In my opinion the phenomena of “gender-bending” you discussed in your recent article describing the growing tensions between “gender-bending” teenagers and traditional dress codes, In mixed up world: “Girls will be boys and boys will be girls,” are indicative of a deeper issue that has actually been around since the very beginning of education. That issue is, how much First Amendment freedom are we willing to give students within school walls? To put it another way, how do we balance a student’s freedom of expression against a school’s need for order?

This problem came up during the Vietnam War when, in a noteworthy Supreme Court case Tinker v Des Moines School District, the Court ruled that students were allowed to wear armbands in protest contra to the school’s complaints. This decision did not, however, allow students to enjoy First Amendment rights fully. Instead, the Court ruled that students could only protest and otherwise act out against school policies under the protection of the First Amendment so long as their actions did not disrupt the learning environment in schools.

Many individuals would argue that the recent “gender bending” acts against school code, such as cross-dressing, would probably, if not definitely, disrupt the learning environment and should be disallowed. Based on the manner in which schools are fun today, these actions probably would cause a disruption. However, I argue that the distraction that would ensue is not representative of a problem within the action of the children, but instead with the set up of the schools. If our schools were run in such a way where children were encouraged to take an idea and think about it, I mean really think about it, these sorts of actions would not cause a disruption. If children were given the opportunity, after being provided with all the facts, to make their own decisions about an idea’s value and merit as opposed to just given a ‘truth’ by the education system, children acting contrary to certain policies would not be distracting at all. Instead the practice of constant inquiry would be a part of the learning process. That is, children would be taught to question the norm. They would be encouraged to make decisions for themselves after being given all the facts. This sort of system would turn out more tolerant and compassionate individuals. For example, instead of perpetuating outdated gender stereotypes, children would be freer to decide how to define themselves as individuals, not as part of a sex. I am not saying that children should or would agree with everything that other students believed. Instead, they would be able to at least respect and dignify others’ opinions (which is more than many adults are able to do). This system would also give children a better chance of success in their own lives and as contributing citizens. This is the case because instead of focusing on the useless retention of random facts, which unfortunately many schools do, the system would focus on analytical thought, which is a much more important tool than memorization.

I know this sounds like a sort of cuckoo idea at first, but understand that I am not advocated that there be no rules, or that children be encouraged to break rules. Instead, children should be able, with their teachers, to talk about a system of rules that should be implemented. They should discuss why some are better and more necessary than others, and why some treat certain groups of students unfairly. What better training for being an engaged citizen? In this system, children could wear what they wanted so long as the other students agreed that it didn’t hurt or distract anyone. The only reason a wig on a boy is distracting is because adults have been telling children that it’s not right. I think schools need to be more focused on educating children in how to think freely. Children need to be more involved in determining the rules that they will be subject to within school walls. This is America after all, if we are going to preach freedom, shouldn’t we teach it as well?

Amy Durrence
Raised in Marietta GA in Cobb County public schools

I know I’ve had alot of posts on here today, but I’m all for letting kids dress how they want. Kids should be given the benefit of the doubt that they can learn the importance of what settings certain behaviors are expected in. Call it a common sense ‘dress for success’ attitude. Since success means different things to different people and success can be measured differently, why not allow some more segmentation?

There is some danger in your argument. You’re making an assumption a student is going to college. Again, if the sole purpose of a school was to prepare a student for self sufficient adult citizenship, then discussing college has no merit. The community’s obligation to the student and preparing him for adult citizenship ends with an earned high school diploma, the lowest common denominator.

That said, let’s debate the college angle. Unlike public secondary schools, in college (public or private) a student is not forced into that environment and has an obligation to fund he/her way, either through capital, or through scholarship. In college, the student has more choice and has more control over his destiny.

In college the stakes are raised to the freedom and choices a student can make and in addition the stakes are raised for students to express opposing views towards cross dressers, a negative outcome. In high school verbal outbursts, or other negative behavior, including hazing directed towards a cross dresser is more easily identified and punishable. Move to college where some campuses have 30k+ students and no vice principal for discipline, and it gets a whole lot harder for a cross dresser to stop harassment.

Finally college tends to blur the classroom v. non-classroom setting via dorm rooms. In public high schools students do not attend school on the same campus that they live. I do realize that for the very flamboyant cross dresser that this blurring can make life more difficult because there are fewer safe havens were he is able to dress the way he identifies himself without being surrounded by negative reactions of his peers.