# data[].attributes.body
NYTimes: An article about...this is a reliable source because...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High Schools Threaten to Punish Students Who Kneel During Anthem (Published 2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Schools on Long Island and in Louisiana have cautioned students against protesting. And in public schools, such directives run up against students’ First Amendment rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Law Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Created by FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors| Last updated June 20, 2016

The First Amendment gives anyone living in the U.S., including students, the freedom to express any opinion they like. Students in public high schools can access many different opinions, stories, and ideas through their high school libraries. Local boards of education are responsible for choosing books that go in the library, as well as removing books that might not be appropriate for the students. The Supreme Court has not ruled on how Boards of Education choose books to place in a library. However, once a book is in a library, school boards may remove it only under certain circumstances.
The Legal Standard for Banning Books
The Supreme Court set the standard for banning books in 1982 (Island Trees School District v. Pico). In that case, the school board attempted to ban a number of books because they were "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Sem[i]tic, and just plain filthy," including titles such as Slaughterhouse Five, The Naked Ape, Down These Mean Streets, Best Short Stories of Negro Writers, and Go Ask Alice.

The Justices were unable to come to a majority agreement and instead issued what is known as a "plurality" opinion, in which some combination of justices signed on to three different opinions in order to render an outcome. The standard from Pico which governs book banning decisions is that school officials may not remove books from the school library simply because they dislike the ideas in the book. However, school officials may remove a book from a school library if it is inappropriate for the children of the school. For example, if Lolita was in an elementary school library, the school board could probably remove it because of its highly sexual and violent content.
The Most Challenged Books
The following is a list of the most challenged books in high school libraries, and their reasons:

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: Many people object to its treatment of African Americans, including the use of a racial slur

The Catcher in the Rye: Contains profanity and prostitution

To Kill a Mockingbird: Profanity and racial slurs

Bridge to Terabithia: Depicts children who do not respect adults, also does not distinguish between fantasy and reality

The Lord of the Flies: Profanity, sexuality, racial slurs, and excessive violence

Of Mice and Men: Profanity, racial slurs, and "taking the Lord's name in vain"

The Color Purple: Explicit sexuality, profanity, violence, and use of drugs

The Harry Potter Series: Some people fear it will draw children to the occult, and others object to the violence it portrays

Slaughterhouse Five: Profanity, violence, and explicit sexuality

The Bluest Eye: Profanity, sexual references, and unsuitability for students

For more information related to banning books and free speech rights, see FindLaw's sections on Student Speech and on the Types of Schools children may attend.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Created by FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors | Last updated June 20, 2016 The First Amendment gives anyone living in the U.S., including students, the freedom to express any opinion they like. Students in public high schools can access many different opinions, stories, and ideas through their high school libraries.

# data[].attributes.body
a silent protest agents closing a part of a school

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spokane County Library District: Database Login

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cards beginning with 60922 (City of Spokane and Liberty Lake residents) will not be able to access databases through this website. Due to licensing restrictions, City of Spokane and Liberty Lake residents must access similar databases through their home librarys site using that library card.

# data[].attributes.body
This shows the pros and cons for kneeling during the national anthem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Article about the pros and cons of refusing to stand for the National Anthem.

# data[].attributes.body
This explains what a silent protest in school can cause

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of School Uniforms
Traditionally favored by private and parochial institutions, school uniforms are being adopted by US public schools in increasing numbers. According to a 2020 report, the percentage of public schools that required school uniforms jumped from 12% in the 1999-2000 school year to 20% in the 2017-18 school year. School uniforms were most frequently required by elementary schools (23%), followed by middle (18%), and high schools (10%).

The first recorded use of standardized dress in education may have been in England in 1222, when the Archbishop of Canterbury mandated that students wear a robe-like outfit called the " cappa clausa." The origin of the modern school uniform can be traced to 16th Century England, when the impoverished "charity children" attending the Christ's Hospital boarding school wore blue cloaks reminiscent of the cassocks worn by clergy, along with yellow stockings. As of Sep. 2014, students at Christ's Hospital were still wearing the same uniform, and according to the school it is the oldest school uniform still in use. When Christ's Hospital surveyed its students in 2011, 95% voted to keep the traditional uniforms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

School uniforms deter crime and increase student safety.

In Long Beach, California, after two years of a district-wide K-8 mandatory uniform policy, reports of assault and battery in the district's schools decreased by 34%, assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%, fighting incidents went down by 51%, sex offenses were cut by 74%, robbery dropped by 65%, possession of weapons (or weapon "look-alikes") decreased by 52%, possession of drugs went down by 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%.

And, school uniforms prevent the display of gang colors and insignia, reducing gang activity and pressure to join on school property. The U.S. Department of Education's Manual on School Uniforms stated that uniform policies can "prevent gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school" in order to "encourage a safe environment." Educators in the Long Beach Unified School District have speculated that the sharp reduction in crime following the introduction of school uniforms was a result of gang conflicts being curbed. Osceola County, Florida School Board member Jay Wheeler reports that the county's schools had a 46% drop in gang activity after their first full school year with a mandatory K-12 uniform policy. Wheeler explains that "clothing is integral to gang culture... Imagine a U.S. Armed Forces recruiter out of uniform trying to recruit new soldiers; the success rate goes down. The same applies to gang recruitment." [35] [37] [67]
Read More

Pro 2

School uniforms keep students focused on their education, not their clothes.

Wearing uniforms also enhances school pride, unity, and community spirit, which can boost interest in education. A study of over 1,000 Texas middle school students found that students in uniform "reported significantly more positive perceptions of belonging in their school community than reported by students in the standard dress group." Christopher P. Clouet, former Superintendent of the New London Public Schools in Connecticut, stated that "the wearing of uniforms contributes to school pride." Arnold Goldstein, PhD, head of the Center for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, points out that uniforms help troubled students feel they have the support of a community: "There is a sense of belonging." Further, "teachers perceived an increase in the level of respect, caring, and trust... throughout the school" and "students are made to feel 'important' and as if they are a part of a team by wearing a uniform," according to a peer-reviewed study.

