No, this is NOT a joke:
Long Beach High School has an annual “Superhero Day” for its seniors. According to Newsday, while other students came dressed as Superman and Wonder Woman, three girls–Ashley Imhof, Eliana Levin, and Chelsea Horowitz–came attired as kid’s book superhero Captain Underpants. There was nothing remotely indecent about the ensembles: They were covered head to toe in flesh-colored tights (not see-through), sporting white jockey shorts on the outside. But the head of the school, who will henceforth be referred to as Principal Poopypants, insisted they change because they had “the appearance” of being naked.
What the hëll was he TALKING about? They were wearing capes, so seen from the back, they wouldn’t appear topless. Seen from the front, they would only appear naked if the biology teachers at Long Beach failed to teach the kids that girls have breasts. Nevertheless, the mere suggestion was enough to make Principal Poopypants issue an ultimatum that the clever teens cover up. Having no clothes to change into, the girls had to go home.
The Principal (real name Nicholas Restivo) stated he didn’t know the character, “not that it mattered.” Talk about having your underpants in a bunch. Someone should send Principal Poopypants a collection of the series.
PAD
Here is the photo that was taken by Ðìçk Yarwood for Newsday for the article.
• 
I think the girls should take the jockey shorts they were wearing, package them up, and have them delivered to the principal via messenger with the following note: “Eat these.”
I think school administrators are just as out of touch with reality as politicans these days.
When did high schools start teaching kids that girls have breasts?
Seriously, though, it probably wasn’t a wise idea for girls – who do have breasts, I had to wait until college to find that out – to dress as a bare-chested male figure, even if covered by tights. Even if it was a prepubescent character. Unless you wear very heavy underwear under tights, a lot still gets revealed. I still remember, in the 70’s, musician Todd Rundgren appearing on stage in shiny silver tights, his male equipment clearly visible. A good reminder why male superheroes don’t have obvious genitalia.
Finally, remember that all high school principles err on the side of caution. And they err a lot. They have a terrible responsibility, the responsibility for teaching kids about proper behavior that has been shucked by parents. Anything that any parent might concievably object to will get them fired.
lmao…
When I was a kid, my highschool used to celebrate a “verbena” (sort of a night fair) with a costume contest included. They ended up issuing a veto to prevent any boy dressing as a girl/woman. Seems a kid did that so succesfuly and genuine-like he got even to flirt with a teacher, or so the legend say.
With these cases I allways think the problem is in the eye of the beholder. If something is made as a joke, meant as a joke and you turn it into something nasty or dirty, you shouldnt be anywhere near kids.
“Anything that any parent might concievably object to will get them fired.”
Then remove such power from parents. The alternative is to have the most prude, small minded and puritan sectors of our society rule what everyone’s kids should be exposed to.
“Then remove such power from parents. The alternative is to have the most prude, small minded and puritan sectors of our society rule what everyone’s kids should be exposed to.”
What do you mean, “alternative?” Between this and the art teacher whose contract wasn’t renewed because she took her kids to an art museum where there were nude statues, I’d say that’s what we pretty much have right now.
PAD
“What do you mean, “alternative?” Between this and the art teacher whose contract wasn’t renewed because she took her kids to an art museum where there were nude statues, I’d say that’s what we pretty much have right now.”
Well, at least it’s still “news”. Maybe I talk from the perspective of a place where this same process is taking place too, but at a slower pace.
A school administrator overreacted? I’m shocked.
Wait, no, I’m not shocked. The last 6 years have taught me not to be shocked by examples of glaring absence of common sense.
On the other hand, tights (flesh-colored or otherwise) don’t leave much to the imagination, so I can’t say without seeing pictures (no, this is NOT a subliminal request for a link) if he was off-base or not.
wow… what’s more disturbing, the fact that this guy is so overly uptight and inappropriate in his reaction to high school kids or the fact that he works with this population and has no idea about the popular culture or books that influence the group he is working with? I wouldn’t be surprised if a middle-aged businessman was clueless about Captain Underpants, but an administrator in the primary education field?
Something about those Underpants that people don’t like. It’s frequently shows up on the “most challenged books” list.
