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.
• 
“The latter, certainly. And you would get equally infantile and undisciplined reactions when simulated nude, partially nude, or topless girls sit in the classroom.”
Shouldn’t we discuss the need to improve the education of highschool seniors who are expected to react with equal commotion to a a flesh colored full body suit (with a bra of different color apprently visible under it) and actual toplessness, instead of this medieval theological discussion on the degree of visibility of a bra? Shouldn’t we expect high school seniors to be taught at this stage not to react in this way.
Or maybe Peter is right, and the students would have reacted quite calmly to this pretty innocent outfit? Maybe we should give them more credit?
When I went to high school back in 1990-1993 the fashion among (secular Jewish Israeli) girls was to wear t-shirts that reveal the strap of the bra. Sometimes an outline of a braw was also visible underneath a t-shirt. The students seemed to have remained relatively calm. In this case it was not that Israeli male high school student were more disciplined or better educated (hardly), but they were not accustomed to consider the visibility of a bra as something that would cause them to go into commotion. We also reacted with relative calm to seeing films, and one ballet, that had toplessness, as well as to a visit to an area of France where toplessness was accepted (which is not to say that we were indifferent to it, only that no actual commotion occured).
I saw a Saudi commercial explaining why women should not drive. It shows the male drivers going into commotion because of the presence of a woman on the road. I think that, whatever their own convictions on the subject, they should learn how to handle the fact that women may be driving.
“No new information is being added now, nor are there any new insights. Time to agree to disagree and leave it at that.”
Good thing it’s your blog and you get to make that determination…
PAD
>For extra credit, feel free to explain how that’s remotely relevant considering the principal repeatedly cited “apparent nudity” rather than visible undergarments as the problem.
PAD
Unfortunately, for some addled sorts, undergarments do equal “nudity”. I don’t agree with them. Nor do I agree with the principal’s stand here. It doesn’t change that sad reality, however.
>All I can say to this that you’ve never taught, have you? My God, a kid breaks wind, and you’ve lost the class for five minutes.
What does this say about the teacher? I’ver known some who were of such caliber that you could set off a bomb in the next room and the class would scarcely notice, so enraptured by the teacher were they.
>Peter David: They were singled out for *perception* of nudity which–considering the micro-miniskirts and belly-baring outfits girls ARE allowed to wear on a DAILY basis, is completely ridiculous.
Luigi Novi: Where are such students allowed to wear those things?
Most schools gave up trying to prevent it back in the late 60s through about mid-seventies. Micro-minis, second-skin minidresses, hot pants scarcely covering more than bikini briefs, zippered sweaters open almost down to there … all very much in evidence in many schools back then. Yet I don’t recall society doing a crash-and-burn as a result. The interesting thing being, many of the very same people who dressed that way have now become the parents pushing schoolboards for stricter rules. Obelix was right: they ARE crazy these humans.
“I see the outline of something that might be a bra. On the other hand, it could just as easily be a bathing suit top. Or a cut-off tank top, which is what she showed the TV news reporter. You don’t know, nor do I.”
No, you just insisted over and over again it’s not see-through, which you’ve finally backed off on. Thank you for that, at least.
“You did, however, conspicuously dodge the question. You claimed you could see the bra, not merely the outline. To which I said, if that were the case, you should easily determine the color. Your response? You dodged the question.”
Because I figured you hadn’t seen the picture, based on your staggering repeated assertions that is wasn’t see-through. Now that you’ve finally agreed that it IS, my response is that it’s entirely irrelevant. Might be white, might not be. I don’t need to see the color to know it’s a bra, no? I’ll stand with Luigi on this.
“Nice try, except…no. Other students were wearing underwear on the outside as well. Principal Poopypants claimed that, because they wer wearing them on top of pants or shorts, that was “acceptable.””
Which is why, in the section you quoted, I said “underwear on the outside of pants or sweats was ok, but not this”. Why you chose to ignore this is odd.
“On the one hand you’re stating that it was the (non)visible bra that was the tipping point”
No, I said it was pretty inappropriate and probably against the school dress code. I believe the tipping point is exactly what the principal said it was, that the outfits were distracting and causing a commotion.
“If pulling on shorts or sweats ostensibly would have solved the problem, then you’ve just proven that the outline of the bra is what I was saying from the start: Completely irrelevant.”
Yes, thank you! If they had covered up the bra with a shirt, the bra would not be seen and it would be irrelevant. But…wait…they didn’t, so it is relevant. Thank you for understanding.
