28 October 2022

Dress code violation


Sent home from high school for violating the school's dress code.

Not because of the faded jeans.

Because her outfit doesn't completely cover her clavicle (collarbone).

This incident didn't happen in a church school - she attends Woodford County High School, a public school in Versailles, Kentucky, just a short distance from where I used to live.  The controversy regarding the dress code was recently reported by the Lexington Herald-Leader:
An online petition has begun seeking support to change Woodford County High School's 11-year-old dress code...

Wednesday was the first day of classes for students. One Facebook post said there was "a group of female students standing in the office" because they were not complying with the dress code.

Another post said, "This is ridiculous! Parents are being called away from important jobs and students are missing important class time because they are showing their collarbones!"...

Among the criteria in the Woodford County High dress code is that students must wear a rounded crewneck shirt or a button-down shirt that may have only the top button open. Shirts must not expose the collarbone. Shorts and skirts must be knee-length or longer.
Last year the students at the school created a 33-minute video about their grievances.

Reposted from 2015 to accompany an adjacent post.  

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/14/3988907_woodford-county-high-schools-dress.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/14/3988907_woodford-county-high-schools-dress.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/14/3988907_woodford-county-high-schools-dress.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

28 comments:

  1. I hope that discussions of what women should or shouldn't wear isn't going to become a regular thing on this blog. I love the random stuff you come up with, but I find this kind of discussion unpleasant regardless of the views being presented. Still, it is your choice what kind of content you want to feature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is this unpleasant? There are a number of topics that this blogger comes back to regularly, so what is special about this one that makes you feel compelled to log your disinterest?

      Delete
    2. I have little or no interest in women's fashion per se except insofar as it serves as a reflection of other aspects of our society. But I do have some interest in dress codes. When I was a high school student in the 1960s, my school had a dress code for boys that mandated coats and ties. As the first wave of "60s" youth, we lobbied hard for a more relaxed dress code and were eventually granted the right to wear sweaters (!). Things are different now.

      In this case what interests me is the presumption that schools can legislate morality into teenagers by restricting their clothing choices. The administration will limit necklines, and then the students will go home and log onto Red Tube. It all seems kind of silly.

      Delete
    3. I think Mel's comment (which I tend to second) is to be understood in the light of this post as well.

      Delete
    4. Understood. Also in light of some of these...

      http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.nl/search/label/fashion

      Delete
    5. > my school had a dress code for boys

      how much hair length were you allowed? was it allowed to go over the shirt collar?

      I-)

      Delete
    6. Yes, Drabkikker took my meaning. Your previous fashion posts have been interesting things that I wouldn't have known. These latest two aren't focused on fashion, they're people arguing about what modern women should or shouldn't do with their bodies. (It reminds me of this comic: http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/04/policing-womens-clothing/) I get enough of that in daily life, I'd rather not to get it in my entertainment as well.

      Delete
    7. This is less about fashion than it is a reflection of the author's commonly stated dislike of zero-tolerance policies, also known as zero-intelligence policies.

      Yes, this outfit is technically outside the dress code. There is also absolutely no reason why this outfit should be banned, as it is not provocative or inappropriate in any way. Rules like this that do not take into account basic common sense are meant to be discussed, condemned, and yes, even changed.


      Delete
  2. But can they dance?!?!

    What utter and complete bullshit ~ when did collarbones become erotic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > when did collarbones become erotic

      The issue isn't the collarbones, the issue is that the school didn't want to get involved with measuring how deep necklines are at all, and so came up with the rule that collarbones shouldn't be revealed, with can easily be done by wearing a shirt or blouse.

      Delete
    2. @Danack: So, essentially a form of "zero-tolerance" policy designed to remove administrators from any function that would require them to make an informed decision and back it up... with the expected results.

      Delete
  3. If that's my kid, I send her back to the school in a burka.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And then you would be a member of that same silly group of adults who sent her home in the first place.

      Delete
    2. I like your answer. This would likely piss-off the likely old, white batch of "born agains" and show them up for their hypocrisy.

      Delete
  4. I don't see the issue. The school has a dress code, she didn't follow it. Just another non-issue for the SJWs to get excited about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The issue is not the dress code per se. It's about stupid policies designed to prevent any administrator (gender is irrelevant here) from having to make a decision and back it up. You can file any "zero-tolerance" policy under this category.

      Delete
  5. The issue -- as noted above -- is that the dress code is ridiculous. How is a showing your collar bones a distraction? How does it impair anyone's ability to learn?

    What does impair someone's ability to learn, obviously, is being pulled from class and sent home for wearing a shirt that shows their collarbones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See Danack's comment above.

      Personally, I went to a school which had uniforms, which I am actually glad for. That way, no-one judges you for your clothing which, I understand, can be a problem at, um, more relaxed schools.