See here
If that doesn’t work, here’s the page.
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/topten2000to2005.htm
No pictures, but the news story does say the girls claim the teachers who saw the costumes ‘thought they were cute’. Which suggests they either have teachers with a poor sense of decorum, the costumes really did cover up everything they needed to cover up, or the girls are lying.
Maybe its because I’m brazilian, but, man, sometimes I wonder what’s the problem with some people in the US. Firing an art teacher because in Museum there’s nude statues and the kids wasn’t supposed to see that? Well, what happens when they look themselves in the mirror after a shower? They get suspended?
Now, this thing with the a hero uniform. Where’s the imagination of these people? Being prude is one thing, but forcing people to as prude as they is wrong. The worst thing is that the american kids got it easy… They have schools to go in and learn and still they get suffocated by this kind of policy. Here, only a fraction of brazilian kids can go to school and so much is lost when a lot of teenagers and kids get no education and can’t grow as people, so, when something like that appears in the news, I think, “These people must have issues with clothing or lack of…”
Sorry about the bad english. And, PAD, love your books and I always pleased to read your commentaries here.
“On the other hand, tights (flesh-colored or otherwise) don’t leave much to the imagination, so I can’t say without seeing pictures (no, this is NOT a subliminal request for a link) if he was off-base or not.”
If they didn’t want students to show up wearing tights, they probably should’ve avoided having a Superhero Day altogether.
Well, it’s on the main page of Newsday (dot) com, along with pictures.
For one of the girls, you can see the outline of her bra beneath the suit… heaven forbid!
And yes, Mauricio, this country is full of prudes. I think the ol’ Puritanical influences of this country’s past still haunt us to this day. Cases like this merely prove it.
It was brought up on NBC Nightly News last night on the fact that the Feds are laxing rules regarding whether schools can segregate kids by sex, as if keeping girls and boys apart will suddenly solve everything.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about the US school systems, it’s that they’re certainly not trying to prepare you for being an adult.
If they didn’t want students to show up wearing tights, they probably should’ve avoided having a Superhero Day altogether.
HA! Ain’t THAT the truth!
No it isn’t a joke. We just wish it were.
People such as Restivo get to be in charge of schools? That explains a great deal. None of it good.
Ok, Newsarama has s pic up. From the waist up, I don’t see any problem. Skin colored or not, it’s nothing you wouldn’t see any other day at school.
But from the waist down, I do think that’s not appropriate for going out in public. I’d not let my daughter go out dressed like that, superhero day or not. There’s a good reason why Smallville’s Green Arrow has a significant cod piece, and it’s not just for functional protection. Probably wouldn’t have been a problem were they actual boys’ tidy whities, but they aren’t.
I’m reserving judgment until I can see a picture of the girls in costume. We don’t know how tight the flesh colored tights were, how they were cut, how form fitting they were, what was under them or how short the cape was or without some sort of visual reference.
It does matter. My school (Prince George High School) had a Halloween dress up day as well. We could dress up as whatever we wanted to so long as it didn’t clash with the normal dress codes too badly. The old school Aquaman would get a pass. Namor would be out. The older, skirted Wonder Woman might fly while a newer, almost thonged WW or even a Zatana would get sent home. Adam and Eve in fig leaves could fly if the flesh colored suits were sweatpants rather then tights. I’m not pulling random examples out of a hat. These costumes were done at my school.
Most people would dress up and have fun with it. Some people (mostly girls at the time) would see how much they could get away with. Without a visual reference or two, we don’t know if Principal Nicholas Restivo is an overreacting clod or if he acted in accord with both the school dress codes and common decency.
To condemn him with no evidence one way or another is no better then the dolts who got Harry Potter to the top of the banned books week list without ever reading it (or at least seeing the movie) so much as once.
Not one dámņ bit of this surprises me.
Forty years ago, when I was still in grade school, we had teachers and administrators like this. My grade school principal, Imelda Stanton, was a bit of a prude about some things but in most areas she was remarkably ahead of her time, and had common sense by the truckload. A shame that couldn’t be inherited. This hwoon-dahn Restivo obviously can’t find his ášš with both hands and a roadmap.
