towel, scarf, bandana, do-rag, shirt, string, chain, jewelry, special button, insignia, label, marking, different-coloured stitching, fringe, brad, stud, picture, logo, ribbon, embroidery, initials, monogram, special buckle or other form of adornment from being worn on or over any part of the uniform, except the school name, school logo or school insignia.Regulation of student clothing, adornment such as 'exotic piercings' and indicators of affiliation/faith such as crucifixes or chastity rings is a matter of ongoing contention in the US and parts of Europe, with disagreement about free expression, intervention by an ostensibly secular state and a K12 'veil politics' that serves as a surrogate for questions about values in society at large, in an echo of traditional sumptuary law.
Works such as 'Covering Islam: Burqa and Hijab - Limits to the Human Right to Religion' by Paul Morris in (2004) 2 Human Rights Research Journal [PDF], the 2007 Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into Dress Codes and School Uniforms in Victorian Schools [here] and 'It's not because you wear a hijab, it's because you're Muslim: Inconsistencies in South Australia's discrimination laws' by Anne Hewitt in (2007) QUT Law & Justice Journal [here] illustrate that contention is not foreign to Australia and New Zealand.
A range of Australian law shapes articulation of and compliance with K12 dress codes, including contract law (important for private schools) and legislation such as the Victorian Education & Training Reform Regulations 2007 (SR 61 of 2007) [here] and ss 361-362 of the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld) [here]. There has been little case law; one example is Cope v Girton Grammar School Limited [1995] VADT 2.
The Policy is interesting as an example of drafting. It is also interesting as a point of reference in considering Australian legislation - such as the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 (SA) [here] and the Serious Crime Control Bill 2009 (NT) - aimed at 'outlaw motorcycle gangs' (the acronym for which, as a friend points out, is the resonant OMG).
Can we target people on the basis of their clothing? Is it feasible to define that clothing in a way that isn't readily subverted yet doesn't involve the laundry list noted in Mittelstaedt's article?