Plus, school uniforms can improve attendance and discipline. A study by researchers at the University of Houston found that the average absence rate for girls in middle and high school decreased by 7% after the introduction of uniforms, and behavioral problems lessened in severity. School uniforms make getting ready for school easier, which can improve punctuality.
When uniforms are mandatory, parents and students do not spend time choosing appropriate outfits for the school day. According to a national survey, over 90% of US school leaders believe school uniform or formal dress code policies "eliminate wardrobe battles with kids," make it "easier to get kids ready in the morning," and create a "time saving in the morning." Tracey Marinelli, Superintendent of the Lyndhurst School District in New Jersey, credits the district's uniform policy for reducing the number of students running late. Lyndhurst student Mike Morreale agrees, stating that "it's so much easier to dress than having to search for clothes and find out that something doesn't match." A Youngstown State University study of secondary schools in Ohio's eight largest school districts found that school uniform policies improve rates of attendance, graduation, and suspension.
Read More

Pro 3

Students' legal right to free expression remains intact with mandatory school uniforms.

Besides, students can still express their individuality in school uniforms by introducing variations and adding accessories. Junior high school student Amelia Jimenez wrote in her op-ed for the Pennsylvania Patriot-News that "contrary to popular belief, uniforms do not stop students from being themselves. Uniforms do not silence voices. Students can wear a variety of expressive items, such as buttons or jewlery." Students can inject their personal style into their daily look with hairstyles, nail polish, and colorful accessories such as bags, scarfs, and fun socks. 54% of eighth-graders said they could still express their individuality while wearing school uniforms.

Further, students dressed in uniform are better perceived by teachers and peers. A 1994 peer-reviewed study found that students in uniform were perceived by teachers and fellow students as being more academically proficient than students in regular clothes. The study also found that students in uniform were perceived by peers and teachers as having higher academic potential, and perceived by peers as being better behaved. Students need to learn a balance between free expression and working within the confines of expectations.
Read More

Con 1

School uniforms do not stop bullying and can actually increase violent attacks.

Further, a peer-reviewed study found that "school uniforms increased the average number of assaults by about 14 [per year] in the most violent schools." A Texas Southern University study found that school discipline incidents rose by about 12% after the introduction of uniforms. And, according to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Education Evaluation and Management, fights in middle schools nearly doubled within one year of introducing mandatory uniforms.
Read More

Con 2

School uniforms do not improve attendance, academic preparedness, or exam results.

The problems arise because focusing on uniforms takes attention away from finding genuine solutions to problems in education. Spending time and effort implementing uniform policies detracts from more effective efforts to reduce crime in schools and boost student performance. More substantive improvements to public education could be achieved with smaller class sizes, tightened security, increased parental involvement, improved facilities, and other measures. Tom Houlihan, former Superintendent of Schools in Oxford, North Carolina, stated that school uniforms "are a distraction from focusing on systematic and fundamental transformation to improve our schools."

That uniform policies are a distraction is most evident when we realize that the push for school uniforms is driven by commercial interests rather than educational ones. Americans spend around $1 billion on school uniforms every year. Retailer J.C. Penney Co. says school uniforms are "a huge, important business for us." In one year alone, uniform company Lands' End spent $3 million on marketing efforts directed at public schools and districts. Multiple studies used to promote the effectiveness of uniforms were partly funded by Lands' End, and at least one of those studies is "so wholly flawed as to render itself useless," according to David L. Brunsma. Reuters reported that retailers were "sensing their opportunity... stepping up competition in the uniform aisles and online. Walmart has set up 'uniform shops' or temporary boutiques within some stores."

The commercialization of school uniforms in public schools also undermines the promise of a free education by imposing an extra expense on families. Parents already pay taxes, and they still need to buy regular clothes for their children to wear when they're out of school and for dress-down days. The Children's Commission on Poverty (UK) found that over "95% of parents on low incomes reported difficulties in meeting school-related costs," including uniforms, despite their children attending tuition-free schools. Anderson, Indiana, parents Laura and Scott Bell argued against their children's school uniform policy, saying the $641 for their children's uniforms broke the guarantee of a free public education. In York County, Pennsylvania, a local NBC affiliate reported that some children were missing class because their families couldn't afford to purchase the required uniforms. And, all of that is before the uniform policies themselves are examined. Most operate like dress codes and are classist, racist, and sexist.
Read More

Con 3

School uniforms restrict students' freedom of expression.

Uniforms take away the ability to use clothing as means of expressing support for social causes. Students at Friendly High School in Prince George's County, MD, were not allowed to wear pink shirts to support Breast Cancer Awareness Month and 75 students received suspensions for breaking the school's uniform restrictions. Removing these choices can delay the transition into adulthood. Adults make their own clothing choices and have the freedom to express themselves through their appearance. Denying children and teenagers the opportunity to make those choices may make them ill-prepared for the adult world. Adolescents see clothing choices as a means of identification, and seeking an identity is one of the critical stages of adolescence, according to the late developmental psychologist Erik Erikson.

When students have to wear the same outfits, rather than being allowed to select clothes that suit their body types, they can suffer embarrassment at school. Child and teen development specialist Robyn Silverman says that students, especially girls, tend to compare how each other looks in their uniforms: "As a body image expert, I hear from students all the time that they feel it allows for a lot of comparison... So if you have a body that's a plus-size body, a curvier body, a very tall body, a very short body, those girls often feel that they don't look their best." A study by researchers at Arizona State University found that "students from schools without uniforms reported higher self-perception scores than students from schools with uniform policies." Some students also find uniforms less comfortable than their regular clothes, which may not be conducive to learning.
Read More

Did You Know?

1. The first school district in the United States to require all K-8 students to wear uniforms was Long Beach, CA, in Jan. 1994.

2. Americans spend around $1 billion per year on school uniforms.

3. Students at Eton, one of England's most prestigious schools, were required to wear black top hats and tails on and off campus until 1972.

4. US schools with a minority student population of 50% or more are four times as likely to require uniforms than schools with a minority population of 20-49%, and 24 times more likely than schools with minority populations of 5%-19%.