When Teachers came out 22 years ago, a lot of people squawked about how unrealistic it was, that Nick Nolte’s character and the school in general couldn’t possibly have any basis in reality. I knew better. That school, and the people in it, seems to me now to be a case of life imitating art. Actually makes me glad I don’t have kids, not if people like Restivo are gonna be teaching them. I’d have to do what Fred Pohl’s mother did, and just home school my kids. They’d almost certainly get a better education.
Miles
“Probably wouldn’t have been a problem were they actual boys’ tidy whities, but they aren’t.”
Ah, except the principal specifically stated he had no problem with the outer display of underwear. Only the “appearance” of nudity.
PAD
“If they didn’t want students to show up wearing tights, they probably should’ve avoided having a Superhero Day altogether.”
Depends on how tight the tights are and what they’re made of. Helen Slater wore tights as Supergirl and showed very little. I know a girl who once did Supergirl in tights so tight and material so thin that you could see the outline of her birthmark.
Trust me, I checked several times.
🙂
without some sort of visual reference.
We have such a reference, because there are such pictures.
http://www.newsday.com
Knowing how I thought in high school, if I’d overheard the moron Principal saying such a thing, I would’ve taken off whatever costume I was wearing, gotten flesh-colored tights and a couple of small round pillows for breasts underneath and walked around as a female version of Captain Underpants with a big cape that said “Capt. Stop Taking Life Seriously.”
So it gave them the “appearance” of nudity. So do the girls who dress up as “catholic school girls” with their bras showing or the ones who simply dress trampy on a daily basis with shorts that look like they were painted on. This was supposed to be a day of fun. Unless someone’s actually topless or has fake genitalia depicted on them, chill out.
As soon as one of the girls showed a book displaying the appearance of Captain Underpants, the matter should have been left alone. It’s ONE DAY of silliness, it’s not like they’re doing drugs in the bathroom or walking around drunk. And then we get upset when kids act like we’re the enemy. 😛
Yeah, I saw the pictures while you were posting. I’m siding with the Principal here. The tights are thin enough that you can see through them to an almost unacceptable degree. That does tend to violate most school dress codes that I know of.
I ran the pictures past my wife, a former teacher and even less of a prude then I am (and that is saying something), and got the same answer. Might let it fly as a parent for a party at the house or a friend’s house but can see where a school official might find the tights a bit too much. Fun is fun, but common sense does need to play a part here as well.
Well, yeah, regardless of whatever reason the principal gives (I doubt you’ll find “appearance of nudity” in the dress codes), the fact that you can see the bra through the outfit is pretty inappropriate, and I do imagine that’s against the dress code, if there is one. Our school eventually ended dressing up for Halloween, partly because the kids were actually TRYING to do their best to get away with things. And being kids, they’d plot about it on their MySpace pages, so their intent was pretty well documented.
Anyway, I’m supposing most of you don’t realize just how easy it is to distract a thousand teenage boys at a school, but I guarantee you that having a girl show up in her bra would be one way to do it.
And don’t blame the principal for covering his bases until your school gets sued because after a big rain storm, a student walked across the blocked off construction area at the school and his parents demanded we pay for his shoes since they got all muddy, and although the area was cordoned off, there weren’t specific signs to warn people that there was mud.
Or when a student gives another one an aspirin, neither student realizing an allergy to aspirin will put him in the hospital. Think about that when you see another story about a kid being in trouble for having (gasp!) aspirin on campus, even though it’s against the rules and schools have gotten in trouble when that kid ignorantly gives them to another. Doesn’t stop the parents from suing the schools.
Yeah, it’s not a joke.
Meh. I had my fill of humorless administrators when I was a public school teacher in Minnesota.
Besides, it could’ve been a lot worse. It could have been Kekko Kamen.
the fact that you can see the bra through the outfit is pretty inappropriate
Then girls should be banned from wearing white shirts then?
Because that’s what you’re going based on your opinion of this outfit.
but I guarantee you that having a girl show up in her bra would be one way to do it.
She did NOT show up ‘in her bra’. She is wearing a bra. Just like I’d think most other girls of high school age do.
