A federal court in North Carolina ruled against a charter school that required girls to wear dresses.
The charter school claimed it was not subject to federal laws against discrimination because it is not a “state actor.” Charter schools frequently claim they are not “state actors” when they violate civil rights laws or labor laws, but simultaneously say they are public schools.
An en banc federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a public charter school in North Carolina violated the equal protection clause when it required girls to wear skirts.
The full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, ruled against Charter Day School Inc. in a June 14 decision. Judge Barbara Milano Keenan wrote the majority opinion.
The Charter Day School required girls to wear skirts, jumpers or skorts based on the view that girls are “fragile vessels” deserving of gentle treatment by boys, the appeals court said.
The school had argued that the school is not a state actor subject to the Constitution, and that the federal law banning discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs did not apply to dress codes.
The appeals court ruled against the school on both arguments.
The 4th Circuit decision is the first by a federal appeals court to recognize that charter schools receiving public funds must abide by the same constitutional safeguards as traditional public schools, according to a press release by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The en banc court and a prior 4th Circuit panel agreed that sex-specific dress codes may violate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. But the en banc court went further than the panel when it ruled that the charter school violated the equal protection clause…
The school founder had said skirts embody “traditional values” and preserve “chivalry” and respect. Chivalry, the school founder said, is a code of conduct in which women are “regarded as a fragile vessel that men are supposed to take care of and honor.” School board members agreed with those objectives, including the goal of fostering “traditional roles” for children.
“It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of a rationale based on impermissible gender stereotypes,” the appeals court said.
Nine judges agreed with the opinion. Six dissented, in whole or in part, on the grounds that charter schools are not state actors.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
So there is apparently some disagreement as to whether charters are acting as the state. What other entity may use money provided by the state and ignore certain laws regarding the disbursements of money?
Wall Street investment banks, with state pension funds.
If I may… I’d like to propose a new Menu caption for this website!… ‘titled: Site Format Reform.
.
Thank you!… and please continue with your “discussion”!
How entertaining. I’d like to propose a discussion of punctuation and grammar — if I may.
The dissenting arguments claimed that charter schools do not perform a function required of the state, ignoring the state constitution that says the state must provide public education, but: West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 56 (1988) (holding that a state’s delegation of its duty to provide medical care to prisoners rendered a contract physician a state actor). When the function at issue has been “traditionally the exclusive prerogative” of the state, a private entity executing that function has engaged in state action.. Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 842 (citation omitted); see Goldstein, 218 F.3d at 349 (holding that volunteer fire company in Maryland was state actor because it performed essential governmental function traditionally and exclusively reserved to the state, received significant funding from state, was subject to extensive state regulation, and was deemed by state to be state actor); see also Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp., 139 S. Ct. at 1928-29.
No mention of religion?
9 judges in favor of the ruling, 6 opposed. If the charter school decides to appeal, does it go to SCOTUS?
How many Jewish orthodox, evangelical and Catholic schools require girls to wear skirts?
The case, Biel v. St. James Catholic school, exempted religious school employers from civil rights employment law (SCOTUS decision).
Can “fragile vessels”, next, be required to be wrapped in burkas to be protected?
This lawsuit is the tip of the iceberg in court cases if we allow public dollars to flow to religious groups. As I said before, we will see a array of similar lawsuits filed in the future. Sending public dollars to religious is a terrible, unsound idea. We need to use public dollars for public schools that teach tolerance and mutual respect of individual differences. This belief has always been a key component of successful public schools.
AMEN, retired teacher.
Your comments always make sense.
Thank you.
And the lawyers will get richer and public schools will still be fighting for $$$$. The only way to take care of matters is to declare that Charter Schools are public schools…they don’t get any “special unicorn” status or special/magical funding. There….we now have religious/private schools and public schools. Problem solved unless SCOTUS messes with the Church/State issue.
In the Show Me State, the law authorizing private charter schools states that they are public schools. Hmmm. . . . . .
Nailed it, RT.
My first thought . . .
Men can only treat women with respect if they are wearing skirts?? lol!
Once the pants come on – we no longer deserve to be treated “gently” ?
What they heck??
Let’s be as arbitrary and start treating men differently when they wear pants that stop at the knee.
Linda: what about those Scots and their golf-playing attire?
“The Charter Day School required girls to wear skirts, jumpers or skorts based on the view that girls are “fragile vessels”
I believe it is spelled “vassals”.
Priceless!
Vessels are inanimate property.
Holding tanks.
Tired of Dimocrat, Socialist judges takin away yore rite to raise yore children? Sick of schools trainin yore kids to be distrespectful, transgendered, and homo-sexual and to love CRT and hate Ameirca and theyselves? Then cast yore vote this November for BillyBob Shepherd, who’s first peace of legislashun will be the Biblical Schoolin Act. Under this nu law, high-school boys will learn how to fill there own shells with buckshot and be the faith leaders of their famlies, and girls, being more fragile vessels, will not be required to attend high school at all but will go to Charm School after Grade 8, where they will learn proper walking, sitting, hair, makeup, serving hubby dinner, dressing for tea, and much, much more! I no what yore thankin: finely, sumbody that represents reel North Carolina values!
Tell me, whoever had the crazy idea that girls should worry their pretty little heads with thinking and Algebra and such? Thats whar we started goin downhill, rite thar.
Yes, girls and women are just vessels — for babies.
Baby baskets, as it were.
The only algebra girls need to learn is
X = girl and Y = boy
And “+” means pregnant and “-” means not pregnant.
Girls and Women
Vessels and vassals
And dresses and tassels
Repunzles in castles
With tresses that dazzles
Oops
Dresses and vassals
With dresses and tassles
Take stat and federal money live by state and federal rules and laws.
exactly
If the charter really believed in chivalry, when a dress code violation took place, the principal would challenge the student to a duel.
The real question is: Can they make the boys wear dresses?
Only at the Scottish, Indonesian, and Malaysian charters.
Can they make them play bagpipes? Now that engenders respect!
And busted eardrums!
You know,Duane, that is truly the real question.
I have a Muslim colleague who will NOT wear dresses or skirts, only slacks, as a sign of modesty. What about the rights of students in those situations?
Religion- the immunity card that prohibits discussion …while Leo Leonard’s judges enact conservative Christian mandates.
Good morning Diane and everyone,
When I was in middle school (early 80’s), in gym class the girls had to wear an ugly one piece jumper type outfit so as not to entice and sexually arouse the teenage boys. My mother went in to the principal and said that I would NOT be wearing that because there was no such regulation for the boys. So I was the only girl who wore what I wanted. Of course, my mother had to agree that my outfits would be “appropriate.” I’ve always found it interesting that women are the ones that need to be controlled because men can’t control themselves unless certain conditions are met. Women must cover their hair (too sensual) or shoulders (too sexy) or legs or breasts because MEN can’t control themselves and their sexual urges. And a woman’s dress will signal to a man how she needs to be treated. So, it seems to me that it is MEN’S behavior that needs to be controlled by society not women’s!!! In another stunning sexist practice, the boys took shop class while the girls took home economics. Well, my mother, who had always done a lot of wood working, once again called the principal and said that, no, her daughter would be taking shop class instead of homemaking. So, I was the only girl in shop class for 2 years. Good stuff!
I might also add that my mother gave the priest an earful when she learned that the girls had to walk behind the boys during the first communion ceremony. My mother told him that since this was something I wanted to do, she would agree to it but also that, “My daughter walks behind no boy or man.” My mom was great.
Mamie, you had a wonderful mother. I wish I had taken shop instead of home economics. The home ex was a total waste of time for me.