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.
• 
Okay, giving people the benefit of the doubt here, maybe folks need to check the settings on their monitors. Semantic calisthenics aside, there is not only an outline, but a noticeable color difference between where the leotard covers the bra and where it is over bare skin. Comparing it to VPL is disingenuous at best.
Also, if Imhof was indeed wearing a tank top underneath, why would she take it off (or not put it back on if the outfits were re-donned) for the photo shoot? It only hurts her case.
As to the principal’s stated reasons for sending the girls home, perhaps he’s just not comfortable when confronted with the press, especially when said press seems bound and determined, instead of just reporting the story, to make him into some sort of hand-wringing, mustachio-twirling villain.
We have no evidence that there was any sort of double standard imposed. Perhaps it’s just me, but there seems to be some perception that just about everybody was dressed up. Maybe teenagers have changed dramatically since I was one, but a large percentage are probably “too cool” to dress up as superheroes anyway. Quite a few others probably weren’t going to dress up in tights in the middle of Autumn. So, while Bobby two seats over may have been dressed as the Silver Surfer, complete with “board,” and been completely ignored, there’s no indication that this is the case.
The principal made a judgement call, and decided that the three girls’ outfits were inappropriate, whether for the reasons reported by the press or for others. Whether anyone agrees with his call or not is irrelevant. It was his call to make.
PAD, with all due respect (I know, I know…), trust me, I know how much it can suck when somebody tries to pull the rug out from under one’s well crafted indignation. While it may not be entirely kosher to bring up past discussions, I seem to remember a situation a few months back when you defended the Comedy Central execs’ right to make the unpopular call to not air an unedited South Park episode they found inappropriate, mostly on the basis that most of the people disagreeing with the decision were not in television, and therefore didn’t really have the credentials to make a truly informed call on the situation. Don’t the principal, and the other educators on this board, deserve the same consideration?
-Rex Hondo-
I’m getting the feeling that to some folks “see-through” must be synonomous with “transparent”. It isn’t not in the usual sense that I’ve seen. A full body nylon stocking outfit would obscure the specific shade of skin tone one has but it would show all of the naughty bits quite well.
All this reminds me of a cherished memory of youth–my sister bought an outrageously expensive white bikini for a school outing to the lake and discovered, too late, that when wet it was about as effective, modesty-wise, as saran wrap. I’d like to say that I came to her rescue with a beach towel. I’d like to say it but I was too busy passing a 16 oz Dr. Pepper through my nose in helpless mirth to be of any value whatsoever. Luckily she was saved by a bunch of her friends who surrounded her and marched her to the safety of dry land like P. Diddy’s posse.
Body stockings are not necessarily made of the same denier (thickness) or yarn as panty-hose or stockings. My daughter has a “body stocking” which is virtually a flesh coloured cotton/lycra leotard. It is not translucent, it is still underwear.
“there is not only an outline, but a noticeable color difference between where the leotard covers the bra and where it is over bare skin. Comparing it to VPL is disingenuous at best.”
The slim one is clearly wearing a white or cream coloured bra under her body stocking.
Hmm… I suddenly feel the urge to run around buck naked with nothing but a strategically placed toaster, steak knives taped to the back of my hands and a colander on my head and go as “Weapon-X” Wolverine for Halloween.
-Rex Hondo-
How about you have a nice cup of tea and a good lie down instead?
Yeah, considering I’m going to be working Tuesday night, it probably wouldn’t be the best of ideas. I mean, where would I clip my name badge? 😛
-Rex Hondo-
“PAD, with all due respect (I know, I know…), trust me, I know how much it can suck when somebody tries to pull the rug out from under one’s well crafted indignation. While it may not be entirely kosher to bring up past discussions, I seem to remember a situation a few months back when you defended the Comedy Central execs’ right to make the unpopular call to not air an unedited South Park episode they found inappropriate, mostly on the basis that most of the people disagreeing with the decision were not in television, and therefore didn’t really have the credentials to make a truly informed call on the situation. Don’t the principal, and the other educators on this board, deserve the same consideration?”
No, I really don’t.
First of all, you’re completely mischaracterizing my stand in that instance. It wasn’t a case of claiming that, because people were not in TV, they didn’t have the credentials. My contention was that a circumstance was being presented where there were potential life and death stakes present and that–if the people who were openly criticizing the Comedy Central head were in his position–they might well have made the same decision rather than risk lives being lost through the actions of outraged extremists.
There was no risk to life and limb here, no matter of life and death.
Yes, the dress code claims no outward display of underwear. But since other kids WERE wearing underwear on the outside and allowed to remain in school, obviously that rule was being suspended for the day. And the simple fact is that the principal caused far more “disruption” to school routine than the girls did. Plus, while everyone carps on the visible bra line (nope, no one can provide the definitive color no matter how much they fumfuraw about it) of one girl, what about the other two in which nothing–not outline, not color, not anything–is visible?
What annoys the hëll out of me is two things: First, that school administrators will invariably–as someone here stated and wasn’t disputed–will err on the side of caution. Always. Which means that the smallest number of conservative reactionary parents hold the greatest sway, and that extends to matters of greater import than Captain Underpants.
And second, considering the indisputable fact that the girls were dressed decently, covered from head to toe, the message sent by the principal was quite clear: What others think of you is more important than what you think of yourself. Your cleverness and imagination is secondary to my perceptions, even though they’re not based in fact.
He singled out three perfectly decently dressed children–kids who were more thoroughly clad than probably a number of their peers–because of his perception of the situation than the actuality of the situation.
And by the way, I would like a moratorium on the use of the word “disingenuous,” which basically means “lying.” It’s been thrown at me by several people and it’s royally pìššìņg me off, because I’m saying exactly what I believe–no more, no less–and consider it incredibly offensive to be informed that my opinion is a lie.
Of course, in retaliation I could just throw such individuals out of here with the contention that my belief in their actions outweighs the actions themselves. But then…I’d be on par with a school principal.