“At which point the students then realize, no, they’re not nude because, hey…no breasts…and we’re done.”
Pretty obvious you have three girls and not boys, because you’re professing the same type of ignorance you attribute to Luigi for not having three girls.
“They were funny costumes on a day when funny costumes were in order, and they weren’t indecent by any stretch of the law, school code or the imagination”
To quote Peter David, “You don’t know, nor do I.” My experience is that it would be against the school code. To paraphrase Peter David, “How many schools have you taught at?”
rrlane, the simulated nudity arguement would work for a lot of people, meself included therein, if the girls were dressed as exotic dancers or Amazon warrior women. The fact that they were dressed as a male underwear-sporting superhero(don’t know much more than that about him, Brian’s not there in his books yet) changes the issue. Now, at this school, for basketball games, do they do shirts and skins? If they do, (and I KNOW that’s a big if) then the principalarguement deflates like a big deflating thing. And as far as breaking wind, if you’ve lost them for five minutes you’re lucky. Hey, I just taught a TV class to people ranging in age from late twenties to late forties and it happened, so it’s not just a high school thing. At the end of the four hours, people were still cracking up.
Baloney.
There was no reason to try to make the girls change clothes. The costumes were just fine.
Has anybody noticed a severe shortage of sticks lately? I figure it must be because the principal ( and a few of the posters here) must have them stuck up their butts.
“A group of girls at the end of their childhood want to dress up as Captain Underpants, and you, Jerry, have to tell us you see something sexually provacative in what are in large part a bunch of colored smudges. Seems kind of creepy to me.”
No, Mike, I said that I can see a bra. That’s not the same as claiming something is sexually provocative. It is pointing out one fact about the outfits and one reason I have for siding with the Principal.
“Well. let me rephrase then:
The character isn’t nude.
The girls weren’t nude.
The principal sent them home for simulated nudity.”
Why, yes, the MALE character is only topless. However, I tend to see a wee bit of a difference in topless males and topless females. Males without shirts don’t get service in fine dining establishments. Topless females create car wrecks.
You’re also legally wrong, or at least dodgy, on what is or is not considered nude. We’ve had convictions in these parts for public nudity for topless women wearing jeans and for drunken men walking down the street with a shirt, a smile and nothing else. Most localities have changed the charge to public indecency due to people picking nits about what is or isn’t meant by the word “nude” but many people say “nude” when seeing a topless woman or pantsless man.
“Peter David: What color was it? If you can see the actual bra rather than simply an outline, that should be an easy question.
Luigi Novi: It appeared to be of the same color as the bodystocking, though lighter, so it may have been white. How is this relevant?”
Because the assertion was that the bra itself–not the mere outline–was visible. I was pointing out that, were that the case, the color would be definitively evident. Except it’s not. Several people, including yourself, speculate that it’s white, maybe, it appears to be, may have been.”
“You claimed you could see the bra, not merely the outline. To which I said, if that were the case, you should easily determine the color. Your response? You dodged the question.”
PAD, I’m going to have to throw a flag on the field for the disingenuous nature of that question and your responses to the answers. First, you can see a color shift to a degree that a mere outline would not create. Second, translucent does not mean transparent. Being able to see something through an object or substance does not mean being able to see a color with 100% accuracy. I could hold up a bra behind a pane of glass and have you guess the wrong color if I tinted the glass blue, red, yellow, or peach. The tights are flesh colored and that would affect the perceived color of the garments underneath. The fact that one cannot say with 100% certainty that the bra is white, pink, peach or flesh colored does not mean that one cannot actually see the bra.
“It isn’t and he should. And had the girls walked in on a normal school day dressed in that manner, not only would he have been within his rights to punt them from the school, but I doubt it would have made the news. However if, as the principal, you are encouraging the students to show up in ensembles that are little more than tights and undergarments in the best of circumstances, then it’s completely ridiculous to throw out three girls who are wearing tights and undergarments, especially when their flesh is covered from throat to foot.”
Not really. Again, the invitation to come to school dressed up as a superhero or for Halloween does not mean do as you please or to throw out common sense. Putting on a Superman or Supergirl outfit is one thing. Being a female and putting on an outfit that is designed to make you look topless (nude, for Mike, from the waste up) isn’t the brightest idea for school.
Look, it WAS a really cute idea. It was kind of clever. I just don’t think it was the best costume idea for a school and I don’t see it as a reason to vilify or slag on the guy running the school.