5. A government agency in Sweden declared that mandatory school uniforms were a human rights violation, stating that students should decide their dress and appearance as "a matter of the individual's freedom and integrity."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Uniforms Pros and Cons - 13 Arguments For and Against

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say uniforms may increase student safety. Opponents say uniforms restrict expression. Explore both sides of the debate.

# data[].attributes.body
banned books top 3 pros and cons is about many different books being banned but also the reason on why and some pros.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pro 1

Parents have the right to decide what material their children are exposed to and when. Having books with adult topics available in libraries limits parents' ability to choose when their children are mature enough to read specific material. "Literary works containing explicit sex, oral sex, explicit & violent descriptions of rape, masturbation, vulgar and obscene language" were on the approved reading list for grades 7-12, according to Speak up for Standards, a group seeking age-appropriate reading materials for students in Dallas, Texas. If books with inappropriate material are available in libraries, children or teens can be exposed to books their parents wouldn't approve of before the parents even find out what their children are reading. "[O]pting your child out of reading [a certain] book doesn't protect him or her. They are still surrounded by the other students who are going to be saturated with this book," said writer Macey France.

Con 1

Parents may control what their own children read, but don't have a right to restrict what books are available to other people. Parents who don't like specific books can have their kids "opt out" of an assignment without infringing on the rights of others. The National Coalition against Censorship explained that "Even books or materials that many find 'objectionable' may have educational value, and the decision about what to use in the classroom should be based on professional judgments and standards, not individual preferences." In the 1982 Supreme Court ruling on Board of Education v. Pico, Justice Brennan wrote that taking books off of library shelves could violate students' First Amendment rights, adding that "Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books."

Pro 2

Children should not be exposed to sex, violence, drug use, or other inappropriate topics in school or public libraries. Books in the young adult genre often contain adult themes that young people aren't ready to experience. Of the top ten most challenged books in 2018, six had LGBT content, and three were sexually explicit. According to Jenni White, a former public school science teacher, "Numerous studies on the use of graphic material by students indicate negative psychological effects," including having "more casual sex partners and [beginning] having sex at younger ages." The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that exposure to violence in media, including in books, can impact kids by making them act aggressively and desensitizing them to violence. Kim Heinecke, a mother of four, wrote to her local Superintendent of Public Schools that "It is not a matter of 'sheltering' kids. It is a matter of guiding them toward what is best. We are the adults. It is our job to protect them - no matter how unpopular that may seem."

Con 2

Many frequently challenged books help people get a better idea of the world and their place in it. Robie H. Harris, author of frequently challenged children's books including It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing up, Sex, and Sexual Health, stated, "I think these books look at the topics, the concerns, the worry, the fascination that kids have today... It's the world in which they're living." Many books that have long been considered to be required reading to become educated about literature and American history are frequently challenged, such as: The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger, The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, The Color Purple by Alice Walker, Beloved by Toni Morrison, and Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston. 46 of the Radcliffe Publishing Group's "Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century" are frequently challenged; banning them would deprive students of essential cultural and historical knowledge, as well as differing points of view.

Pro 3

Keeping books with inappropriate content out of libraries protects kids, but doesn't stop people from reading those books or prevent authors from writing them. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council noted that removing certain books from libraries is about showing discretion and respecting a community's values, and doesn't prevent people from getting those books elsewhere: "It's an exaggeration to refer to this as book banning. There is nothing preventing books from being written or sold, nothing to prevent parents from buying it or children from reading it." What some call "book banning," many see as making responsible choices about what books are available in public and school libraries. "Is it censorship that you're unable to go to your local taxpayer-funded branch and check out a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'? For better or for worse, these books are still widely available. Your local community has simply decided that finite public resources are not going to be spent disseminating them," Weekly Standard writer and school board member Mark Hemingway stated.

Con 3

Books are a portal to different life experiences and reading encourages empathy and social-emotional development. One study found that reading J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, which is frequently challenged for religious concerns about witchcraft, "improved attitudes" about immigrants, homosexuals, and refugees. Another study found that reading narrative fiction helped readers understand their peers and raised social abilities. A study in Basic and Applied Social Psychology found that people who read a story about a Muslim woman were less likely to make broad judgments based on race. Neil Gaiman, author of the frequently challenged novel Neverwhere, among other books, stated that fiction "build[s] empathy... You get to feel things, visit places and worlds you would never otherwise know. You learn that everyone else out there is a me, as well. You're being someone else, and when you return to your own world, you're going to be slightly changed. Empathy is a tool for building people into groups, for allowing us to function as more than self-obsessed individuals."

Source: American Library Association, "Top 11 Challenged Books of 2018," ala.org (accessed Sep. 18, 2019)

Footnotes:

1. Loris Vezzali, et al., "The Greatest Magic of Harry Potter: Reducing Prejudice," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, July 23, 2014

2. Raymond A. Mar, et al., "Bookworms Versus Nerds: Exposure to Fiction Versus Non-Fiction, Divergent Associations with Social Ability, and the Simulation of Fictional Social Worlds," Journal of Research in Personality, 2006

3. Dan R. Johnson, Brandie L. Huffman, and Danny M. Jasper, "Changing Race Boundary Perception by Reading Narrative Fiction," Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Feb. 10, 2014

4. ALA, "Top 11 Challenged Books of 2018," ala.org (accessed Sep. 18, 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Banned Books - Top 3 Pros and Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pro 1 Parents have the right to decide what material their children are exposed to and when. Having books with adult topics available in libraries limits parents' ability to choose when their children are mature enough to read specific material.

# data[].attributes.body
football players kneeling for the anthem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Article about the pros and cons of refusing to stand for the National Anthem.

# data[].attributes.body
High school players kneeling for the anthem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High Schools Threaten to Punish Students Who Kneel During Anthem (Published 2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Schools on Long Island and in Louisiana have cautioned students against protesting. And in public schools, such directives run up against students’ First Amendment rights.