PAD
“Of course, in retaliation I could just throw such individuals out of here with the contention that my belief in their actions outweighs the actions themselves. But then…I’d be on par with a school principal.”
And just as within your right. You’ve already alluded as such in your response to Rich Lane (“Good thing it’s your blog and you get to make that determination”) Similarly, it was, for all intents and purposes, the principal’s school (I know he doesn’t own it, but he is tasked with the responsibilities), and he did get to make that determination.
Meanwhile… back at the Gateway Arch ranch… Huzzah Cardinals!
“where would I clip my name badge? :P”
The mind boggles? 🙂
Posted by: Peter David at October 28, 2006 07:41 AM
And by the way, I would like a moratorium on the use of the word “disingenuous,” which basically means “lying.” It’s been thrown at me by several people and it’s royally pìššìņg me off, because I’m saying exactly what I believe–no more, no less–and consider it incredibly offensive to be informed that my opinion is a lie.
Fair enough. But I’d like to suggest in return that you may want to consider refraining from dismissing dissenting opinions as just “nonsense.”
Look, I’m no angel when it comes to arguing. But typically when I tell someone “no, that’s false,” or “that is indisputably wrong,” I’m referring to a particular premise or assertion of fact. I try to avoid blanket statements like “everything else is just nonsense” because I’m one person amongst billions, and I’m not omniscient.
By the way, when I use the words “suggest” and “may,” they are not an attempt to couch a demand. It really is just that: a suggestion. Given how long I’ve been posting in your blog, I hope by now you realize I’m not going to demand that you do this or that. Ultimately, if I don’t like someone’s blog, or, as was the case earlier, if I feel my presence is troublesome to others, I’ll walk away. Not because I want to take my toys and go home because “that will show them,” but because there are better things to do than to get into fights unnecessarily.
And I think I’ve established my open-mindedness street creds well enough to be able to make this suggestion. You may recall, in fact, in the Comedy Central thread to which you referred, I started out with one very strongly held point of view. You persuaded me that I was wrong. You didn’t do it by dismissing my argument as “nonsense.”
Just offering a thought. No more, no less.
“He singled out three perfectly decently dressed children–“
I’m sorry Mr David, but those girls were anything but decently dressed. As I said earlier, I would not let my 13 year old daughter out the front door dressed like that, and I’m surprised those girls parents/guardians were happy to let them go to school dressed like that.
PAD: And second, considering the indisputable fact that the girls were dressed decently, covered from head to toe, the message sent by the principal was quite clear: What others think of you is more important than what you think of yourself. Your cleverness and imagination is secondary to my perceptions, even though they’re not based in fact.
No, he wasn’t. I’ve danced around calling you on this for several days, but you just plain are not correct here. Period. I don’t think I can couch this in and stronger terms and still remain polite, but you just have no clue what you are talking about.
Again I will make the comparison. If a student wears a shirt with a drug message on it and gets sent home to change. He is NOT being sent home for wearing a T-shirt, and saying that the principal is wrong because these kids were singled out when there are DOZENS of other kids wearing T-shirts, would be utterly ridiculous. And that’s exactly what you are doing.
I put out the question about whether anybody here would have a problem with a teenage girl wearing a “Superbowl Janet Jackson” costume on a hypothetical Rock Star Day, replete with flesh colored body stocking over the bøøb, and no one took me up on it. I asked if anybody would have had a problem with the Captain Underpants costumes if the girls had painted nipples on the body stockings and no one took me up on it. I think this is telling, because if you don’t think either is appropriate, then you are conceding that it *IS* possible to take it too far while still covering all the appropriate parts. And while you may not agree that that was the case in this particular instance, *YOU* weren’t there, and it wasn’t your dámņ choice to make. It WAS this principal’s. This guy with *at least* a Masters Degree in Education and more than likely *at least* ten years experience teaching and dealing with students in a variety of situations.
Does that make him a Solomon of wisdom? Nope, but it sure as hëll give him the benefit of the doubt when all the internet arm chair quarterbacks come out spouting the right way to do his job.
And the simple fact is that the principal caused far more “disruption” to school routine than the girls did.
The *principal* called the press in? He *asked* bloggers around the world to call him on doing his job? I didn’t read that in the article.
If he sent a girl home for inappropriate dress on any other day, and the girl in protest stripped down in front of the school and it got covered by the media, would you say then that the principal brought the disruption on himself? That’s bit of blaming the victim in my book.
I would like a moratorium on the use of the word “disingenuous,” which basically means “lying.”
I beg to differ here. Disingenuous means “giving a false appearance of simple frankness” and that’s exactly what you are doing. You are stating things in black and white terms as though they are matters of fact (“you can’t determine the color of the bra, therefore the stockings aren’t see through.” “I don’t think these costumes were that bad, therefore the principal is uptight”).
I don’t think I used that term, and I will refrain from using it out of difference to the host, but you give an incorrect definition, and *in my opinion* the word was used correctly in the instances I’ve seen it used in this thread.
I can understand you not liking being called disingenuous, though. It ranks right up there with having your professional opinion called “nonsense.”
Of course, in retaliation I could just throw such individuals out of here with the contention that my belief in their actions outweighs the actions themselves.
“and though I could
With barefaced power sweep him from my sight
And bid my will avouch it…”
That little bit of unveiled threat is why I rarely venture far out into the blogosphere.
But then…I’d be on par with a school principal.
You mean you’d send us home for a half hour then let us back in without further repercussions? Doesn’t sound like much of a punishment to me.
And that’s the point, I guess.
“PAD: And second, considering the indisputable fact that the girls were dressed decently, covered from head to toe, the message sent by the principal was quite clear: What others think of you is more important than what you think of yourself. Your cleverness and imagination is secondary to my perceptions, even though they’re not based in fact.