“”Probably wouldn’t have been a problem were they actual boys’ tidy whities, but they aren’t.”
Ah, except the principal specifically stated he had no problem with the outer display of underwear. Only the “appearance” of nudity.
PAD”
As to the stated reason, I agree. The appearance of nudity is silly, and far too subjective. But I doubt the Princ. felt very comfortable saying “their tights were so tight you could see their…you know…areas.”
“Then girls should be banned from wearing white shirts then?
Because that’s what you’re going based on your opinion of this outfit.”
Ok, that’s funny. Really stretching it a bit there.
I work around women who wear white tops as part of their uniforms. Can’t see what’s underneath. White, yellow, pink or any other lighter color can be fine when the fabric isn’t light to the point of being sheer and/or it’s not pulled skin tight.
“I doubt you’ll find “appearance of nudity” in the dress codes”
Because of the cloths around in the late 80’s (I’m part of the MTV generation), we actually did have something about that in our dress code. Sheer and see through was also covered quite well.
“So it gave them the “appearance” of nudity. So do the girls who dress up as “catholic school girls” with their bras showing or the ones who simply dress trampy on a daily basis with shorts that look like they were painted on.”
And people complain about that, kids get sent home and schools get into arguments over dress codes and uniforms because of it. I don’t think that girls or guys should get away with do/dress as they please at school. I’m not going to change that stance because I’m a bit of a geek and they were doing a comic book thing.
It’s a school. They have rules. You can still have fun and play inside the rules. Lots of us did it for years. They either didn’t think their costumes through or they tried to push the limits. Either way, they change, cover up or go home.
*snort*
::just saw the picture::
More power to them. (I bet no one “got” their outfits anyway … which was probably the point.)
I remember Mom talking about the days when principals and teachers used to make girls kneel on the the floor to make sure the required skirts (no jeans or shorts back then) touched the floor for proper length.
I for one was glad those days were gone by the time I went to HS.
But I will say Mom would have never let me go to school in that. Superhero day or no. Oh God, I can hear the screeching from here! heh.
Ok, that’s funny. Really stretching it a bit there.
No, it isn’t.
Tell me you’ve never seen a girl walking around in a white shirt and never seen the bra underneath.
Go ahead, I dare you to even try.
Counterpoint: I worked at a banquet place for about a year and a half, and, yeah, we wore fancy white shirts. They were fairly thin, and it was *gasp* common to see the bras underneath.
Yet, that is what we wore for work.
What I find funny is that, in all of this, you’re complaining about being able to see the outline of the bra.
I can atleast understand where the principal is coming from, even if I disagree with him.
But your comments? THAT is comedy.
It’s good for a laugh at the principal’s expense, but so long as the girls aren’t facing any punishment, I’d cut him some slack. Without his knowing of the character’s context, I understand his cautious stance.
“Girls show up as a topless superhero,” is something that could be a “fired for cause” situation if he didn’t send them home to change. Not everyone knows about Capt. Underpants, making out-of-context interpretations inevitable.
Again, knowing the character, I’m sure the girls’ intent was entirely innocent. That’s why I hope they faced no punishment other than the inconvenience of having to go home to change.
With the way many superheroes are clad these days in comics, I’m sure that the possibility of something crossing the line was a concern.
Craig said:
“Then girls should be banned from wearing white shirts then?
Because that’s what you’re going based on your opinion of this outfit.”
Craig, I know you saw the pictures because you linked them. It’s not just the outline of the bra. You can see the flippin’ bra. If that’s the norm for girls wearing white shirts where you work, they wear some pretty flimsy see-through material.
“She did NOT show up ‘in her bra’. She is wearing a bra. Just like I’d think most other girls of high school age do.”
Oh, it was covered in a see-through flesh covered sheer material, so I’ll go ahead and explain to the freshmen boys that it’s really covered, they’re just imagining things.
I’m sure I’m going to get flamed for this, but this high school English teachers of fifteen years agrees with the principal. This falls into the category of “give’em an inch and they’ll take a mile.” Most schools these days, mine included, have had to have rules set to paper specifically stating that underwear cannot be shown thanks to the boys purposely dropping their pants down to the bottom of their butt cheeks, and the girls who wear hip huggers specifically to show off the tops of their thongs.