Bill,
Glad you’re sticking around.
Oh, my wife’s pretty much fine with starting an army with your girlfriend. God help us all.
AT, you respond as if Peter capitulated it’s a bra. You say “[Peter] just insisted over and over again it’s not see-through, which [he] finally backed off on” as if he hadn’t just cited the costumes’ dual layering. If the outer layer is sheer, no, there is no amount of padding that will make it unsheer.
I don’t see anything Peter said saying he didn’t take the girls’ word they wore tank tops. He has yet to grant your point.
If you are color-blind, then you are merely not qualified to answer the question of the bra’s color. Regardless, where your point is not granted, Peter’s color question remains relevant.
Asking in a manner to drive the point home: AT, in your reply are you referring to the bras underneath their tank tops?
You contradicted yourself in the same post, Jerry. Are they wearing bras or are they topless? Fûçkìņg pick one and give it another try.
As a mum who buys dancewear, a body stocking is underwear to go under costumes to give the illusion on bare skin (even if made of “flesh coloured” heavy cotton lycra). So if these silly little girls are wearing body stockings, they’re wearing underwear as outerwear, regardles of how translucent or otherwise.
“Has anybody noticed a severe shortage of sticks lately? I figure it must be because the principal ( and a few of the posters here) must have them stuck up their butts.”
What, you’d let your daughter out looking like that?
Plus if they went home to change, and had a note from their parents/guardians to that effect, at worst they’d have a partial absence for that day. If they knowing broke a school rule, that should at least be a lunch time detention, if not an afterschool one.
“Most schools gave up trying to prevent it back in the late 60s through about mid-seventies. Micro-minis, second-skin minidresses, hot pants scarcely covering more than bikini briefs, zippered sweaters open almost down to there”
I have 2 words for you:
School Uniforms.
“rrlane, the simulated nudity arguement would work for a lot of people, meself included therein, if the girls were dressed as exotic dancers or Amazon warrior women. The fact that they were dressed as a male underwear-sporting superhero(don’t know much more than that about him, Brian’s not there in his books yet) changes the issue.”
Oh, so the appearance of nudity would normally be wrong unless it’s a geek related appearance of nudity. I am, as I’ve said a post above and many posts before, proudly a geek of the first order. I wouldn’t think that a half nude/topless exotic dancer or Amazon warrior woman was appropriate for a high school costume day due to the nudity/toplessness of it and I’m not about to change that stance because the half nude character is a superhero. Besides the hypocrisy in that stance, a school administrator would run into endless headaches going by that rule. He lets Betty stay in school as the half nude superhero but sends Lady Godiva, an Amazon warrior and Eve home for the same level of costume “nudity”. Can you say, “discrimination lawsuit and unemployment”?
New arguments, so I guess I’m back in the game.
First, PAD: Good thing it’s your blog and you get to make that determination…
I was speaking for myself, not anyone else, so I guess I should apologize for not being clear.
I apologize for not being clear. I meant I was going agree to disagree with you, but did not mean to assert you had to do the same. The reason I made that statement was because I was getting a bit hot at the notion of being told my opinion, based on nearly fifteen years of experience as a high school teacher was “nonsense.” You didn’t say you disagreed with me. You said my opinion was nonsense. I was backing away because I didn’t want to get into it with the man whose body of work I respect and who is essentially my host.
Geez, oh man–when did the notion of a friendly debate go out the window?
Starwolf: What does this say about the teacher? I’ver known some who were of such caliber that you could set off a bomb in the next room and the class would scarcely notice, so enraptured by the teacher were they.
It says you were either in a well behaved class. Every teacher who has been teaching more that six months has had incidents like I described.
Every single one.
I normally shy away from blanket statements like that, but I really can state this with a modicum of confidence. Yes, there are teachers who garner more respect than others. Yes, there are teachers who are extremely good at classroom discipline, and yes, there are teachers who, once these incidents happen, can bring the class back on task quicker than others.
But we all have them.
Most schools gave up trying to prevent it back in the late 60s through about mid-seventies. Micro-minis, second-skin minidresses, hot pants scarcely covering more than bikini briefs, zippered sweaters open almost down to there … all very much in evidence in many schools back then.
No, they weren’t, not everywhere and certainly not in most places. They still aren’t. Life is not a Britney Spears video.
I don’t recall society doing a crash-and-burn as a result.