No, he wasn’t. I’ve danced around calling you on this for several days, but you just plain are not correct here. Period. I don’t think I can couch this in and stronger terms and still remain polite, but you just have no clue what you are talking about.”
Yes, I really do. And the simple proof is that if the girls were wearing the outfits in the streets of Manhattan, they would not be in violation of any laws. I’m not a big fan of laws in the real world not being applicable in the academic world.
Furthermore, I’m also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they’re thinking, you’re on a slippery slope. In this instance the principal took it to a new level: He punished the girls for what OTHER people were thinking. The girls were NOT nude, the girls were NOT indecent, and because others MIGHT THINK they were, the girls were punished. That, by me, is wrong. Now if you think it’s okay to punish people for what other people are thinking, then fine. But don’t expect me to agree with that.
“Again I will make the comparison. If a student wears a shirt with a drug message on it and gets sent home to change. He is NOT being sent home for wearing a T-shirt, and saying that the principal is wrong because these kids were singled out when there are DOZENS of other kids wearing T-shirts, would be utterly ridiculous.”
Depends what the message says, doesn’t it. The CCA, for instance, endeavored to punish Stan Lee years ago because he was putting out an issue of Spider-Man with an anti-drug message. The CCA’s contention was that ANY mention of drugs was in violation of the CCA, and therefore banned. Stan ran it anyway. It was seen as a gutsy move. If a kid was wearing a t-shirt that said “Drugs are Bad, M’Kay?” and the principal said he had to change shirts because the word “drugs” was in the shirt, that doesn’t seem reasonable.
Nor am I a big fan of punishing kids who are being clever. This, to me, was clever.
“I put out the question about whether anybody here would have a problem with a teenage girl wearing a “Superbowl Janet Jackson” costume on a hypothetical Rock Star Day, replete with flesh colored body stocking over the bøøb, and no one took me up on it.”
Possibly because everyone realized that an explicit recreation of something sexual was irrelevant in a discussion about the recreation of Captain Underpants.
“I asked if anybody would have had a problem with the Captain Underpants costumes if the girls had painted nipples on the body stockings and no one took me up on it.”
Well, since Captain Underpants doesn’t have realistic nipples, but merely little dots, it’s once again irrelevant. The girls were making no effort to try and make people think their breasts were being displayed, and the whole point is that they were making no effort to do so, so again, the question is irrelevant.
“I think this is telling, because if you don’t think either is appropriate, then you are conceding that it *IS* possible to take it too far while still covering all the appropriate parts.”
So?
“And while you may not agree that that was the case in this particular instance, *YOU* weren’t there, and it wasn’t your dámņ choice to make. It WAS this principal’s.”
And here we go with one of the oldest internet wheezes: Rights. Because someone says that a wrong decision is being made, the immediate illogical jump is made that the RIGHT to make the decision is being disputed. Which it never was. So congratulations, you won a point that wasn’t being disputed.
“This guy with *at least* a Masters Degree in Education and more than likely *at least* ten years experience teaching and dealing with students in a variety of situations.”
Which doesn’t mean he made the correct decision.
“Does that make him a Solomon of wisdom? Nope, but it sure as hëll give him the benefit of the doubt when all the internet arm chair quarterbacks come out spouting the right way to do his job.”
Really. Considering the staggering number of Long Island administrators who are punted from their positions for various abuses, I don’t see where your presumption of his educational pedigree entitles him to jack.
And how would you like it if Hitler killed you?
PAD
“Hmm… I suddenly feel the urge to run around buck naked with nothing but a strategically placed toaster, steak knives taped to the back of my hands and a colander on my head and go as “Weapon-X” Wolverine for Halloween.
-Rex Hondo-“
Thanks, Rex.
I just spent twenty minutes fixing breakfast and NOW someone’s gone and made it impossible for me to eat it. God, mental images can be a curse.
🙂
PAD: Yes, I really do.
Remember when I said I was going to agree to disagree with you? It’s because in inevitably boils down to “No, you didn’t” “Yes, I did.”
And the simple proof is that if the girls were wearing the outfits in the streets of Manhattan, they would not be in violation of any laws. I’m not a big fan of laws in the real world not being applicable in the academic world.
Really? A teenager can ride his skateboard down the street in many places (not all). Should he be allowed to ride it down the halls of the school? A teenager can have wear a shirt with Joe Camel (dating myself) on it at the mall, should he be allowed to wear cigarette advertising in school?
Again, you are stating things in a black and white context when the world is a might more complex than that. Sounds like a certain president saying “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
I’m also not a fan of hate crime laws.
Is this where I get called a Nazi?
I think when you start punishing people for what they’re thinking, you’re on a slippery slope.
Life’s full of slippery slopes, Peter. The trick is keeping your balance on them.
Depends what the message says, doesn’t it. The CCA, for instance, endeavored to punish Stan Lee years ago because he was putting out an issue of Spider-Man with an anti-drug message. The CCA’s contention was that ANY mention of drugs was in violation of the CCA, and therefore banned. Stan ran it anyway. It was seen as a gutsy move. If a kid was wearing a t-shirt that said “Drugs are Bad, M’Kay?” and the principal said he had to change shirts because the word “drugs” was in the shirt, that doesn’t seem reasonable.
So you believe the situation should define the response? THANK YOU. You made my point for me.
if you think it’s okay to punish people for what other people are thinking, then fine. But don’t expect me to agree with that.
Straw man argument there. I’m having visions of Colbert asking someone “Why do you hate America?”
Considering the staggering number of Long Island administrators who are punted from their positions for various abuses, I don’t see where your presumption of his educational pedigree entitles him to jack.
Wow, talk about generalizations. “Other administrators are wrong. This man is an administrator, ergo he’s wrong.”
How’s about this “Many doctors are sued for malpractice, ergo a doctor’s education entitles him to jack. I will trust my own diagnosis over all doctors.”
And how would you like it if Hitler killed you?