# data[].attributes.body
limited by government or religious government

# data[].attributes.body
this shows the pros and cons of banning books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pro 1

Parents have the right to decide what material their children are exposed to and when. Having books with adult topics available in libraries limits parents' ability to choose when their children are mature enough to read specific material. "Literary works containing explicit sex, oral sex, explicit & violent descriptions of rape, masturbation, vulgar and obscene language" were on the approved reading list for grades 7-12, according to Speak up for Standards, a group seeking age-appropriate reading materials for students in Dallas, Texas. If books with inappropriate material are available in libraries, children or teens can be exposed to books their parents wouldn't approve of before the parents even find out what their children are reading. "[O]pting your child out of reading [a certain] book doesn't protect him or her. They are still surrounded by the other students who are going to be saturated with this book," said writer Macey France.

Con 1

Parents may control what their own children read, but don't have a right to restrict what books are available to other people. Parents who don't like specific books can have their kids "opt out" of an assignment without infringing on the rights of others. The National Coalition against Censorship explained that "Even books or materials that many find 'objectionable' may have educational value, and the decision about what to use in the classroom should be based on professional judgments and standards, not individual preferences." In the 1982 Supreme Court ruling on Board of Education v. Pico, Justice Brennan wrote that taking books off of library shelves could violate students' First Amendment rights, adding that "Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books."

Pro 2

Children should not be exposed to sex, violence, drug use, or other inappropriate topics in school or public libraries. Books in the young adult genre often contain adult themes that young people aren't ready to experience. Of the top ten most challenged books in 2018, six had LGBT content, and three were sexually explicit. According to Jenni White, a former public school science teacher, "Numerous studies on the use of graphic material by students indicate negative psychological effects," including having "more casual sex partners and [beginning] having sex at younger ages." The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that exposure to violence in media, including in books, can impact kids by making them act aggressively and desensitizing them to violence. Kim Heinecke, a mother of four, wrote to her local Superintendent of Public Schools that "It is not a matter of 'sheltering' kids. It is a matter of guiding them toward what is best. We are the adults. It is our job to protect them - no matter how unpopular that may seem."

Con 2

Many frequently challenged books help people get a better idea of the world and their place in it. Robie H. Harris, author of frequently challenged children's books including It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing up, Sex, and Sexual Health, stated, "I think these books look at the topics, the concerns, the worry, the fascination that kids have today... It's the world in which they're living." Many books that have long been considered to be required reading to become educated about literature and American history are frequently challenged, such as: The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger, The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, The Color Purple by Alice Walker, Beloved by Toni Morrison, and Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston. 46 of the Radcliffe Publishing Group's "Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century" are frequently challenged; banning them would deprive students of essential cultural and historical knowledge, as well as differing points of view.

Pro 3

Keeping books with inappropriate content out of libraries protects kids, but doesn't stop people from reading those books or prevent authors from writing them. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council noted that removing certain books from libraries is about showing discretion and respecting a community's values, and doesn't prevent people from getting those books elsewhere: "It's an exaggeration to refer to this as book banning. There is nothing preventing books from being written or sold, nothing to prevent parents from buying it or children from reading it." What some call "book banning," many see as making responsible choices about what books are available in public and school libraries. "Is it censorship that you're unable to go to your local taxpayer-funded branch and check out a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'? For better or for worse, these books are still widely available. Your local community has simply decided that finite public resources are not going to be spent disseminating them," Weekly Standard writer and school board member Mark Hemingway stated.

Con 3

Books are a portal to different life experiences and reading encourages empathy and social-emotional development. One study found that reading J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, which is frequently challenged for religious concerns about witchcraft, "improved attitudes" about immigrants, homosexuals, and refugees. Another study found that reading narrative fiction helped readers understand their peers and raised social abilities. A study in Basic and Applied Social Psychology found that people who read a story about a Muslim woman were less likely to make broad judgments based on race. Neil Gaiman, author of the frequently challenged novel Neverwhere, among other books, stated that fiction "build[s] empathy... You get to feel things, visit places and worlds you would never otherwise know. You learn that everyone else out there is a me, as well. You're being someone else, and when you return to your own world, you're going to be slightly changed. Empathy is a tool for building people into groups, for allowing us to function as more than self-obsessed individuals."

Source: American Library Association, "Top 11 Challenged Books of 2018," ala.org (accessed Sep. 18, 2019)

Footnotes:

1. Loris Vezzali, et al., "The Greatest Magic of Harry Potter: Reducing Prejudice," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, July 23, 2014

2. Raymond A. Mar, et al., "Bookworms Versus Nerds: Exposure to Fiction Versus Non-Fiction, Divergent Associations with Social Ability, and the Simulation of Fictional Social Worlds," Journal of Research in Personality, 2006

3. Dan R. Johnson, Brandie L. Huffman, and Danny M. Jasper, "Changing Race Boundary Perception by Reading Narrative Fiction," Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Feb. 10, 2014

4. ALA, "Top 11 Challenged Books of 2018," ala.org (accessed Sep. 18, 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Banned Books - Top 3 Pros and Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pro 1 Parents have the right to decide what material their children are exposed to and when. Having books with adult topics available in libraries limits parents' ability to choose when their children are mature enough to read specific material.

# data[].attributes.body
It gives many different reasons and ways that banned books are banned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WIU Libraries Guides: Banned and Challenged Books: About Banned Books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WIU Libraries Guides: Banned and Challenged Books: About Banned Books

# data[].attributes.body
should Students be able to silently protest in school

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005365

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Minimum Wage
The federal minimum wage, introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was initially set at $0.25 per hour. The federal minimum wage has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. Most states plus DC have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage, though several states do not have minimum wage laws (which means workers in those states default to the federal minimum wage). Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

Raising the federal minimum wage would not only allow minimum wage workers to afford basic living expenses, but would also reduce income, gender, and racial inequalities.

The current minimum wage is not high enough to allow people to afford housing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, "In 2022, a full-time worker needs to earn an hourly wage of $25.82 on average to afford a modest, two-bedroom rental home in the U.S. This... is $18.57 higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25.... A full-time worker needs to earn an hourly wage of $21.25 on average in order to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home in the U.S."

Further, 35% of families with full-time year-round employment do not earn enough to pay for essentials including food and childcare. 59% of Hispanic families, 52% of Black families, 25% of white families, and 23% of Asian families that work full-time year-round cannot cover basic needs. Overall, families would need to earn $11 more an hour to cover basic costs, with Black and Hispanic families needing $12 more an hour.