We had to institute a rule two years ago that banned students wearing their pajamas to school because it became very popular to wear pj bottoms to school. The final straw was when they started “pantsing” each other because pj bottoms come down so easily, and those thongs became apparent again.
So what, right? That’s not the case here. The problem is that the NEXT time a kid comes in with his or her underwear showing indecently, they can say “but you let those three girls wear their underwearing showing all day last month, and you didn’t do anything about it!” and then the parents get involved, and it becomes that much more difficult to maintain an atmosphere conducive to learning.
The girls probably won’t attempting to do anything subversive. I will grant you that. But it just isn’t worth the future hassle that would probably come.
Please try to keep in mind that not every rule that a school is instituted because we’re worried that the kids are just having too much fun.
On further reading:
“Tell me you’ve never seen a girl walking around in a white shirt and never seen the bra underneath.
Go ahead, I dare you to even try.”
At a school? Where part of the dress code is no visible underwear? Uh, sure. I’ll take that bet. They get asked to change outfits, just like what happened here. I still can’t understand who you’re arguing that it’s just the outline of the bra.
For those of you saying “if they were really wearing boys tightie whities it might be okay” – go look at the Newsday gallery (not just the photo linked here). They’re wearing boys underpants, not girls.
As for the seeing bra issue – I’m sitting in a major convention hall in a metropolitan city (that’s snowing on me, gøddámņìŧ – there was no forecast of snow when I left my city this morning!), and just glancing around at the professional business women in the hall, I can see the outlines of more than one bra.
We see bras daily. My guess is: most of y’all men don’t notice it unless it’s a very attractive woman, or there’s something in the outfit offending you (or otherwise catching your eye).
After seeing the pictures, I think there’s ample room to show some sympathy to the administrators. Unlike (probably) most of the world, I’ve read those books and I know who Captain Underpants is. Even so, the first thing I thought wasn’t “Oh, it’s a ‘Captain Underpants’ costume” but ‘Why are those girls pretending to be walking around topless?'”
I’d like to think that if I were in the principal’s position, I’d have let it pass. But the fact of the matter is that my job doesn’t include managing a community of 1000-2000 people who are at that stage of life when they’re meant to be challenging rules and authority.
A friend of mine recently began a new career as a teacher and he decided to start in the deep end: he took a two-year assignment in a tough school in Philadelphia. In his more cheerful missives, he says that part of his job is like being the camp commandant in “The Great Escape.” You like and respect the kids, you’re on their side and you want to help them to succeed and graduate…but if they sense that you can’t maintain order and control over the class, you’re done.
Example: the rule is that if you bring a cellphone into the school, you have to keep it in your locker. Monday: what, you brought one in? Well, OK, but leave it turned off. Tuesday: All right, I suppose it wouldn’t disrupt the class if you have it on vibrate, just so you’ll know to check your voice mail when you’re in the halls. Wednesday: Well, I can’t get upset that you took it out of your pocket to check the callerID. Thursday: You can READ a text-message, but you CAN’T send any, all right? Please?
So if a teacher decides to simply confiscate the phone on Day One and keep it until the kid’s mom or dad comes to pick it up in person, it’s not because they’re overreacting to the accidental presence of a cellphone in a backpack. Maybe it’s just the simplest way to make sure that a problem with getting one kid to follow a sensible and clearly-stated rule doesn’t turn into a problem with thirty kids.
Believe that the principal has no sense of humor, believe that he made a big fuss over nothing, say whatever you want because for all we know, that could be very true. But it’s also very possible that the sergeants have a more realistic understanding of the operational theater than we civilians.
I mean, it’s not like these girls were punished. These girls aren’t exactly the Hollywood Ten, viciously persecuted for standing up to defend a vital principle of Democracy, you know?
“Tell me you’ve never seen a girl walking around in a white shirt and never seen the bra underneath.
Go ahead, I dare you to even try.”