I’m probably being thick here (I am, after all, merely a lowly English Teacher who doesn’t know šhìŧ about education), but I have no gøddámņ clue what wry allusion you are making here.
Furthermore, I’m also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they’re thinking, you’re on a slippery slope.
The irony of this statement just hit me. You call punishing people for what they are thinking a “hate crime.”
Hate crime= criminalization of thoughts of hate
Do you understand what hate crime is? Do you realize you are putting the torture and slaying of Matthew Shepherd in the same category as a principal sending three girls home to change their clothes?
Slippery slope, thy initials are P-A-D 🙂
“Really? A teenager can ride his skateboard down the street in many places (not all). Should he be allowed to ride it down the halls of the school?”
Obviously not. Safety issues. Irrelevant.
“A teenager can have wear a shirt with Joe Camel (dating myself) on it at the mall, should he be allowed to wear cigarette advertising in school?”
Absolutely.
“Again, you are stating things in a black and white context when the world is a might more complex than that. Sounds like a certain president saying “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.””
No, I’m simply proceeding from the notion that students should not abandon the rights accorded them in the real world when inside a school.
“I’m also not a fan of hate crime laws.
Is this where I get called a Nazi?”
No, but thanks for anothe irrelevance.
“I think when you start punishing people for what they’re thinking, you’re on a slippery slope.
Life’s full of slippery slopes, Peter. The trick is keeping your balance on them.”
I agree. Still irrelevant, though.
“Depends what the message says, doesn’t it. The CCA, for instance, endeavored to punish Stan Lee years ago because he was putting out an issue of Spider-Man with an anti-drug message. The CCA’s contention was that ANY mention of drugs was in violation of the CCA, and therefore banned. Stan ran it anyway. It was seen as a gutsy move. If a kid was wearing a t-shirt that said “Drugs are Bad, M’Kay?” and the principal said he had to change shirts because the word “drugs” was in the shirt, that doesn’t seem reasonable.
So you believe the situation should define the response? THANK YOU. You made my point for me.”
Except I made that point ages ago. I said, for instance, that if the girls had come in in such attire on a normal school day, the principal would have been absolutely correct in telling the girls to change attire. But the situation in which they presented themselves made the princpal’s response inappropriate.
“Considering the staggering number of Long Island administrators who are punted from their positions for various abuses, I don’t see where your presumption of his educational pedigree entitles him to jack.
Wow, talk about generalizations. “Other administrators are wrong. This man is an administrator, ergo he’s wrong.””
And this is the second favorite internet wheeze: Slap quotations around something that someone didn’t say, pretend they did, and attack that. You claimed that because of his credentials (which you made up for him) he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. My contention is that many administrators have similar credentials, and that doesn’t make them immune from accusations of wrong doing. The “ergo, he’s wrong” is just something you made up.
“How’s about this “Many doctors are sued for malpractice, ergo a doctor’s education entitles him to jack. I will trust my own diagnosis over all doctors.””
Pretty stupid. Then again, if you’re interested in an analogy to what I actually said, as opposed to what you say I said, then how about, “Doctors have medical degrees, and therefore they should be given the benefit of the doubt in whatever they say.” So much for seeking second opinions.
“And how would you like it if Hitler killed you?
I’m probably being thick here (I am, after all, merely a lowly English Teacher who doesn’t know šhìŧ about education), but I have no gøddámņ clue what wry allusion you are making here.”
Try reading the comics pages.
PAD
Ah, well. I made my points, and I’m tired. Those whose opinions were up in the air have probably come down on one side or the other at this point, and those whose haven’t on either side probably aren’t going to. I’m not going to say “I’m done” because whenever I do, something ends up drawing me back in, but I think I’m finished with this for now.*
*The above statement should not be inferred as demanding Peter David should follow my lead. This is, was, and shall be his blog, and he is the final determination of when a specific thread is ended. I respect his authority on his site.
I wish there was an edit button because I would rather add this to my last post rather that come back with another. But anyways…
Try reading the comics pages.
PAD
See, in my mind this is the difference between friendly debate and snide oneupmanship. If somebody had said they didn’t recognize my earlier quote about “barefaced power,” I would have told them it came from Macbeth, and if necessary given the context. I admitted I didn’t get the context of PAD’s quote, but rather than say, “it’s from such and such” and if necessary give the context. Instead I got a haughty, condescending answer that dangles the inference of “I know something you don’t know” in front of it.
I think hate crime laws make as much sense as laws protecting police.
For those of you thinking my support of hate crime exceptions to the law somehow means I should throw my support of the school principal, please review my summary of my position before you attempt to make that point:
I know Bill denies that “Principal Nicholas Restivo says he knows they weren’t naked, but it appeared that way, so he sent them home to change” means the principal didn’t send them home because their bras were showing. I haven’t forgotten that hanging issue, which may still have the appearance of “he said/he said.” But I’m still baffled as to what information is lacking from the news quote for me to make my third point.
…support to the school principal… (sorry)
“I would like a moratorium on the use of the word “disingenuous,” which basically means “lying.” It’s been thrown at me by several people and it’s royally pìššìņg me off”
Not my intent. Sorry. But you are taking what was said to an extreme interpretation. In most circles I travel in, personal and professional, saying something in regards to “the disingenuous nature of that question” is not calling someone a liar. It’s used in much the same way I used it above.
You asked a question that seemed to demand that a substance be either 100% transparent or not see through at all with no third option. It was the fabric equivalent of, “you’re either with us or against us.” Some things are translucent. You can see through them but not get an accurate color visual because of the tinting of the object you’re looking through (like my tinted glass example).
Many people have addressed this and you still bring up your either/or question as though it’s THE definitive point on the issue. It’s not. That’s why I and many people I know, while in no why calling you a liar, would say that the nature of the question and its repeated use after being answered so many times is disingenuous. It comes across as you refusing to acknowledge that there is in fact a THIRD option beyond the two you keep offering us with your question and demanding that we debate the issue based on a set of false and limited choices.