Approximately 91% of workers who would benefit from a raised minimum wage are over 20 years old, with 68% over the age of 25. Most are the primary wage earners for their families, averaging about 52% of their family's income, and most are women and people of color. The current federal minimum wage prevents these individuals and families from meeting basic needs like shelter and food, as well as creating significant obstacles to healthcare, finances for an emergency, and other expenses such as car upkeep.

Increasing the minimum wage would not only bring relief to workers struggling to make ends meet, it would also raise the incomes of people who make slightly more than minimum wage. The Brookings Institution found that increasing the minimum wage would result in higher wages for the 3.7 million people earning minimum wage and up to 35 million workers who make up to 150% of the federal minimum wage.

The White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) found that an increase to just $10.10 an hour would raise wages for 28 million Americans-about nine million of those due to the ripple effect.
Read More

Pro 2

Raising the minimum wage to match inflation and productivity would benefit the economy by increasing consumer activity and spurring job growth while lowering the federal deficit.

As journalist Megan Cerullo summarizes, "The federal minimum wage of $7.25 buys less today than it has at any point over the past 66 years.... The current value of the minimum wage in real dollars is at its lowest level since February 1956, when the lowest U.S. wage was 75 cents - the equivalent of $7.19 in June 2022 dollars." Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation would ensure that low-wage workers could adopt a standard of living commensurate with the current economy.

Further, while the estimates of how much the minimum wage should be increased vary, many economists agree that if the wage had kept pace with rising productivity and incomes, it would be higher than the current $7.25 an hour. [14] [17] [18]

With an economic boom and more securely employed workers, the federal deficit would decrease. According to James K. Galbraith, Professor of Government at the University of Texas in Austin, "[b]ecause payroll- and income-tax revenues would rise [as a result of an increase in the minimum wage], the federal deficit would come down."

Further, raising the minimum wage would help reduce the federal budget deficit "by lowering spending on public assistance programs and increasing tax revenue. Since firms are allowed to pay poverty-level wages to 3.6 million people - 5 percent of the workforce - these workers must rely on Federal income support programs. This means that taxpayers have been subsidizing businesses, whose profits have risen to record levels over the past 30 years," according to Aaron Pacitti, Associate Professor of Economics at Siena College.
Read More

Pro 3

Increasing the minimum wage would have numerous social benefits including reducing poverty and crime, and increasing school attendance and the healthy population.
Read More

Con 1

Raising the minimum wage would increase housing and consumer goods costs for everyone and greatly disadvantage minimum wage workers.

Raising the minimum wage could decrease employee benefits and increase tax payments, further costing the employees. According to James Sherk, MA, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a single mother working full time and earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour would be over $260 a month worse off if the minimum wage were raised to $10.10: "While her market income rises by $494, she loses $71 in EITC [earned income tax credit] refunds, pays $37 more in payroll taxes and $45 more in state income taxes. She also loses $88 in food stamp benefits and $528 in child-care subsidies."

Raising the minimum wage also creates more jobs for more skilled workers, disadvantaging teenagers, young adults, and those with less education and experience. If employers have to pay an employee more, they will expect the employee to have a more experienced skill set, essentially removing the job from the tier of jobs available to minimum wage workers.
Read More

Con 2

Raising the minimum wage, instead of allowing the free market to determine an appropriate rate, will decrease employee compensation, while forcing businesses to close, use automation, or outsource jobs.

Increasing the minimum wage increases costs for businesses. If a business cannot or will not support the increased cost, the first method of cost correction is to cut hours or lay off employees. Researchers found that "For every $1 increase in the minimum wage, ...the total number of workers scheduled to work each week increased by 27.7%, while the average number of hours each worker worked per week decreased [sic] by 20.8%. For an average store in California, these changes translated into four extra workers per week and five fewer hours per worker per week - which meant that the total wage compensation of an average minimum wage worker in a California store actually fell by 13.6%." The decrease in hours also meant erratic schedules that are difficult for employees to maintain and a decrease in eligibility for benefits such as retirement packages and healthcare.

Businesses that cannot or will not pay a higher minimum wage may also turn to more robots and automated processes to replace service employees. Oxford University researchers explain "robots are already performing many simple service tasks such as vacuuming, mopping, lawn mowing, and gutter cleaning" and that "commercial service robots are now able to perform more complex tasks in food preparation, health care, commercial cleaning, and elderly care."
Read More

Con 3

Raising the federal minimum wage would exacerbate income disparities and the cycle of poverty.

Cost of living varies wildly in the United States. For example, living in New York, California, and Hawaii costs significantly more than living in Mississippi, Kansas, or Montana. If the federal government raises the minimum wage significantly, the wage will be proportionately much higher in lower income states, meaning employers will not be able to afford the costs of paying employees and residents will not be able to afford the cost of living increases necessary to make up the difference. Small rural communities would especially suffer from the disparity.
Read More

Did You Know?

1. America's minimum wage law was signed in 1938. The minimum wage was set at 25 cents, which is equivalent to $5.19 in 2022 dollars.

2. 44% of minimum wage earners are under 25 years old.

3. 30 states and DC have set minimum wages above the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. As of Jan. 12, 2023, the highest is DC, at $16.50 an hour, followed by Washington state at $15.74 an hour.

4. The federal minimum wage has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour.

5. The first state minimum wage laws, introduced between 1912 and the early 1930s, only covered women and minors. The first to cover men was introduced in 1937 in Oklahoma.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say raising the wage will increase economic activity. Opponents say raising the wage would force businesses to lay off employees.

# data[].attributes.body
neeling during the anthem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Article about the pros and cons of refusing to stand for the National Anthem.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the pros and cons of the anthum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Article about the pros and cons of refusing to stand for the National Anthem.

# data[].attributes.body
students have the right to protest during the national anthem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students Have a Right to Protest During National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Comments from President Donald Trump fueled growing protests by athletes during the national anthem, and students may choose to join. Courts have held that schools cannot require students to participate in patriotic rituals. What can students learn from this moment?