Seen lots of them. Back when I went to school, they got sent home or told to put their jackets on and cover up. I just found your blanket statement of white shirts to be stupid and pointed out that merely being white wasn’t an issue. Most professional and school dress codes I have read don’t cover colors (unless it’s dealing with uniforms or color coded). They do make reference to ones ability to see through the material enough to see what’s underneath.
“Counterpoint: I worked at a banquet place for about a year and a half, and, yeah, we wore fancy white shirts. They were fairly thin, and it was *gasp* common to see the bras underneath. Yet, that is what we wore for work.”
Well, that’s were YOU worked. In and around my work place and in many schools I went to it would get you sent home. Different places with different rules.
“What I find funny is that, in all of this, you’re complaining about being able to see the outline of the bra. I can at least understand where the principal is coming from, even if I disagree with him. But your comments? THAT is comedy.”
I’m not complaining about an outline. There is one shot where you can see the outline and, maybe, the bra itself. Hard to tell from the photo itself without looking a lot harder then I want to at a high school girl. But that does say something of the see through nature of the tights in different lighting conditions. The photo PAD has now posted shows the girls with the sunlight hitting them full on and that caused the surface of the material to be highlighted. Then there are also other photos where the sun doesn’t hit them head on and the tights look a wee bit less appropriate for school. Inside lighting could have made the situation better or it could have made it worse.
But guess what. Neither you nor I know the dress code for the school. It may have a bit in it that covers clothing that allows undergarments to be actually seen or outlined. Again, MTV generation here. Grew up with lots of girls dressing to do just that and lots of schools nixing that kind of thing in their dress codes. And, as I said before, my school let us dress up around Halloween but made it clear that the spirit, if not all the actually rules, of the dress code would be in play. We played by the rules and had fun. Some didn’t and got sent home.
I would, if I had kids, let my girls do that outfit for a party at the house or at the house of a friend who’s parents I knew and trusted. I would not let them go to school like that and I would send them home if I was the principal and I felt that they crossed over the lines set by our dress codes. It has nothing to do with being a prude. It has to do with what is or isn’t allowed in a public school.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 26, 2006 01:54 PM
But your comments? THAT is comedy.
Craig, pull back on the reins. You’re one person amongst billions and you are not omniscient. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them stupid.
In fact, I happen to agree with you and not with Jerry C, but his point-of-view is nevertheless well-reasoned. He’s just come to a different conclusion than you and I.
Jerry C: I can’t tell from these photos whether the girls were wearing bras or not (and if anyone reading this believes they can, don’t mention it too loudly — you’ll betray the fact that your heritage is Kryptonian). If you could actually see the girls’ breasts to any real extent (like you could if they were wearing wet white t-shirts, for example), then, yeah, that would be wholly inappropriate. And downright unsafe what with the number of horny teenaged boys running around. If not: well, the skin-tight nature of the costumes just isn’t enough to justify this kind of reaction. If what needs to be covered is covered, I don’t see a problem. Look at it this way: would you ban people from seeing the girls’ swim team? They show a lot more in those one-piece bathing suits.
Kelly,
No argument. I see it all the time as well. But some work places make it clear that it’s a major no-no and so do some schools.
The strange tact being taken by some seems to be that it’s ok to do here because it’s ok do do in other places/work places. “Where I worked”…. Fine. I once worked in a strip club. Shall we start allowing the dress codes from there in schools as well?
Does that seem extreme and nuts? Yeah. But that’s the argument some of you are using. It’s ok here so it should have been ok there. The only thing that matters is the chool dress codes and nothing else.
I haven’t seen it and neither have you. Until then I’m standing on the side of principal of the school and the several teachers on this blog that have spoken up on it.
Bill,
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lidres1026-pg,0,5767405.photogallery?coll=ny-main-bigpix&index=3
You don’t need to be Kryptonian. And I didn’t look anywhere near as much as the boys at the school would be.
Look at it this way: would you ban people from seeing the girls’ swim team? They show a lot more in those one-piece bathing suits.
No, but I would ban people from wearing their swim suits during regular class time. We don’t let students wear coats during the school day, and they cover up MORE than the suits. The reason is because there is a time and a place for appropriate clothing.
I’ll have to take your word for it for now. I’m at work and don’t want anyone to see me squinting at pictures of teenaged girls in tights. They would most certainly get the wrong idea.