You’re still doing it… “(nope, no one can provide the definitive color no matter how much they fumfuraw about it)” …as though you’ve yet to be told that seeing through a color tinted material CHANGES THE VISIBLE COLOR OF WHAT’S UNDERNEATH IT at least a good half dozen times or so.
My trying to point that out was not my calling YOU a liar. I’m sorry it came across that way.
“But since other kids WERE wearing underwear on the outside and allowed to remain in school, obviously that rule was being suspended for the day.”
Yes, but how many others were doing it with a costume that simulated nudity/being topless while wearing tights stretched thin enough that you could see what they had on underneath as well? Again, people showing up as Superman or Supergirl could have had red underwear on over their tights with no problem because the rules were being loosened a bit and you couldn’t see through loser fitting, blue, non-translucent tights.
“And the simple fact is that the principal caused far more “disruption” to school routine than the girls did.”
No, he didn’t. His quietly sending three girls home probably did very little to stop the normal school day from chugging along quite nicely. The girls going to the press and making a stink over their not showing a wee bit of common sense in their costume choice was what caused the greater disruption in the school and the community.
“…what about the other two in which nothing–not outline, not color, not anything–is visible?”
I think that would fall back to the costumes giving the appearance of nudity. These were three high school girls who dressed as a topless male character. That is going to weigh in on the decision being made by an administrator. I would think it would be an even bigger factor for someone who had never even heard of the character or, like me, had never seen the character. All that person would see is three girls dressed as a topless (nude) character in school. The one girls bra would only add to the tipping factor if it were my call to make.
“What annoys the hëll out of me is two things: First, that school administrators will invariably–as someone here stated and wasn’t disputed–will err on the side of caution. Always. Which means that the smallest number of conservative reactionary parents hold the greatest sway, and that extends to matters of greater import than Captain Underpants.”
No, it could also mean that in matters of dress and general day to day structure, this school hasn’t slid as far as some. It’s also unfair to vilify or denigrate the principal for doing his job because you think he might one day in the future maybe give more credence to the opinions of a group of conservative reactionaries or extremists.
“And second, considering the indisputable fact that the girls were dressed decently, covered from head to toe, the message sent by the principal was quite clear: What others think of you is more important than what you think of yourself. Your cleverness and imagination is secondary to my perceptions, even though they’re not based in fact.”
The “indisputable” fact? Well, there are more then a few of us disputing that here. I would tend to think the principal would find it a somewhat less then an “indisputable” fact as well. The sun rose in the East this morning. That is an “indisputable” fact. Whether or not three high school girls dressed as a topless male superhero and wearing tights that give questionable coverage is decent is far from an “indisputable” fact.
“What others think of you is more important than what you think of yourself.”
No, it means that the school has a dress code, the spirit, if not the letter itself, of the dress code will still be followed even on fun days like this and attempting to walk around looking like three topless females doesn’t fly.
“He singled out three perfectly decently dressed children”
Again, that’s in dispute there and here.
“–kids who were more thoroughly clad than probably a number of their peers–“
Since no pictures of other students have been printed in the press, Neither you nor I can definitively argue that point.
“because of his perception of the situation than the actuality of the situation.”
The situation was three girls dressed as a topless superhero and giving the appearance of nudity in school. That would seem to be the actuality of the situation he acted on.
“And the simple proof is that if the girls were wearing the outfits in the streets of Manhattan, they would not be in violation of any laws. I’m not a big fan of laws in the real world not being applicable in the academic world.”
Really? Girls can walk down the street in Daisy Dukes and a string bikini top and not get in trouble. Shall we now make that the allowable dress code for school? Guys can walk down the street with no shirt and their pants hanging too low. Would you like to go before the PTA and School Board and argue that you think it’s unfair that they can’t do the same in class and school hallways?
There are countless numbers of laws in the real world that are not applicable in the academic world or the working world. I can walk around on my fourteenth day of vacation with a full beard on my face. I show up at work the next day still sporting that beard while in uniform and I’m getting written up. What, are you going to come down to Richmond and tell my Lt. that I should be able to keep my beard because the laws in the real world say I can?
“Furthermore, I’m also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they’re thinking, you’re on a slippery slope. In this instance the principal took it to a new level: He punished the girls for what OTHER people were thinking.”
Wow. Comparing this to hate crimes. That’s a stretch. They got punished for for dressing up to appear nude/topless in school. It showed a lack of common sense in both their and their parent’s judgment. I’m sorry, but they got zinged for it.
“Depends what the message says, doesn’t it. The CCA, for instance, endeavored to punish Stan Lee years ago because he was putting out an issue of Spider-Man with an anti-drug message. The CCA’s contention was that ANY mention of drugs was in violation of the CCA, and therefore banned. Stan ran it anyway. It was seen as a gutsy move. If a kid was wearing a t-shirt that said “Drugs are Bad, M’Kay?” and the principal said he had to change shirts because the word “drugs” was in the shirt, that doesn’t seem reasonable.”
Now you’re the one dodging the question by bring up an off point reference. The point was being made, as you full well know, about shirts and accessories that simply display drugs or drug paraphernalia or even have a boarder line positive slant about them. Your ducking his question by throwing out an example of how it COULD be ok. Would you still think that the shirts are fine then and that the student was being singled out if the shirt had a bong printed on it and the words “get high” plastered across the kids chest? I don’t think you would. I certainly wouldn’t.
“Possibly because everyone realized that an explicit recreation of something sexual was irrelevant in a discussion about the recreation of Captain Underpants.”
Not if you didn’t know the character and all you saw was three girls dressed to appear topless. Then it would be the exact same thing.
“I think this is telling, because if you don’t think either is appropriate, then you are conceding that it *IS* possible to take it too far while still covering all the appropriate parts.”
“So?”