Personally, I agree it hasn’t either, but it certainly has coarsened, and problems that didn’t exist prior to the time frame you describe exist now. We also have the freedom to do things now that we didn’t then (I never could have taught my ninth graders The Chocolate War in the 60s had it been written, for example), so I guess there’s a trade off. Still there many who would say that things have indeed gone down the toilet, so I guess it’s a matter of perception about what constitutes a crash-and-burn.
Obelix was right: they ARE crazy these humans.
I would throw folks taking a man to task publicly for something as innocuous as this would warrant me agreeing with this statement.
ArizonaTeach: To paraphrase Peter David, “How many schools have you taught at?”
I was shying away from making that statement, but essentially you are absolutely correct. I have done published freelance writing for a national magazine that everyone here would recognize, but that by no means puts me anywhere near the level of Peter, and it would be utterly laughable were I to tell him the ins and outs of his job. Why then do others feel that it’s okay to do the same to teachers? All or nearly all the teachers who have chimed in here have sided with the principal. Does that not carry any weight?
This is a very liberal blog, and if educators don’t get respect here, is it any wonder garbage like NCLB gets put into law?
Sean: Now, at this school, for basketball games, do they do shirts and skins? If they do, (and I KNOW that’s a big if) then the principalarguement deflates like a big deflating thing.
Only if they allow female skins/shirts games. Again, I’ve read here many times folks taking conservatives to task for seeing the world in black and white terms. Why then are there so many here giving “If x is the case, then you MUST accept y as true”? Education is not a black & white process.
as far as breaking wind, if you’ve lost them for five minutes you’re lucky. Hey, I just taught a TV class to people ranging in age from late twenties to late forties and it happened, so it’s not just a high school thing. At the end of the four hours, people were still cracking up.
That was my point. Thank you for the anecdote that demonstrated it better than I did.
Alan Coil: I figure it must be because the principal ( and a few of the posters here) must have them stuck up their butts.
We disagree with you, thus there is a stick up our áššëš. See my point about friendly debate.
Jerry C. Look, it WAS a really cute idea. It was kind of clever. I just don’t think it was the best costume idea for a school and I don’t see it as a reason to vilify or slag on the guy running the school.
That’s the whole shebang in a nutshell for me. But what do I know? I just spout a lot of nonsense most of the time.
“You contradicted yourself in the same post, Jerry. Are they wearing bras or are they topless? Fûçkìņg pick one and give it another try.”
Mike,
Gee, we’re discussing characters that are topless, nudity in general and three girls in costumes made to give the appearance of nudity/being topless. I addressed the bra while specifically talking about the girls. I mentioned topless women and car wrecks while talking specifically about characters that are actually topless.
Kinda figured most adults had the reading comprehension skills and common sense to get that those two lines referencing two different things. The different locations in the post was, I would have thought, a really big hint.
I guess I gave you too much credit. I’ll try to remember to use small words and spell everything out really well when posting to you in future.
I’m obviously the only one here who thinks the whole idea of “Come dressed as a Superhero” day a somewhat stupid in the first place.
Of course that is supposed to read:
“…stupid idea…” I can’t spell this morning, I don’t know what’s wrong. Many apologies.
Megan,
Yes. 🙂
> I have 2 words for you: School Uniforms.
Most high schools here in Canada didn’t have them back in the late 60s, early 70s. Note: I wrote “most”, not “all”. And as far some who did … a former ladyfriend – who went to such in Montreal around that time – used to regale me with how ‘un-uniform’ many of the girls could (and did) make their uniforms look with very little work. Even today, in Japan, where school uniforms are de rigueur in most places, female students are known to have unofficial inter-district competitions as to whose school (on average) wears the briefest versions. English-language Japanese papers refer to it from time tom time. Slow news day, I guess.
>No, they weren’t, not everywhere and certainly not in most places. They still aren’t.
Not now? Not likely, no, not given the generally grungy ‘look’ so many kids seem to prefer nowadays (at least judging by what I see outside the high schools in the area.) But when I was in high school? Oh yeah. Both here (nation’s capital) and, before the family moved here in between school years, in the small town we had spent the previous five years in. But that was over thirty years ago.
> Still there many who would say that things have indeed gone down the toilet …
To a large extent I agree. But … given how almost Puritanical the dress styles were from the mid 70s through the early 90s, if not later, I don’t see how the 60s styles can be held responsible for the state of society. Not to mention that many of those 60s styles had a certain femininity or elegance of sort. Compare that with the deliberately trashy styles of today such as those Godawful pants than nearly fall off the wearer’s butt …
Oh and … “simulated nudity”?