      Delete
  6. That woman's toes are Completely exposed!

    ReplyDelete
  7. There are two ways to handle judgement; use humans, or use an "algorithm".

    A human would say that this outfit is just fine, however there are other outfits which are undoubtedly more distracting which are not just fine. That gives plenty of room for argument, foot-stamping, cajoling, and even double-standards.

    The response is to develop an algorithm to replace the human judgement. There can be no argument - there is simply "pass/fail". There can be no double-standard (assuming the algorithm is fair). No one can be cajoled because the algorithm is not human.

    Problem is, algorithms can have holes in them. People sometimes seek to exploit those holes (maybe a shirt that covered the collarbone, but then had a hole allowing more breast exposure), and sometimes they fail in situations where they should have passed.

    That's all that is going on here. It is being used to manufacture some outrage, to get some clicks, and to show everyone just how "bad" bureaucracy is.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My school forgot the NO BEARDS rule so a bunch of us spent summer break growing beards. Except for that one big 15yr old with the deep voice who just didn't shave for a couple of days
    Some of the male teachers hadn't even started shaving yet.
    Apparently it was all my fault so I had to get a job running a small hotel and pay for the rest of my education myself.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is worth here pointing out that aside from ridiculous, this policy is also sexist, because it targets girls. And it sexualizes them for no reason other than the prudishness of the idiots who made these rules.

    Instead of forbidding girls to wear certain clothes, how about we train their classmates not to be distracted? That would be a useful life skill.

    Furthermore, the adults who think this clothing is distracting need some training as well. Kids drooling over classmates is one thing. Adults drooling over underage girls is simply disgusting and criminal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where is there any indication or evidence or accusation in this post or the links of "adults drooling over underage girls?"

      Delete
    2. Where is there any indication or evidence or accusation in this post or the links of "adults drooling over underage girls?"

      The existence of the rules is. Because they would not exist is adults would not be (secretly) agreeing with their minor kids that these girls are droolworthy. If they didn't agree, they'd smack their drooling kids and tell them to behave.

      Really, this is a minor version of why Iran wants to have women wear hijabs. Exactly the same motivation: Women seduce men by their existence and that's their fault, not men's fault for being a perv. tldr: Bullshit.

      Delete
    3. The reason for clothing guidelines, which are mostly aimed at girls, is because they're unnecessarily being sexualized, which is a fancy way of saying that people are drooling over them.

      This is understandable for their teenage peers who are all full of raging hormones and discovering their own sexuality, but quite frankly disgusting for adults.

      You say you are enforcing the rules, that may be (an unfortunate) part of your job. I am not judging you for doing your job. Gotta do what the boss says.

      However, these policies are highly objectionable. They are sexist. Enforcement is humiliating. And they teach girls that they are judged over their appearance first. In short: nothing good.

      We should be teaching students on how to treat each other with respect, irrespective of looks. We should be teaching students how to deal with their sexuality in a responsible way.

      Go ask the Scandinavians how they do it.
      https://www.rfsu.se/om-rfsu/om-oss/in-english/national-work/sexuality-education/about-swedish-sexuality-education/
      https://translatingsexed.wordpress.com/why-the-scandinavian-model/

      But I guess that is too woke.

      Delete
    4. The rules you mention would not have sent the girl depicted in the OP home, so they are not relevant to the current discussion.

      Delete
    5. Added point: I see you're from Maryland. Your code bans the Confederate Flag. Does that include the confederate symbols that ended up in the Maryland State flag?

      https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/verify-does-the-state-of-marylands-flag-have-a-confederate-symbol/65-044e9375-3be3-4962-89e9-ca89ad66dc3f

      See how difficult this is?

      But no worries, I'm fine with banning swastikas.

      Delete
  10. There are fine arguments for eliminating compulsory education (i.e., Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society), but once you compel attendance you've established a compromise of liberty. You're then responsible for regulating behavior, given the relationship between the ward and the pupil. So, rules and the tension between less rules and more rules will rule some part of the day. The adults seek to maintain order and the children (in the case of high school, old enough to function as adults in years past) seek to "run the asylum." The dance never ends. But, hell, let's make this a female oppression thing if we can. We have to keep fueling the notion (this being the curse of phenotypic identity politics) that girls are being abused/disadvantaged, even as the statistics amply demonstrate that females are far surpassing males in nearly every measurement of academic success in the US. (Solution: Uniforms. Eliminate class distinctions and the entire distraction associated with apparel, fashion, yada yada--another version of materialism, consumerism and all that children might to learn to challenge/subvert/reject. One task in life is to get beyond superficial bullshit, and not allow healthy, rebellious impulses to be hijacked by the faux-rebelliousness associated with appearance. Instead of wasting time tweaking hair and "outfits" and getting tattoos, better to read Walden. A blueprint for meaningful rebellion.)

    ReplyDelete