly). Though there were errors in the Atherton SBDM Council's procedure, the Appeal Board did not think them serious enough to overturn their decision. The Appeal Board is made mainly of teachers and administrators, and we expected that they would support a decision made mainly by teachers and administrators. It was interesting to learn, however, that the Atherton SBDM Council views its own bylaws as "recommendations" that are not binding, and that "the dress code is not a policy." They also decided that any "opt-out" clause for religious reasons or physical disabilities would be open to abuse, so they've decided that anyone with these special needs is on their own to make a case, in court if necessary. What compassion and tolerance!
June 30 and Summer 1999: At our meeting on June 30, we organized subgroups to gather information and develop detailed plans in different areas. If you want to get working, write to the email list (see gold box) and we'll connect you. If you can, be there, bring friends! For parents, teachers, students, incoming students, alumni, community members.
We are also seeking legal advice, researching similar cases, and investigating sources of legal support such as the ACLU to fight this dress code in the courts.
We have several other strategies which we'll discuss in more depth at the Rally on the 11th.
August 11: "Seasoned Activists" Stage a Rally
Our Rally Against Uniforms was a great success, attracting about 135 students, parents, teachers, community members, and alumni to hear about how to take action on all fronts to protest uniforms while supporting our school. We learned about strategies for complying while still protesting, and learned about nonviolent resistance to the policy. School Board member Beverly Moore addressed us in support of the idea of parent participation in the schools and reform of the present system. We looked into the future, at the need for action on the SBDM level with the upcoming SBDM elections, and legislative reform. We got an update on the legal position in terms of the ACLU, a potential class-action lawsuit, and individual lawsuits. Read more about it in this article from the Courier-Journal.
August 9: Push comes to Shove
However, our quick thinking compatriots
insisted that the administration didn't have the right to make them leave
for these reasons. This resulted in a call to the JCPS Board lawyer, who
informed the staff members that they were, in fact, at fault in
instructing them to leave. Students are allowed to pass out fliers and
solicit signatures. A VICTORY!! But a short lived victory. Soon after,
our friends began distributing their information and soliciting more
signatories. They were again accosted. This time, there were police
backing up the administrators.
These so called educators had disregarded
the information revealed by the JCPS Board lawyer. These scared people
had called in the cops to escort a few outspoken students off the
property! Should we be disheartened by this? Should we be scared that
they will call the cops on us? Tell me this, will they, can they, call
in the cops for half the student population and their parents? I SHOULD
SAY NOT!!! I will be there tomorrow! I will talk to the Sophomores! I
will support our cause! As should any one else who wishes to defend
their 1st amendment rights from the depths to which they have been sent.
When local "officials" can disregard their superiors to the point of
denying Constitutional rights it is time to step forward and reciprocate.
We can be thus satisfied by recruiting record numbers from the Sophomore
class tomorrow at 9 am (through 11) and again with the freshmen. We will
recover from this setback. In fact we will Profit! Let us devote our
time, energies, and wills to repairing this unjustified breach of our
rights!"
We urge you to send or drop off an opt-out letter to the school (even if you plan to comply with the uniform code, this could protect your child). We have asked Mr. Harbison to accept these letters until the SBDM can develop an opt-out policy (as they have been advised by the attorney for the Jefferson County School Board that they must include; which is recommended by the U.S. Department of Education guidelines for uniform policies; and which is the LAW in states such as California where uniforms in the public schools have been in place for a few years). This is a workable solution to the stand-off - uniform supporters can wear it, those opposed will not, and school can get started smoothly while we work on an acceptable solution to all.
Mr. Harbison has said no to the opt-out; but still bring the letters which may help in a suspension hearing or a legal case.
Tipsheet - what to do on August 17th.
Background: sample letters from parents opposed to the uniform.
Return to main page.
A Junior reports: "The Atherton administration committed a major mistake during the August 9 Junior registration. Several students sympathetic to our cause were passing out literature and signing people up to show their support of the resistance to the "Uniform." While they were doing this they were
EJECTED from the school grounds.