In our schools, the profanity, and vulgarity of the average teenager becomes worse and worse as the years go by. Today, fashion has become a major part school. If a kid wears Aeropostale, or Hollister, they are considered cool. Many shirts are available that show a vulgar or diragatory statement. This bill works well because it doesn't require a dress code of a shirt and tie, or other Western Business Attire. It only prevents clothes that are revealing, vulgar, violent, gang related, etc. Many schools across the country already have rules along these lines in place.
I think the perceived increase in profanity and vulgarity in schools is more the result of growing up than the absence of federally mandated dress codes. If the language we use is really becoming more profane/vulgar, then maybe society is just becoming more comfortable with kids saying bad words (God forbid). It's hardly a reason for the moral police to come to the rescue.
What do Aeropostale and Hollister have to do with anything anyway? Your second and third sentences sound more like an argument for school uniforms than for dress codes, unless those stores sell the sorts of clothing we tried to ban last Wednesday.
By the way, I don't know if anyone touched upon this during the last thirty minutes of the debate because I didn't stay, but "discriminatory" should have been removed from the bill with the amendment that removed "gang-related." That, or it should have been changed to be more specific. I'd been wanting to point it out throughout the debate, but I didn't get a chance to. "Discriminate" just means to make distinctions. The word "discriminatory" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
You know, just in case anyone wants to use that word in a bill again.