How long would it take the average hormonal high school guy to notice “no nipples” anyway? As simulationa go, it would need work.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 05:11 PM
When I quoted “simulated nudity” I wasn’t quoting the principal. I merely continue to use the term because it still seems to apply.
Yes, if you continue to assume that you know what the principal meant by “the appearance was that they were naked.” The statement is, however, far more vague than you are acknowledging.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 05:11 PM
I can’t read your mind, Bill Myers. If you know a more apt word, lay it on us.
You’re asking the wrong person. If you want a more precise explanation, ask Restivo.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 05:11 PM
Otherwise, what’s your problem?
I still don’t have a problem. I just disagree with you. It’s not a problem for me. Is it for you?
Not now? Not likely, no, not given the generally grungy ‘look’ so many kids seem to prefer nowadays (at least judging by what I see outside the high schools in the area.) But when I was in high school? Oh yeah. Both here (nation’s capital) and, before the family moved here in between school years, in the small town we had spent the previous five years in. But that was over thirty years ago.
I graduated from high school in 1982-twenty-five years ago, and I can tell you that that was not the case for us. We couldn’t so much as wear shorts to school outside of gym class.
Hëll, my sister graduated in 1976, and I can remember my parents getting steamed because at the time there was a ban on even wearing jeans or jean related material to school because it meant she couldn’t wear a denim dress they had bought her.
Maybe your school was an adolescent Peyton Place; I certainly won’t dispute that as I was not there. But I can say that if that was the case it was not typical.
When I quoted “simulated nudity” I wasn’t quoting the principal. I merely continue to use the term because it still seems to apply.
So you take others to task for using imprecise wording from others: (Mike: “Captain Underpants is not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants…Ergo, there is no simulated nudity.”) but feel free to make up whatever wording you feel “seems to apply”?
I’ve spent a few minutes trying to come up with something pithy to say to that, but instead I think I’ll just let your words stand on their own.
School Uniforms.
Conformity sucks. 😉
Unh-hunh.
So “characters that are actually topless” are bad?
So is it fair to say you think Captain Underpants should be banned from high schools, not to mention elementary schools? Or are the costumes ok as long as the girls commute to school in sweats, and kept away from people operating heavt machinery?
Bill Myers, in this thread, when I ask you what your problem is, I am referring to your holding me to an integrity you aren’t holding to anyone else:
And:
You asked me why I used “simulated nudity” when you suspected it was without merit, but you didn’t ask Rich Lane why he introduced it here. Ergo: “…what’s your problem?”
2 days ago you said my asking you what your problem was was an attempt to override Peter’s authority. Now it’s like asking you when you stopped beating your wife? There is no defense against your plainly observable chickenshit, Bill Myers.
So… attempting to summarize a position I disagree with is a capitulation to its accuracy?
Rich, search the thread: you introduced the phrase here yourself (today, 12:26 PM). What is your problem?
Sorry, Rich! 🙂
Mike: If the principal says he objected to the “simulated nudity,” he is trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue than if he said he objected to the “simulated toplessness.”
Luigi Novi: What do you mean by “quantum of virtue”? Can you clarify this?
Mike: Long Island. I’ve had three daughters go through LI schools and seen exactly the types of outfits I’m describing. How many daughters have YOU had in LI schools, Luigi?
Luigi Novi: None. And thank you for your answer; it’s the only thing I was asking for. It’s not like I was necessarily challenging your assertion. But any girls wearing those outfits you described should also be told to change or go home.
Peter David: Because the assertion was that the bra itself–not the mere outline–was visible. I was pointing out that, were that the case, the color would be definitively evident.
Luigi Novi: How so? A sheer garment can be otherwise tinted—thus showing what’s underneath while disguising its true color, as Jerry mentioned.
Peter David: Except it’s not. Several people, including yourself, speculate that it’s white, maybe, it appears to be, may have been. Except that’s not necessarily the case at all, particularly if–as the girl asserted on the news (I’m assuming you didn’t see the news item) she was wearing a tanktop (which she held up) under the garment (which she also held up.) As I said, two layers of clothing. They were punted not for what was actually there, but what was suggested. Which is ridiculous.