So I would tend to believe that schools aren’t the smartest places to try and push it too far and think that you’re going to not run into problems. There were lots of things in my closet that I didn’t wear to school because common sense told me not to. There were several events in each year of my High School life that allowed me to dress up in costume where I went with choices that were actually my Number two or three choice because common sense told me that my number one wouldn’t fly. I was often right as we always had at least one incident like this one. The difference was that the kids didn’t go running to the press to play “poor little me”.
“Nor am I a big fan of punishing kids who are being clever. This, to me, was clever.”
I said above that I thought it was a great idea for a costume and a costume I would have let a kid of mine wear at a party in the house or at a friends house. It was clever. No issue there. Deciding that they would wear it to school wasn’t that clever. That’s where they got tagged.
“And how would you like it if Hitler killed you?”
Did I miss a post? Where the &%$# did that come from?
Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2006 01:05 PM
I haven’t forgotten that hanging issue, which may still have the appearance of “he said/he said.” But I’m still baffled as to what information is lacking from the news quote for me to make my third point.
I don’t consider it a “hanging issue” because I’ve decided we’ve reached “agree to disagree” territory. So that’s what I’m going to do. You, of course, are free to do as you wish.
Posted by: Jerry C at October 28, 2006 01:07 PM
“And how would you like it if Hitler killed you?”
Did I miss a post? Where the &%$# did that come from?
It threw me for a moment, too. It’s an allusion to a “Dilbert” comic strip wherein an animal character (I don’t recognize which one, as I don’t often read “Dilbert”) brags about winning every argument on the Internet by saying the same thing: “How would you like it if Hitler killed you?”
Ah
Thanks, Bill.
You know, I really don’t understand all this mess. I have white shirts that, while they look perfectly fine and non-see through when I put them on, as soon as someone take a picture of me, you can clearly see the outline of my bra -even with a top on. I have pink shirts that do that too, and they’re made of material that in no possible sense of the word would be described as ‘see-through’.
I’ve also seen ‘cosplayers’ in public events dressed a lot worse than this three girls (One whose only disguise was a pair of black underwear and a cape comes to mind. She couldn’t be older than sixteen, and was acompained by her mother).
Yes, that picture does look like you can clearly make out the bra that the girl is wearing, but given my experience with flashes and lighting (I just had an argument with a co-worker about a black tanktop that IMHO does show the white bra of the model underneat, he says it doesn’t), I don’t think anyone can say that it was actually see-through if the principal isn’t quoted as saying so (I’m with Mike here. If the Principal said that the reason to send them home was the ‘impression that they were naked’, that doesn’t equal ‘the fact that you could see the outline of their bras’) and we weren’t there. What *I* would like to see is pictures of the other kids’s costumes. *Then* I could say if the Principal was being an idiot or just an excessively careful man. BEcause, really? I rather see this kind of costumes in a costume contest than the Supergirl’s newest uniform or some of the newest japanese heroines that I’ve seen around.
Bill,
Oh. That’s why I didn’t get it. Not much of a Dilbert fan.
Now, If it had been a Bloom County, Outland or Opus refs, I would have been very much less confused. To each his own
:p
“I’ve also seen ‘cosplayers’ in public events dressed a lot worse than this three girls..”
Yeah, but was that in a public event at a HS?
In what world does:
not mean “The principal sent them home for simulated nudity?” Where is the ambiguity in the words says, appeared, and naked?
Jerry, you said these girls were topless with visible tops – in the same sentence. You have to pick one and stick with it. This isn’t the first time this pattern of yours has been brought to your attention. According to your understanding of the word, you are being disingenuous.
As to the issue of nudity: Captain Underpants isn’t nude and the girls weren’t nude. Everyone is against the display of nudity in high schools. You are trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue for referencing nudity. If you mean toplessness, say only toplessness. If you can’t be taken by your word, there is no virtue in you debating anyone.
“I’ve also seen ‘cosplayers’ in public events dressed a lot worse than this three girls..”
Yeah, but was that in a public event at a HS?
The particular one I mentioned? No. It was an all-ages event, and kids with school credentials got a free pass, but not in a HS.
At a HS costume event I saw once a vampirella -no flesh-colored tights underneath- and a couple of costumes that logically should have had tights underneath but didn’t. Still, I was talking about a sixteen year old girl, and I find it funny that someone would imply that a girl dressed in a skimpy outfit is perfectly ok as long as she isn’t at school. (Or make it sound as if that was the case. I’m guessing that was not your meaning)
And anyway, what I’m baffled about is that people for the principal are saying that the principal didn’t stated why he sent the girls home, when he did. It wasn’t that he could see the bras through the tights, it was that they ‘simulated’ being naked. It’s a whole different thing. He never mentioned that he could see the bras. Everyone is saying that the girls could’ve took off their tops for the picture, damaging their story, why no one is mentioning that if the principal *had* said ‘You could see the outlines of their bras’ then everyone would’ve agreed with him? To me, the fact that the principal never mentions the bras means that he didn’t saw them, so that little fact was not a part of his desicion. He sent them home because they made a costume that simulated them being naked. That’s about what the story says.
have we ever had this much bad feeling over something so silly/ It must be an election year…
PAD, there are some things I’m not seeing eye to eye with you on. I respect your opinion and, as I said, I would have let the girls stay were I, in some alternate hellish reality, a principal.
“Plus, while everyone carps on the visible bra line”
It’s more than just an outline–you can see the bra. And I’m sorry, but it’s just not convincing to say that if you can see something you must be able to see the color. When my wife wears some body suits you can still see her tattoo. You can’t see the color or even always make out just what it’s a tattoo of (a battleship) (I kid) but she’d be kidding herself if she thought they couldn’t see it.
It’s a minor point but I think a lot of the dissention here has been from frustration of people being told not to believe what their own eyes make obvious.
“Which means that the smallest number of conservative reactionary parents hold the greatest sway, and that extends to matters of greater import than Captain Underpants.”