# data[].attributes.body
https://immigration.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Employees employed by private-sector employers are not protected by the first amendment in the workplace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can your boss fire you for expressing your views on social policy, participating in a political party, or donating money to an unpopular political cause? Polls indicate that many Americans believe the answer is no. After all, the right to free speech is among our most deeply ingrained civic values. We repeat, and cherish, the aphorism: "I can say what I like. It's a free country."

In reality, however, American employees' free speech rights may be more accurately summarized by this paraphrase of a 1891 statement by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: "A employee may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be employed." In other words: to keep your job, you often can't say what you like.

Lynne Gobbell knows this firsthand. She drew media attention in 2004 when her employer, a vocal Bush supporter, fired her from her insulation-packing job because he disapproved of the John Kerry bumper sticker on her car. Similarly, Michael Italie lost his job as a machine operator because he appeared on a local radio program in which he discussed his socialist views and his wildly impractical bid for Miami mayor on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. Even more bizarrely, Tim Torkildson, an instructor at an English-language school, lost his job in 2014 when his boss mistakenly concluded that a blog post he wrote to explain homophones (words that sound alike but are spelled differently) would associate the school with "the gay agenda."

Although these examples are extreme, they reflect the broad power many employers possess to terminate employees for speaking their minds. In each of these situations, the termination occurred in a jurisdiction where the employer's action was legal.

If this use of economic power to punish speech sounds un-American, remember that the First Amendment limits only the government's ability to suppress speech. It provides that " Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Courts have extended this prohibition to all federal, state, and local government officials but have consistently emphasized that the First Amendment's strictures do not apply to private-sector employers. Accordingly, the only people who enjoy First Amendment protection vis-à-vis their employers are people employed by the government.

Historically, unions protected many private-sector workers from speech-related terminations because they negotiated contracts that limited employers' abilities to terminate workers without a performance-related rationale. However, because union membership has been steadily declining, the vast majority of private-sector workers now are "employment at will," which means to use force, intimidation, or threats to prevent an individual from supporting or advocating for a federal candidate. So if Lynne Gobbell's boss enlisted other persons to help him terminate Gobbell, it would appear that he violated the statute. Unfortunately, however, in more than half of the country, including Gobbell's home state, courts conclude that the statute's conspiracy requirement cannot be satisfied when the coconspirators are employees of the same corporation. Additionally, even in the jurisdictions where corporate conduct can satisfy the conspiracy requirement, the statute only covers a narrow category of speech related to supporting federal candidates. It does not protect speech supporting state or local candidates and speech advocating an issue or idea rather than a candidate.

State statutes limiting speech-related terminations are similarly incomplete. At the protective end of the spectrum, five states (California, Colorado, Montana, New York, and North Dakota) prohibit employers from punishing employees for legal off-duty activities that do not conflict with the employer's business-related interests. Nine additional states more narrowly protect employees who engage in political activities and five states similarly protect individuals who sign initiative, referendum, recall, or candidate petitions.

These limited protections for off-duty political speech are not available to approximately half of the U.S. population that works in the remaining 31 states. Accordingly, the majority of American workers have legal protection for their speech only when it relates to a narrow category of topics protected by federal, state, or local law. A brief survey of these laws reveals that they frequently require the employee to thread a needle: they must speak about the right topic, in the right way, and to the right person.

For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), enacted in 1935, which protects employees' abilities to unionize, protects certain types of speech that relate to group efforts to improve working conditions. Importantly, the National Labor Relations Board, which enforces the NLRA, has emphasized that employee conduct rules that prohibit employees from posting comments criticizing their employer on social media may violate the NLRA. Nonetheless, the NLRA's protection has significant limitations. While the NLRA protects work-related complaints that an individual makes on behalf of other employees or in an attempt to initiate group action, it does not protect work-related complaints made solely by and on behalf of the individual employee herself. And because the NLRA focuses solely on group efforts to improve workers' terms and conditions of employment, it protects political speech only to the extent that the speech relates to unionization and other work-related issues.

Whistle-blower protections have similar limitations. Although numerous federal and state statutes protect workers who report their employers' wrongdoing, the statutory coverage adds up to an incomplete patchwork that leaves many whistle-blowers unprotected. Importantly, about half of the states' whistle-blower statutes cover only government employees. Additionally, many statutes require that the employee report the wrongdoing to an appropriate government agency; reports made to the employee's supervisor or to the media may not qualify for protection. Many statutes require that the alleged wrongdoing be clearly illegal instead of simply unethical. In some states, the wrongdoing must be a felony or an illegal act that poses a significant threat of harm to public health or safety.

Although workers who complain to their employers or appropriate state and federal agencies about potential violations of employment discrimination law typically enjoy broader retaliation protection, they still, like all whistle-blowers, face the difficult task of proving that their employer fired them for reporting wrongdoing instead of one of the innumerable legal reasons for firing an at-will employee. This can be difficult because few employees have completely spotless records and many employers have monitoring technology that they do not have a contract that limits the reasons for which they may be fired. Accordingly, most workers have no protection from speech-related termination unless they can prove that their employer's motive for firing them violates a federal, state, or local law. The available statutory protections form an incomplete, and often indefinite, patchwork that leaves large amounts of employee speech and political activity unprotected.

At first glance, a federal civil rights statute enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 would appear to help some employees, such as Lynne Gobbell, who was fired for her John Kerry bumper sticker. It prohibits two or more people to act pursuant to a conspiracy that enables them to identify employee infractions after the fact.

Even government employees, who have First Amendment protection, face significant difficulty when challenging speech-based terminations. First, thanks to the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, the First Amendment does not protect speech that government employees make as part of their job duties. This means that speech revealing government wrongdoing, incompetence, or waste frequently does not receive First Amendment protection because a worker able to detect these problems often has job responsibilities that require him to report them. Accordingly, government employees must look to the incomplete patchwork of whistle-blower statutes to find protection for their work-related speech.

Second, the First Amendment's protection of government employee speech is limited to speech that addresses a matter of public concern, which means that a court must judge the speech to be a subject worthy of public attention. While letters to the editor about political or social issues typically qualify, personal grievances and many forms of nonpolitical self-expression typically do not qualify.

