I’ve gone back and forth on whether I should tackle this
topic. The initial event took place in
August 2015 and, though there is plenty that can and should be discussed with
regard to what happened and the thinking around it, it’s a bit of “yesterday’s
news.” But then I realized that if Froma
Harrop (@FromaHarrop) could pick up the topic roughly seven months after it
happened I probably could, too. After
all, I’m just a pseudonymous blogger; she’s a nationally syndicated
journalist. Besides, like so many other
things, the story I’m about to relate intersects so easily with other stories
we need to talk about.
Here’s what happened.
On Monday, August 17, 2015, The
New York Daily News ran a piece
discussing the disciplinary action Woodford County High School in Versailles,
KY, took when a student arrived on the second day of school wearing a shirt
that exposed her collarbone. The
headline of the article read: “Kentucky high school students, parents fight
strict dress code that requires girls to cover collarbone.” The
protest to the school’s dress code began where all protests begin these
days: On social media. The Facebook following for the movement began
identifying the policy as sexist.
Students from Woodford County High began speaking to the issue including
Maggie Sunseri, who produced a documentary entitled Shame:
A Documentary on School Dress Code and posted
it on YouTube.
I can’t speak to the
sexist aspect of the enforcement of Woodford County High School’s dress
code. I
did review the dress code, having found it online, and discovered that the
same expectations are laid on male and female students alike. I don’t doubt the feasibility that one gender
is held to a higher standard than others; that seems to be the rule of thumb in
our society. Look at our presidential
election. Bernie Sanders and all the
other “old boys” can go from event to event wearing the same suit and tie
without comment. If Hillary Clinton didn’t
change outfits between events A and B, there would inevitably be commentary
about her appearance. I’m not saying
that this is what happened in this case; I have no idea. I’m simply saying that this is the prevailing
attitude and approach in our society. I
can imagine that this is how things happened in Versailles, KY.
And this is what
bothered me about Froma Harrop’s column
on the topic. Where I feel hesitant
to address the sexist approach taken by the school in response to the student’s
adherence to the universal dress code identified in the Woodford County High
School’s student handbook, Ms Harrop had no hesitation. Ms Harrop announced that “dress codes are the opposite of sexist.”
Ms Harrop may have
a point in certain circumstances. Perhaps
in schools and institutions where there is an actual uniform dress code (school
uniforms, military uniforms, etc.) and both genders are expected to wear the
exact same clothing. However, dress
codes have always been skewed toward sexism.
I remember a story my mother shared in which she had to kneel in high
school to have the length of her skirt measured in order to determine whether
or not she was abiding by the dress code.
Talk about demeaning. What
application of dress code enforcement sees boys having to assume such a
degrading posture?
“Yeah, but, Troy Comets,” I hear some of you saying. “That was sixty years ago or so.”
That’s true. But in
doing research for this post I discovered that this sort of thing still
happens. An Edmonson County High School student
(again in Kentucky) was forced
to kneel in front of the male principal and have her dress measured just this
past January.
Dress codes and the enforcement of dress codes are fraught
with sexism. The whole idea of a dress
code is to establish morality and appropriateness in those the dress code is
designed for. The Woodford County High
School Student Handbook makes this claim right off the bat when it says: “All students are expected to adhere to
common practices of modesty,
cleanliness, and neatness, and to dress in such a manner as to contribute to
the academic atmosphere.” [Emphasis
mine.]
Who defines modesty?
I have yet to discover a definition of modesty and an application of
modesty that isn’t subjective in nature.
What is modest for this age bracket in community A could be deemed risqué
and immodest in Community B.
To understand what Woodford High School may mean by using
the word “modesty,” it’s helpful to consider the demographics of Woodford
County, Kentucky. This is what I
discovered:
·
Politically, Woodford, KY, is solidly Republican
in its leanings. In the last
presidential election, 60% of the population voted for Romey versus 40% voting
for Obama.
