From an official's standpoint, since I wasn't present, I can't and don't want to comment on the call.
That being said:
The NFHS did make the suit rule a formal Point of Emphasis this year, no doubt influenced by the SafeSport and USA Swimming Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policy (MAAPP) initiatives. Specifically, NFHS Rule 3.3 Art. 2. That rule says that "Females shall wear suits which cover the buttocks and breasts and shall not extend beyond the shoulders or below the top of the knee cap, nor cover the neck." That's it. Obviously subject to interpretation and people reading what they want to into it.
As officials, our primary responsibility is to insure fair competition and the safety of the athletes, not to be arbiters of morality or fashion. IMHO, that responsibility should fall back on the athletic directors, coaches and parents.
Ironically, I worked a meet this past week where a poor novice freshman male swimmer had team-issued suit that was several sizes too large. It came about halfway up his chest and came down well past his knees. Technically, it was in violation of the same Rule 3.3 Art 2, but the was no way I was going to DQ the kid. My real fear was that the thing was going to come off in the water...
So I read that the official has been dismissed and the DQ overturned.
That said, another point missed completely on this thread so far is that the suit was a team issued suit. The same cut doesn't work on every body type, obviously. The no boobs/butts girls can wear a suit one way and the ones who are "curvier" have issues with it and vice versa. The school, IMO, also shoulders some of the responsibility going forward. If they require a certain look, then it should have a few alternative cuts for different butts.
A photo of someone's butt isn't pornography.
This whole story is ridiculous. Some girls' suits ride up, others' don't. Who cares? Should a guy get DQed if you can see his butt crack?
Totally agree with the Anchorage School District's position:
Well, per the diagram I saw attached to one article, yes, a male swimmer could be DQ'd for plumber's crack, as the rule illustrated required suits to cover the buttocks entirely. Should he be is less relevant than would he be. Likely, no one would notice unless some chap's entire ass was hanging out. The fact that a female swimmer's purported cheek generates complaints, where a male's at the same meet wouldn't, is sexism in action. Adult men AND women are viewing a minor female athlete as having an ulterior sexual motive, not as an athlete paying more attention to her performance than her suit fit.