Luigi Novi: Which of the three girls? The girl in the photo we’re talking about here is Ashley Imhoff. Was it her, or one of the other two? If it was Ashley, then perhaps she did have time to change before they shot her for the story, perhaps that was the reason she took it off—she wanted to show everyone clearly what she had on underneath (though I think it would’ve been more to the point for the story if she just wore exactly what she wore at school so that viewers could judge it on that basis). Whatever her reason for changing, if it Ashley, then I’d agree that the principal’s decision was entirely unsupported (whereas before, I’d have said it was only partially so). But if it was Eliana Levin or Chelsea Horowitz who showed the tank top, and what Ashely wore in the photo is what she wore at school, I’d say that it was reasonable for her to be told to change or go home. Ditto if it were a bikini top or cut-off tank-top.
ArizonaTeach: Pretty obvious you have three girls and not boys, because you’re professing the same type of ignorance you attribute to Luigi for not having three girls.
Luigi Novi: Geez, is this a veiled threat by you, or an admission that you’ve murdered one of his daughters?!!
Peter has four girls. Not three. 🙂
“I see the outline of something that might be a bra. On the other hand, it could just as easily be a bathing suit top. Or a cut-off tank top, which is what she showed the TV news reporter. You don’t know, nor do I.”
No, you just insisted over and over again it’s not see-through, which you’ve finally backed off on. Thank you for that, at least.”
Huh? YOU said that you could clearly see a bra, and “not an outline.” You specified that. I called you on that. You dodged it and now you’re claiming *I* backed off?
“You did, however, conspicuously dodge the question. You claimed you could see the bra, not merely the outline. To which I said, if that were the case, you should easily determine the color. Your response? You dodged the question.”
Because I figured you hadn’t seen the picture, based on your staggering repeated assertions that is wasn’t see-through.”
It. Isn’t. By your logic, any woman who displays visible panty line is wearing see-through trousers. Good God, I get the notion that you’re a teacher and therefore you have a knee-jerk impulse to back up the principal, but get a grip.
“Now that you’ve finally agreed that it IS,”
Which I never did.
“my response is that it’s entirely irrelevant.”
And yet you keep harping on it.
“Might be white, might not be.”
And thus do you admit that it isn’t see through.
” I don’t need to see the color to know it’s a bra, no? I’ll stand with Luigi on this.”
Considering the way you shift your stance from one side to the other, I’ve got zero idea WHERE you stand.
PAD
This is the dress code listed on the district website. The school may still have it’s own that expands on this, but this is the base district code:
http://www.lbeach.org/district/codeofconduct/codeofconduct2005.pdf
V. Student Dress Code
Long Beach Public Schools Code of Conduct
Page 6
All students are expected to give proper attention to personal cleanliness and to dress
appropriately for school and school functions. Students and their parents have the primary
responsibility for acceptable student dress and appearance. Teachers and all other district
personnel should exemplify and reinforce acceptable student dress and help students develop an
understanding of appropriate appearance in the school setting. A student’s dress, grooming and
appearance, including hair style/ color, jewelry, make-up and nails, shall:
A. Be safe, appropriate and not disrupt or interfere with the educational process.
B. Recognize that extremely brief garments such as tube tops, net tops, halter-tops,
spaghetti straps, plunging necklines (front and/or back) and see-through garments
are not appropriate.
C. Ensure that underwear is completely covered with outer clothing.
D. Include footwear at all time. Unsafe footwear will not be allowed.
E. Not include the wearing of headgear in any building except for a medical or
religious purpose.
F. Not include items that are vulgar, obscene, libelous or denigrate others on account
of race, color, religion, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or
disability.
G. Not include gang related clothing or paraphernalia.
H. Not promote and/or endorse the use of alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs and/or
encourage other illegal or violent activities.
Each building principal or his or her designee shall be responsible for informing all
students and their parents of the student dress code at the beginning of the school year
and any revisions to the dress code made during the school year.
Students who violate the student dress code shall be required to modify their appearance
by covering or removing the offending item and, if necessary or practical, replacing it
with an acceptable item. Any student who refuses to do so shall be subject to discipline,
up to and including in-school suspension for the day. Any student who repeatedly fails to
comply with the dress code shall be subject to further discipline, up to and including out
of school suspension.
Luigi, by quantum of virtue I mean proportionally significant. I know it’s used to measure sub-atomic orbits, but I remember hearing that a proton the size of a basketball in Detroit would have an electron orbiting it extending to the perimeter of the city.
On the plus side, at least this heated argument isn’t about politics for a change. 😉
I grew up in Montclair, NJ (suburb of NYC) and had LOTS of friends in that school district. It has been 7 years since I had friends there, but one of them got sent home for a tank top (too low and showed her belly button) and she got suspended for mouthing off to the principle.