·
Religiously, nearly 40% of the population is
Evangelical Protestant (the largest religious subset in the county). According to data from 2010 the Evangelical
Protestant community grew by nearly three thousand people since the year
2000. Mainline Protestantism dropped and
the Roman Catholic community grew ever so slightly. This data informs us that the majority of
religious adherents in Woodford County (nearly 10,000 individuals in a
community of
23,208 people are of a so-called conservative Christian variety.
·
From the same census data we learn the racial
makeup of the county was 92.08% White, 5.41% Black or African American, 0.13%
Native American, 0.31% Asian, 0.01% Pacific Islander, 1.13% from other races,
and 0.93% from two or more races. 2.99% of the population were Hispanic or
Latino of any race.
What this helps me understand is that, at least on the
surface, Woodford County High School’s dress code isn’t sexist. It’s subjective, born out of a culture and
community that is conservative politically and religiously. Their definition of “modesty” is going to
reflect these conservative values.
And this is the problem.
This is precisely why we need movement on a larger scale to establish
rules, guidelines, and most importantly protections from outdated and outmoded
notions of modesty and propriety that are often times completely divorced from
reality. There are zero studies that support Woodford High School’s statement
regarding their dress code that these “common practices of modesty,
cleanliness, and neatness” or even “dressing in such a manner as to contribute
to the academic atmosphere” exists.
There are no conclusive data on these claims.
Do you know what verifiable data does indicate? The
Woodford County High School student body is 65% proficient in English
(which is amazing considering the demographic makeup of the student body), 49%
efficient in Algebra, and only 38% are considered college ready. Either the school board is right in their
assumption regarding dress code, in which case the school is barely hanging on
with these percentages all thanks to “modesty, cleanliness, and neatness” or
the school district as a whole needs to evaluate its priorities and focus less
on female collar bones and more on teaching Math and English.
This is precisely what North Carolina has failed to do. Imagine Woodford County, Kentucky, on a
larger, statewide scale, in which a section of the population, with its strict adherence
to conservative political, social and religious principles, are able to force
its definition of morality onto the entire population. Not only this, but this section of the
population then determines how it will enforce these principles and who will
receive protections from these principles.
Just like Woodford County High School’s dress code and dress codes
everywhere, girls are going to be targeted and held to a different standard
than boys. In North Carolina, LGBTQ
people are going to be targeted, held to a different standard than non-LGBTQ
people, and there is going to be no protection from the consequences of the
intolerance they will face.
Again, I can hear some of you objecting, “Yeah, but, Troy
Comets, shouldn’t the community be able to decide what is appropriate or not
for their own community? Shouldn’t they
be able to apply their political and religious beliefs as they see fit?”
Do you know who else makes this argument? Extremist Muslims and the so-called Islamic
State. Guess where the population of
Woodford County, Kentucky, comes down on Islam and the “war on terror.” Here’s a hint: Trump won the GOP caucus in Woodford County
with Ted Cruz a very tight
second. The rhetoric of these two (“Ban
all Muslims” and “Carpet bomb their families”) is all you need to know.
Here’s the deal, folks.
There is more to our judgments about modesty and appropriateness than
just our declarations and determinations.
You can sit behind accolades and achievements and declare that the
application of a dress code is the opposite of sexism. You can use this event and events like this one to further the advocacy of your belief that dress codes preserve female dignity. But don’t think for a
moment that your position on the issue is born out of anything but your experiences, prejudices, and
opinions.
The Woodford County High School school board can cite
whatever support it wants for its subjective view of modesty but in the end it’s
just an opinion and in the end the application of that opinion is going to be
biased and prejudicial.
North Carolina politicians can attempt to justify its
decision to legally exclude a segment of its population from rights and
protections but in the end it’s their prejudiced
opinion that brought this heinous law to fruition.
Make your rules, set your guidelines, establish your
boundaries—but don’t be surprised when someone comes around and calls you on
your baseless opinion and presents verifiable facts that contradict your
beliefs. Try owning your opinion and
acknowledging that your views on modesty, propriety, and decency are subjective
and, at the end of the day, just your
opinion.
And that, dear reader, is my opinion.
Follow me on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment