SUSPENDING SELF-EXPRESSION AN AUDIT OF STUDENT HANDBOOKS ACROSS NEW YORK STATE
INTRODUCTION In early August, a federal appeals court ruled that Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools, prohibits school dress codes that discriminate on the basis of sex. For Girls for Gender Equity (GGE), this news brought renewed energy after more than a decade of organizing to end discriminatory dress codes and shine a light on the ways such rules mirror and reinforce sexism, racism, and classism in schools. The warped logic of dress codes insists that policing student presentation is a tool to prevent sexual harassment; consequently, schools neglect the work of building cultures of consent and committing to end gender-based violence. Just before schools shut down for remote learning in 2020, GGE released “Suspending Self Expression,” an audit of 100 dress codes from New York City public schools, finding many limitations on presentation, often including sanctions in conflict with New York City Department of Education guidelines. Since that time, a number of stories have emerged describing the control of student dress during remote learning and adaptations of school discipline in the digital environment, changing the landscape of policing student dress as we knew it. Across the state of New York, there are 731 school districts and 2,598,921 public school students within 62 counties. In preparing for the new school year, GGE gathered student handbooks from schools and districts across the 57 counties outside of New York City – totaling 125 handbooks. According to these 125 dress codes, we find that students, particularly girls and gender-expansive youth of color, are returning to physical school buildings to be punished for how they show up. Following a synthesis of these codes, we identified three pervasive themes: I.
Strict policing of body type and presentation, like skirt and dress length, clothing fit, and make-up and accessories;
II.
Pervasive subjective and stigmatizing language, inviting and encouraging school staff to scrutinize the bodies and appearance of students; and
III.
Harsh threats of punishment and discipline, introducing opportunities to disproportionately deny students equal educational opportunity based on their dress and presentation.