I’ll just add that,depending on the schools location, one may be just as or even more likely to get such grief from liberal radical parents. Our own Halloween costume tradtion died after one year when a kid came dressed as Jesus. Rumour had it some parent raised a church and state stink, which is ludicrous but there you are.
Yes, I really do. And the simple proof is that if the girls were wearing the outfits in the streets of Manhattan, they would not be in violation of any laws. I’m not a big fan of laws in the real world not being applicable in the academic world.
There are tons of rules for dress that are perfectly legal in the real world and not allowed in school. You can dress like a høøkër in the real world and, unless you are an actual høøkër, it doesn’t matter. To list just a few things that are ok in real life but not at my school: saggy pants, hats in the building, belly buttons, halter tops, skirts above the level of the fingers when the hands are held down, excessive cleavage, thong straps, bra straps, spaghetti straps, tube tops, derogatory or profane words, the Confederate flag (at least at our sister school–I think we haven’t addressed that one here yet), etc. etc.
“Furthermore, I’m also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they’re thinking, you’re on a slippery slope. In this instance the principal took it to a new level: He punished the girls for what OTHER people were thinking. The girls were NOT nude, the girls were NOT indecent, and because others MIGHT THINK they were, the girls were punished. That, by me, is wrong. Now if you think it’s okay to punish people for what other people are thinking, then fine. But don’t expect me to agree with that.”
I think this is your strongest argument and I need to think on it
“Depends what the message says, doesn’t it. The CCA, for instance, endeavored to punish Stan Lee years ago because he was putting out an issue of Spider-Man with an anti-drug message. The CCA’s contention was that ANY mention of drugs was in violation of the CCA, and therefore banned. Stan ran it anyway. It was seen as a gutsy move. If a kid was wearing a t-shirt that said “Drugs are Bad, M’Kay?” and the principal said he had to change shirts because the word “drugs” was in the shirt, that doesn’t seem reasonable.”
Interesting point…but I would be a little troubled that a kid who wears a shirt that is anti-drug would be ok while one that simply says “legalize drug use” is not–in that case aren’t you advocating the cersorship of certain political thoughts? The legalization of drugs is a perfectly legitimate political stance. What if a kid wears pictures of aborted fetuses? Or George Bush being comically sodimized by an Arab with a gas pump? Or a confederate flag with the emblam “History Not Hate”?
The point is, it isn’t easy to draw the line. I’m a get along go along kind of guy on free speech issues but even I know taht at some point you end up with a class so disrupted that your only recourse is to send out the students. It takes 15 minutes minimum to break up a fight and that’s time I’ll never get back (and the kids who are removed slip ever further behind. So who wins here.).
There are a lot of examples of Pricipals Gone Wild but I don’t think this one was a clear cut case.
Rich:
Do you understand what hate crime is? Do you realize you are putting the torture and slaying of Matthew Shepherd in the same category as a principal sending three girls home to change their clothes?
The idea behind hate crimes is that somehow killing Sheherd for being gay is somehow worse than killing him for his sneakers or $25. If someone kills me I want them to get the full penalty regardless of whether they hated me, loved me, didn’t like my political beliefs, had a grudge against white folks, whatever. let’s focus here people–I’m dead!
It’s also enforced poorly. We had a case here wher some nut went around shooting white people and they found racist junk in his home and he basically said he was targeting white people and yet the cops did all they could to minimize it as a hate crime. Feh. Bad idea for a law, badly enforced, who needs it. (of course if a politician opposes such laws they might be portrayed as the sort of people who advocate dragging a black man to his death behind a truck).
PAD again:
No, I’m simply proceeding from the notion that students should not abandon the rights accorded them in the real world when inside a school.
But that isn’t realistic and it’s certainly not the case. in school cops can search your locker any time they wish. Sniffy, the Drug Sniffing Dog roams the halls. You can’t have a legally obtained gun even in your car. You can’t carry a knife or box cutter of any kind. Or a lighter. Or a cell phone, in some schools. You can’t use your cell phone on campus. Free speech is limited–one profanity and you are out of there (I am lax on this but by the rules I shouldn’t be). Express a racist statement in my class and you will probably be removed (unless I think you are salvagable by a good dose of righteous indignation). You can’t dress like a hoochie momma. You can’t go overboard on makeup–show up with your face half blue like Braveheart and you are probably going to the school psychiatrist at minimum. You can’t write gang symbols in the margins of your worksheets or have certain color bandannas hanging out of your pockets or…
I’ve seen schools where the rules were either virtually non-existant or unenforced, where the kids pretty much had the same rights as they did on the streets. You’d be better off sending your kids out into the streets, there are more places to hide. I’ve seen schools where the rules were overly enforced and right joyless places they were. Obviously, the logical choice is some middle ground but in that case you are going to have to make some judgement calls and it’s quite possible that some will be debatable, which, I think, this thread has proven.
“Jerry, you said these girls were topless with visible tops – in the same sentence.”
No, I didn’t. I said that they were in COSTUMES that SIMULATED being topless. I have never said that the girls THEMSELVES were topless. There is a wee bit (like, say, friggin huge) dif in those two statements.
I have also said that you can see through the costumes to see a bra on one of the girls. The costumes that simulated their being topless would have gotten them booted from most schools I went to. Being able to see their bra would have gotten them booted from most schools I went to. You’ve got both in this case.
“You are trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue for referencing nudity. If you mean toplessness, say only toplessness.”
Big words do not an argument make, Mike. 🙂
I’m trying to do no such thing. People on this board are using both the words “nudity” and “topless” in this debate. Some people here are using them to mean the same thing. People out in the real world mix and match the two all the time as well.
People call strippers nude dancers all the time in this area. They wear thongs and pasties. They’re not really nude. Can’t tell that to some people.
I’ve been posting “nudity/topless” in my posts because the posts are being addressed to several people who are using both words and the issue of the simulated toplessness was first raised as being simulated nudity. Me, I think the character is topless and not nude.