Hëll, Bill. I’m not at work and don’t want to stare to closely at pictures of teenaged girls in tights.
Plus my wife could walk by at the wrong time and kill me.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them stupid.
Well, Bill, I don’t know how things work in your universe, but in mine, ‘comedy’ does not spell ‘stupid’.
I find this truly hilarious because this line of conversation started with my offhand comment that you could see the bra to begin with and my ‘heaven forbid’.
Of course, I should’ve known better: some instantly seized upon the fact that you could see the outline of the bra as a reason to ban the outfits.
Hëll, based on what the principal has said, that’s not the reason he told them to wear something else, nor was it the underwear on the outside.
So, it’s comedy to me that, regardless of the situation, somebody will find something else to grasp as a reason to complain about it.
If you interpret that as ‘stupid’, well, be my guest; I can’t control the way your brain works.
Posted by: rrlane at October 26, 2006 02:40 PM
No, but I would ban people from wearing their swim suits during regular class time. We don’t let students wear coats during the school day, and they cover up MORE than the suits. The reason is because there is a time and a place for appropriate clothing.
Point taken, but I’m betting that none of the costumes that were considered acceptable on this day would have been considered acceptable dress on any other day of the schoolyear (except perhaps Halloween). So the rules were already a bit more relaxed than usual.
I understand that the school may well have rules about bras being visible underneath outerwear, and that a lot of other organizations may have similar rules. Moreover, I agree that organizations have the authority to enforce dress codes. Just because there is the authority to do something, however, doesn’t make that thing reasonable.
I think it would be useful to look at this situation from the opposite perspective. As far as I know, it would be perfectly legal for me to run my own comic-book store wearing nothing but my BVDs (at least in New York State). If everything “naughty” is covered up, as far as the law is concerned, it’s all good. But does that make it a reasonable thing for me to do? I’d say… no, not so much.
By the same token, to get up in arms about a girl in tights that make her bra partially visible — on a day where costumes are allowed and encouraged — is equally unreasonable in my view. The school has the authority to prohibit it — I’m not arguing that. I just don’t think it’s reasonable.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 26, 2006 02:48 PM
Well, Bill, I don’t know how things work in your universe, but in mine, ‘comedy’ does not spell ‘stupid’.
Craig, don’t be disingenuous, and don’t hide behind semantics. You were belittling Jerry C, just as you have at times belittled me and others here merely because they disagree with you.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 26, 2006 02:48 PM
Hëll, based on what the principal has said, that’s not the reason he told them to wear something else, nor was it the underwear on the outside.
So, it’s comedy to me that, regardless of the situation, somebody will find something else to grasp as a reason to complain about it.
Jerry C already addressed this, and made a worthwhile point: the principle may have been phrasing his objections in the most “politically correct” way possible. People don’t always speak their minds in the real world. Sometimes you can’t. Sometimes you have to be political.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 26, 2006 02:48 PM
If you interpret that as ‘stupid’, well, be my guest; I can’t control the way your brain works.
No, but you can control your own emotions. Whether you want to admit it or not, you are clearly feeling angry and hostile right now. Why you would feel that way is beyond me. This is merely a discussion and no animals were actually harmed in this production.
I don’t know where “up in arms” is coming from. They were asked to change their clothes. They didn’t have a change of clothes, so they were sent home. They weren’t punished as far as I can tell, so “up in arms” seems a tad hyperbolic.
But does that make it a reasonable thing for me to do? I’d say… no, not so much.
That depends on the what the reason for the ban is. As I said, many of the rules that we enforce are there because to NOT enforce them invited problems in the future, even if the infraction of today is relatively harmless. Should police not worry about someone running a stop sign simply because there were no other cars around and there was no chance of a collision at THAT moment?
Posted by: Jerry C at October 26, 2006 02:46 PM
Hëll, Bill. I’m not at work and don’t want to stare to closely at pictures of teenaged girls in tights.
Plus my wife could walk by at the wrong time and kill me.
Dude, my girlfriend owns a handgun and is trained in its use. You don’t think I know about having to keep in line?