Finally, even government employee speech that meets these requirements- it involves a matter of public concern and is not part of the employee's job duties-may fall outside the First Amendment's protection if the speech has potential to disrupt operational efficiency. In many cases, courts conclude that the government's interest in the smooth functioning of the workplace outweighs the government employee's First Amendment speech rights. For example, in Connick v. Meyers (1983), the Supreme Court concluded that the First Amendment did not protect an assistant district attorney's discussions with her coworkers about pressure she and her coworkers felt to work on political campaigns. The Court reasoned that even though the topic was clearly a matter of public concern, Meyers's supervisor could legally terminate her because he reasonably believed that her speech would undermine his authority and disrupt office morale. As this example suggests, even though the First Amendment covers government employees, the significant limitations courts have placed on the First Amendment's application to the workplace means that government employees can experience speech-related terminations comparable to those that occur in the private sector.

In sum, the fragmented body of law that governs speech-related termination leaves all American workers vulnerable, albeit to varying degrees. Although typically invisible, this vulnerability creates a chilling effect that both dampens individual self-expression and inhibits public discourse. This is cause for concern.

First, the increasing numbers of Americans working longer hours and even multiple jobs mean that we spend a large and an ever-increasing percentage of our lives at work. Accordingly, because most people tend to prioritize sleep and recreational activities over engaging in political speech during their limited off-work hours, forfeiting our speech rights at work often means that we forfeit our speech rights altogether. This not only reduces each individual employee's expressive activities but also reduces the quantity and quality of civic engagement.

Second, the threat of speech-related termination results in lost opportunities for the type of coworker dialogue that has potential to foster understanding across social boundaries and spur positive social change. Unfortunately, due to the increasing polarization and fragmentation of American society, the workplace constitutes the primary remaining forum in which adults with different political, social, and religious backgrounds have sustained opportunities to debate the issues of the day. But, unfortunately, recent studies indicate that even though Americans are working longer hours and are spending more time with their coworkers than in the past, workplace conversations have become more superficial.

Finally, in many jobs, technology and the potential for employers to monitor its use blurs the line between work and personal activities. The possibility that employers will technologically "overhear" off-work employee speech creates a chilling effect for discussing controversial topics that extends into employees' private lives.

Admittedly, a certain degree of employer control over employee speech is inevitable and appropriate. For example, few people would dispute an employer's right to prohibit workers from discussing trade secrets and other proprietary information with persons outside the company. Similarly, few people would question an employer's right to prohibit bullying and harassing speech in order to foster a productive work environment and avoid liability under employment discrimination law. Additionally, many people would agree that individuals who represent the public face of the company, such as a corporate spokesperson or CEO, may justifiably lose their jobs for public comments that they reasonably should have known would damage the company's reputation.

In most circumstances, however, the average employee's speech poses little risk of harm to the employer. The harm to the employee created by an employer's ability to punish speech, by contrast, is significant. Particularly in times of economic insecurity, the threat of speech-related termination creates a powerful economic pressure for self-censorship. In the aggregate, this self-censorship compromises the free exchange of ideas necessary for a functional and inclusive democracy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Chill Around the Water Cooler: First Amendment in the Workplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In reality, however, American employees' free speech rights may be more accurately summarized by this paraphrase of a 1891 statement by Oli­ver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: "A employee may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be employed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Article about the pros and cons of refusing to stand for the National Anthem.

# data[].attributes.body
People protesting the National Anthem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Article about the pros and cons of refusing to stand for the National Anthem.

# data[].attributes.body
This website talks about students protesting and not wearing their school uniforms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PRO (yes)

Pro 1

Bill O'Chee, Australian politician, in a Jan. 10, 2017 article, "Why School Uniforms Are as Important as Student Laptops," available at theage.com.au, stated:

Pro 2

Keith Metcalfe, Deputy Head Master Elect at Harrow School in the United Kingdom, in a Mar. 9, 2016 article, "Should We Get Rid of School Uniform?," available at telegraph.co.uk, stated:

Pro 3

French Toast Official School Wear, a school uniform supplier, stated in its article titled "Why School Uniforms?," available at FrenchToast.com (accessed Aug. 29, 2014):

Pro 4

Alun Jones, President of the Girls' School Association and Principal of St Gabriel's Independent Day School in the United Kingdom, in a Nov. 22, 2015 article, "Skirts at Top Private Girls' School Become Longer as Teachers Try to Combat Bullying," available at telegraph.co.uk, stated:

"Uniforms are a very important part of the school's identity.

It brings so many benefits in terms of moral, discipline and results because it is a leveller of children of all backgrounds. The uniform is exactly that - a uniform - rather than a fashion statement.

We have a styling of uniforms for girls that's more comfortable, practical and more suited for a girl's shape. There is a move in schools for girls' skirts to be kept at a decent level. Some schools are moving to mid-calf-length skirts to reflect the workplace and the type of dress these girls will be required to wear in adult life.

Fashion and image are very important. These are highly emotional subjects for girls. And as far as girls are concerned it is very important that they don't have to give in to these sort of pressures so they actually welcome [wearing a uniform].

They like to look smart - which is one of the huge benefits of a uniform - and that also means that they don't have to rise to stereotypical images and behaviours and therefore can be themselves."
Nov. 22, 2015 - Alun Jones

Pro 7

Belinda Luscombe, Editor-at-Large at TIME magazine, stated in her Mar. 25, 2014 article titled "How Ugly School Uniforms Will Save Education," published on Time.com:

Pro 8

Karin Polacheck, PhD, former Board President of the Long Beach Unified School District, wrote in her letter to the editor titled "Uniforms Help Solve Many School problems," published in the Long Beach Press-Telegram on Sep. 28, 1995:

Pro 9

Amelia Jimenez, former student at Hershey High School (Hershey, PA), wrote in her May 31, 2009 op-ed titled "The Case for High School Uniforms," published on PennLive.com:

"Contrary to popular belief, uniforms do not stop students from being themselves. Uniforms do not silence voices. Students can wear a variety of expressive items, such as buttons or jewelry...

Also, uniforms are more practical than regular clothes... Students who wear uniforms during the week do not need a lot of leisure clothes, which can lower clothing costs.

It is also worth noting that uniforms do not have to be expensive, they can simply be particular pants and sweaters. If low-income families still cannot afford uniforms, there are many ways to help them.

