Student organizing is gaining momentum across America — the National School Walkout is proof that a change is happening among young people, and it’s happening fast.
High school students are making a difference on issues, and in communities, of all different sizes. In fact, students in my school district achieved a huge victory just last week. By standing up against a sexist dress code across different high schools in Kenosha, Wisconsin, we showed how student activism anywhere can start off small and then achieve big changes.
I am a member of the Women’s Empowerment Club at Indian Trail High School, which engages in activism to make our school a fairer and more equal learning environment. This year, we agreed on the need to take aim at our school district’s sexist dress code.
The dress code in our school district unfairly targeted female students by banning clothing that is commonly worn by female students, such as leggings, yoga pants, and tank tops. Female students have been kicked out of class and subjected to suggestive looks and comments from older adults. We have felt the eyes of 2,400 students as we get paraded around the building by faculty. Instead of being able to focus on our studies, young women have had to sacrifice our comfort as our bodies are judged as “distractions.”
Meanwhile, school officials have consistently overlooked the clothing decisions of our male counterparts. Whereas at least one of my female classmates was pulled out of class on an almost daily basis, I never saw a single male student disciplined, even when they wore pajama pants and other fashions that violated the dress code.
The enforcement of the dress code against female students who are judged a “distraction” also showed how little faith the school district had in its young men. Through their actions, adults were saying that young men couldn’t control their sexual impulses if a female student entered the room in a pair of leggings. Do we have such little faith in our teenage boys that we have to completely obscure young women’s bodies? Instead, we should be teaching young men that sexual harassment and assault is absolutely never okay, regardless of what a young woman is wearing.
The members of the Women’s Empowerment Club and I knew that we needed to hold our administrators and teenage boys more responsible for maintaining a safe and fair educational environment. We got to work on eradicating the school district’s discriminatory dress code.
After some discussions, we found the most appropriate way to make our voices heard: attending our local school board meetings, which meet once a month at 7 p.m. We intended to be there each month at 7 sharp, and we were.
At the meetings, we shared our personal stories with board members. I testified about experiencing the injustice of the dress code firsthand on multiple occasions, starting when I was a mere seventh grader. I described one time in 10th grade when I was kicked out of class for wearing leggings and a flannel shirt — an outfit I felt safe and comfortable in. That day, I missed a full day of education that included three tests.
I also testified about experiencing male teachers looking me up and down and commenting on my body or clothing choices in front of my classmates, which I find degrading and revolting. As I told the school board, teachers enforcing the dress code against me and my female classmates made us feel more like objects than human beings.
We never bowed down, even when some board members didn’t agree with us. And we weren’t alone. We started an online petition that received over three thousand signatures. After six regular board meetings and two working sessions, the board ruled in our favor. Last week, they voted to finally change the dress code’s bias against women.
When we started this experience, I never could have imagined how big an impact our student organizing could have. This change to the dress code affects current students, future students, and our entire community. Female students like me will no longer feel like we’re being targeted, like our bodies are something to be ashamed of. And although I’m graduating soon, my sister is only a fifth-grader in the school district. I’m relieved that she won’t have to experience the shame that the dress code put me through.
I am so proud to be part of this change in Kenosha and this student movement across America. The best part is that I know it’s not over. Even more positive change is possible, and I can’t wait to see the legacy of our work.
My message to other high school students is this: We can change the society we live in for the better, and we can start right now. Most of us may not be able to vote yet, but we can still make sure we’re heard. Whether your fight is small or big, it can make a difference in the world, so make your voice loud.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.