Evidentially things have changed a lot.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 09:38 PM
You asked me why I used “simulated nudity” when you suspected it was without merit, but you didn’t ask Rich Lane why he introduced it here. Ergo: “…what’s your problem?”
Rich Lane was using that phrase to sum up the points-of-view of Peter and some of the posters in this thread, all of whom have had ample space within which to articulate and elaborate on their points-of-view. Given what I’ve read here, I think it’s a fair summary: that many people here believe it’s “OK” because it’s only “simulated nudity.”
You are ascribing to the principal of this school the point-of-view that it’s NOT okay because it’s “simulated nudity.” My point was, is, and shall remain that you do not have enough information to know that that’s what the principal meant. All I have seen thus far are a couple of relatively vague quotes from Restivo.
You also should note that I disagreed with Rich Lane as well, earlier in this thread. He didn’t seem to feel it was personal. My disagreement with you isn’t personal either.
So I still don’t have a problem.
Mike:Rich, search the thread: you introduced the phrase here yourself (today, 12:26 PM). What is your problem?
I never said I didn’t. But I’m not making a big whooped-dee-doo about semantics either.
Bill: You also should note that I disagreed with Rich Lane as well, earlier in this thread. He didn’t seem to feel it was personal.
Because you seem to understand that friendly debate should be a method for mutual edification and not become simply an online pìššìņg match, and I thank you for it.
Mike, thanks for the clarification. I will merely repeat what I said above, that toplessness is partial nudity.
ArizonaTeach: Might be white, might not be.
Peter David: And thus do you admit that it isn’t see through.
Luigi Novi: She admitted no such thing. She made it plain that a garment can be transparent while also disguising the color of what’s beneath it if it’s tinted. Jerry C also made this point, as did I. Even if you didn’t read Jerry C’s post or mine, Arizona made this point herself.
And sorry I misattributed a quote by you to Mike in my last post above before this one.
“So is it fair to say you think Captain Underpants should be banned from high schools, not to mention elementary schools? Or are the costumes ok as long as the girls commute to school in sweats, and kept away from people operating heavt machinery?”
Wow. He adds 1 plus 1 and gets 19.
No, I don’t want CU banned from schools. The best you can come up with here is more of this off point, straw dog junk? Why not ask me if I want to ban Donald Duck because he walks around with no pants on? How about Daffy since he’s got no clothes on at all? It would be about as intelligent as your CU question.
And I don’t think the costumes are fine for school as long as the girls commute to school in sweats and avoid people operating heavy machinery. If you had any reading comprehension skills, you would have seen by now that most of my posts have pointed out, in one way or another, that, while I had no problem with the costumes in and of themselves, I didn’t feel the costumes were appropriate for school and had no prob cutting Principal Restivo some slack on this.
Luigi: Sorry, Rich! 🙂
No harm, no foul. 🙂
“Because you seem to understand that friendly debate should be a method for mutual edification and not become simply an online pìššìņg match, and I thank you for it.”
Two thumbs up.
In that spirit…
Mike, lets start over here. I think I’m suffering the same Winter blahs I mentioned when to Bill some time back in the thread. I’m sorry I’ve been as snippy with you in this thread as I have been. If you wish to continue debating with me, I’ll stay polite as long as you will.
I may get a friendly sarky remark in here or there. If I do, I’ll make a point to put a :), ;), ;p or 😀 after the comment so you know how I meant the remark.
Deal?
Posted by: Rich Lane at October 27, 2006 10:33 PM
Because you seem to understand that friendly debate should be a method for mutual edification and not become simply an online pìššìņg match, and I thank you for it.
You’re welcome. And thank you for the compliment.
You big stupid fart-head!!! 😉
You big stupid fart-head!!! 😉
It just so happens my mom used to call me Big Stupid Fart-Head, so that just made me feel warm all over. 😉
Two questions just occurred to my overtired mind. First off, was this a school-sanctioned event, or was it just a bunch of kids saying “Let’s dress like superheroes?” Because if it was the former, then my NEXT question is “Has anyone anywhere shown any parameters that were given to the students?” I only ask the second because I remember the Psycho Demon Bit…sorry, my ex-girlfriend bringing home the prom night memo about girl’s dresses and both of us cracking up. The only memo that was more ignored was the one about not throwing your cap at graduation.