Districts, school parents, graduates as well as community and business leaders have worked together to donate or finance uniforms...

Yet another benefit of uniforms is that they teach students to dress according to guidelines. Some believe that uniforms do not prepare students for the real world in which people wear whatever they want. However, most workplaces have uniforms or dress codes.

Also, uniforms increase student safety. They prevent thefts because no one's clothes are more valuable. Moreover, intruders can be easily sighted. It is easier for field-trip chaperones to know for which students they are responsible."
May 31, 2009 - Amelia Jimenez

CON (no)

Con 2

Rob O'Donnell, President of the Irish Second-Level Students' Union, as quoted in a Feb. 8, 2016 article by Peter McGuire, "No Skirting the School Uniform Debate," available at irishtimes.com, stated:

"When we ask student councils about the issues of concern to them, this often comes up. It's even more of a concern in mixed schools where, every day, girls see their male classmates come to school in trousers... Some girls really, really hate - absolutely hate - to wear skirts. It is a dated system. In any other walk of life, we wouldn't dream of telling girls that they have to wear a skirt. So why is it acceptable to inflict it on them at school?

...We've seen situations in coeducational schools whereby the girls are allowed to dye their hair a natural colour, but the boys are not allowed at all. How a young person appears makes no difference whatsoever to their education... Schools should be encouraging free thought and self-expression, not suppressing it."
Feb. 8, 2016 - Rob O'Donnell

Con 4

Nancy E. Bailey, PhD, education author and activist, wrote in her 2013 book Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students:

Con 5

Linne Hoofnagle, former staff writer for Tiger Hi-Line, the student newspaper at Cedar Falls High School (Cedar Falls, IA), wrote in her Dec. 4, 2012 article titled "Uniforms Limit Number of Outlets for Creativity and Self-Expression," available on the Tiger Hi-Line website:

Con 6

David L. Brunsma, PhD, Professor of Sociology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), wrote in his 2004 book titled The School Uniform Movement and What It Tells Us about American Education: A Symbolic Crusade:

"The 'evidence' that has been invoked throughout this uniform movement has been... generalization after generalization from an ever-flowing stream of anecdote, with little to no critical thinking, and certainly no empirical investigation. The movement can be categorized as one of anecdote versus evidence, fear versus rationality, the status quo versus social and educational change...

It should be clear by now that uniform policies are not effective in our public schools. ...[S]chool uniforms, as a policy and strategy, do play a role in producing more parental involvement, increased preparedness, positive approaches toward learning, pro-school attitudes, a heightened feeling of school unity and safety, or positive school climates. Therefore, such a policy should not be discussed as increasing the educational atmosphere at any level of schooling ."
2004 - David L. Brunsma, PhD

Con 8

Alfie Kohn, MA, education activist and author, stated in his Oct. 2, 1996 article for the Boston Globe titled "The Trouble with School Uniforms," available at AlfieKohn.org:

"The appeal of school uniforms is based less on the likelihood of realizing any long-term benefits than on the nostalgic yearning for a simpler and less dangerous age. To imagine that telling students what to wear will bring back those days is to engage in wishful, if not fuzzy, thinking...

If we want students to grow into critical thinkers and ethical people, then we have to aim higher than mere conformity. Children, after all, learn how to make good decisions by making decisions, not by following directions. If we want them to take responsibility for their behavior, then we have to give them responsibilities...

Thus, if T-shirts contain slogans that offend us, or gang colors threaten to be inflammatory, school administrators might invite students to participate in analyzing the problem and constructing a solution. Apart from being more respectful, this approach is also more effective over the long run (and better preparation for life in a democratic society), than issuing a decree ('Wear this')...

Is it even reasonable to expect uniforms to solve the problems for which they are recommended? Can violence be reduced by borrowing an idea from the military?...

Complex problems will not disappear just because we demand that students wear what we tell them. Relying on power to induce conformity rarely produces lasting solutions."
Oct. 2, 1996 - Alfie Kohn, MA

Con 9

The St. Petersburg Times stated in its July 23, 1999 editorial titled "Uniform Policy Goes Too Far," available at SPTimes.com:

"[M]andatory school uniforms... give school officials extraordinary power over what should be a parental prerogative, without any firm evidence that uniforms enhance learning or discipline...

Schools have a dual responsibility to educate students and to develop productive, creative individuals who will grow up to lead the nation and bring innovation to our marketplace. ...[I]t's hard to be an individual when the system punishes anything but conformity."

[ Editor's Note: St. Petersburg Times changed its name to Tampa Bay Times on Jan. 1, 2012. The editorial quoted above is no longer available on SPTimes.com and has not yet been made available on TampaBay.com as of Sep. 5, 2014.)
July 23, 1999 - St. Petersburg Times

Con 10

Alicia Thomas, former student at Lower Dauphin High School (Hummelstown, PA), wrote in her May 31, 2009 op-ed titled "The Case against High School Uniforms," published on PennLive.com:

"While uniforms do assuage the best-clothes competition, they create a new and more painful contest: the best-body competition. When every student is wearing the same uniform, everyone fills it out differently.

They can expect to be ridiculed for not looking as fantastic in their uniforms as some of the better-looking students. And this could be catastrophic for anyone with a less-than-perfect image of themselves... There's also the problem of students' squelched individuality.

Schools spend so much time trying to keep their students under control that they end up squashing the sparks that some of those kids were born with...

Uniforms jeopardize the ability of America's youth to express themselves, to become the people that they want to be.

[T]he way that students dress should be their own choice, not their teachers."
May 31, 2009 - Alicia Thomas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pro & Con Quotes: Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms? - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bill O'Chee, Australian politician, in a Jan. 10, 2017 article, "Why School Uniforms Are as Important as Student Laptops," available at theage.com.au, stated: Keith Metcalfe, Deputy Head Master Elect at Harrow School in the United Kingdom, in a Mar.

# data[].attributes.body
Dress Code

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WEST JORDAN, Utah (Good 4 Utah) - Students at West Jordan High School are protesting the schools dress code with a silent yet visual message.

# data[].attributes.body
The players are knelling at the National Anthem.
https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005323