The StarWolf at October 27, 2006 08:39 PM
To the best of my knowledge, we’ve just about always had school uniforms. I wore them from Kindergarten in 1966 until I finished Year 12 in 1978. We used to push to see what we could get away with. I remember getting into trouble because I was wearing a halter neck bra under my tunic (the strap could be seen). Another time, my nail polish (seniors could wear descrete makeup – yes they would make you wash your face if it was too heavy) was considered mauve and not pink. It’s the nature of teenagers to push the boundaries, just as it is the School’s place to enforce the rules – good training for real life. I was at a 90th anniversary lunch for my old high school this year. There were photos from the 1930s and 40s – school uniforms. Here both State and non-government have uniform.
My 4 children have worn uniforms all their school lives, the youngest from Prep-Class (the year before Kidergarten).
4 days ago:
2 days ago:
Today:
Well I’m certainly glad your invalidating me by telling me I’m boring, reserving the right to mischaracterize my behavior, and addressing me by names I’m not posting by aren’t personal.
I have enough information. I’m going by what he said. What is your problem?
I either “[felt] free to make up” “simulated nudity,” or I didn’t. I can’t have done both. I can only ask you to pick one and give it another try.
If we aren’t supposed to go by anything you say, then why are you here?
Jerry, when you contradicted yourself in the same post, saying “No, Mike, I said that I can see a bra,” and “Topless females create car wrecks,” you were talking to me.
If what you really wanted to talk about was the display of bras, what did topless females have to do with anything?
But Jerry, I have a pattern of creepiness and craziness. Now you want to engage me on an even level? What kind of husband are you?
;D
Mike: I either “[felt] free to make up” “simulated nudity,” or I didn’t. I can’t have done both. I can only ask you to pick one and give it another try.
Ah. I did say “make up” when I should have said “use.” I misspoke (mistyped, actually) and you are correct to call me on it.
See how easy it is to be civil if you put your mind to it?
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 11:36 PM
Well I’m certainly glad your invalidating me by telling me I’m boring,
I did that in a prior thread only after you took things to a personal level.
reserving the right to mischaracterize my behavior,
I haven’t mischaracterized anything you’ve written. I’ve disagreed with you, which you’ve taken personally from the get-go.
and addressing me by names I’m not posting by aren’t personal.
Note that I chose to stop calling you “Mikey.” I realized I was allowing you to bait me into responding to your personal attacks in kind when there’s no reason to do so.
By the way, asking “what’s your problem” is like asking “when did you stop beating your wife?” Both questions involve presuppositions. I can’t answer your question because I don’t have a problem. I’m debating with people and enjoying it. Why do you feel that’s problematic?
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 11:36 PM
I have enough information.
No, you don’t.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 11:36 PM
I’m going by what he said.
No, you’re not. That which Restivo was quoted as saying was rather vague. You’re reading more into it than is warranted by those brief quotes.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 11:36 PM
What is your problem?
See above.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 11:36 PM
But Jerry, I have a pattern of creepiness and craziness. Now you want to engage me on an even level? What kind of husband are you?
;D
Oh, Lord. Jerry C, I’ve already gone 10 rounds with this guy. He’s all yours.
>To the best of my knowledge, we’ve just about always had school uniforms. I wore them from Kindergarten in 1966 until I finished Year 12 in 1978.
One learns something every day. If one is lucky …
The StarWolf at October 28, 2006 12:03 AM
Just want to clarify that I’m talking about New South Wales, Australia, not Canada.
that many people here believe it’s “OK” because it’s only “simulated nudity.”
Would now be a good time to say that I don’t even consider those outfits to be ‘simulated nudity’, nor do I think its a blatant attempt by the girls at doing such? 🙂
To quote a certain TV therapist referring to Tony Soprano: “He blames me.”
“He blames me.”
“He blames me.”
“He blames me.”
“He blames me.”
“He blames me.”
Mike, do you realize that Bill held up an olive branch and you’re slapping it out of his hand?
Rich,
Do you realize Bill took 2 days to respond to my “what’s your problem?” by saying I was trying to override Peter’s authority? And by denying he mischaracterized my behavior, he effectively reserved for himself the privilege of doing it again?
There’s a word for relinquishing such a privilege. It’s called an apology. I don’t like Bill Mulligan, but I didn’t let that stop me from apologizing to him when I mischaracterized what he said. But reserving the privilege for himself to mischaracterize what I say? What kind of scumbag does that make me to him?
I wonder if the girls would have been sent home if they dressed as the Spectre, wearing white bodysuits and green shorts and cape over them.