But, I’m not going to be trivial enough to argue with someone who says a merely topless woman is nude. That’s the lawyers job. I’m also not going to pick nits with the Principal of the school or others for saying that what I see as simulated toplessness is simulated nudity.
Thus, “nudity/topless” when I post.
“When my wife wears some body suits you can still see her tattoo. You can’t see the color or even always make out just what it’s a tattoo of (a battleship) (I kid) but she’d be kidding herself if she thought they couldn’t see it.”
nice knowing yah, Bill. Sorry the wife killed you for that one.
🙂
Bill: Rich:
Do you understand what hate crime is? Do you realize you are putting the torture and slaying of Matthew Shepherd in the same category as a principal sending three girls home to change their clothes?
The idea behind hate crimes is that somehow killing Shepherd for being gay is somehow worse than killing him for his sneakers or $25…
No, I agree one hundred percent with what you say here, Bill. I just found it sardonically amusing to call “thought crime” a “hate crime” when hate is a form of thought. That and the fact I find it gloriously hyperbolic to call this a hate crime in any sense of the term.
Bill Mulligan,
If this is true:
Then this is also seems true:
Jerry,
Of course.
Since the girls are not topless, the only applicable use of the word “topless” in this debate is to Captain Underpants. It’s only consistent that Captain Underpants should be banned from high schools, yes?
I mean, is toplesness bad, or isn’t it?
If the big words are true, they do, Jerry.
Consensus — which seems to be the merit of your reply — does not an argument make. You haven’t demonstrated I’m wrong. You are only demonstrating how most people can disagree with something plainly observable.
You persist in trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue for referencing nudity. Everyone is against the display of nudity in school. What I said about the principal seems to be plainly true for you also: There’s no defense against that kind of manipulative bs.
Rich, in your lengthy post, I noticed you used the phrase “in difference to our host.” Not to pick nits or act like my degree supersedes yours, but the phrase is “in DEFERENCE,” as in, you defer to Peter. Could also be a typo, if so, I profoundly apologize, as I myself am not immune to victimization by the typo monster. I’m just kind of a stickler for proper use of language.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Just because someone has a degree or a title or a bunch of acronyms behind their name does not necessarily a smart person make, and the converse is ALSO true. Not to go all Yoda here but there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.
Things you never find out in a story like this–what was the principal’s standing in the community in general and the district specifically? Same with the girls, are they good students or troublemakers or doesn’t anybody ever notice them? What kind of girls ARE these? What, if any, WERE the guidelines for this day? Were there problems with any other costumes? What do the parents think? That last one I’m really curious about.
For clarity: This touches a nerve with you, Sean?
“Since the girls are not topless, the only applicable use of the word “topless” in this debate is to Captain Underpants.”
Uhmmmm….. Did see the many posts and starting point of this thread? Did you read any of the bits about whether or not their simulated nudity or simulated toplessness should have gotten them booted for the day? Did you just choose to just blank that word out of your mind so you could ask really dumb questions as though you were making some great point?
“It’s only consistent that Captain Underpants should be banned from high schools, yes? I mean, is toplesness bad, or isn’t it?”
You’re being stupid. And I’ve answered this above.
“Consensus — which seems to be the merit of your reply — does not an argument make.
You’re reading a thread from another planet.
“You persist in trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue for referencing nudity. Everyone is against the display of nudity in school. What I said about the principal seems to be plainly true for you also: There’s no defense against that kind of manipulative bs.”
Sigh. I really meant it when I said that I would be nice. But the choices are that you really are just too dumb to get what you’re reading or you are trying to see how long it takes to bug people by being stupid. I think it’s the choice option. And I really was trying to be nice.
But you just have to play your game it seems. You went the copy and paste out of context road, starting repeating the same two or three meaningless phrases over and over again and now we’ve gotten to the point were someone (me) is manipulative if they (I) don’t agree with you. I know your next, more twisted step in debates and I don’t care to play that far.
There are adults on this site that are fun to debate and worth the time it involves. To me, you’re not.
Bye.
Bill, you can have hime back now.
🙂
The idea behind stiffer penalties for cop-killing is that somehow killing a cop for being a cop is somehow worse than killing him for his sneakers or $25.
The idea behind stiffer penalties for cop killing is that killing cops destroys society’s ability to protect itself, thus endangering us all. Which is to be discouraged. It does not place a higher value on a cop’s life, just tries to discourage a situation which would put all of our lives in danger.
It also does not in any way take into account the mindset of the cop killer–doesn’t matter if they hated cops or just wanted to make a quick getaway.
So I have no problem with stiffer penalties for cop killing. Hëll, you could also add a few others–killing a fireman while he/she’s on the job ought to have an extra penalty as well. What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.
Mike, yes, it DOES touch a nerve with me. Anytime anyone is involved in a discussion like this one, clearly an intelligent individual, a person whom I’m pretty sure had said he was an English teacher, I think they should communicate clearly. Using the incorrect words will only muddy the message.
Bill, I had never looked at the justification for stiffer actions against cop killers like that. I always thought a death is a death. Darn it, Mulligan, you made me think! I HATE that.
Bill,
Yeah, that’s almost word for word how they put it to us in our legal training. I would also agree on your desire for additions to the rule.
Hëll, I think fire and EMS deserve it more then we do. We’re armed. They’re not.
Yes, I’ve highlighted the telling words your reply.
You heard it here, folks. Captain Underpants should be banned from high schools.
Review the highlighted words. Your words. My summation refers to your post.
If you aren’t to be taken at your word, what are you doing here?
Right, the life of a cop represents the safety of many. Check.
Well, parents can represent the safety of more than themselves. Should we have “orphan-maker” and “widow-maker” crimes?
Well, your post to Rich was kind of a passive-aggressive way to express it, now, wasn’t it?
Right. The Holocaust was just the execution of 6 million people. There is no such thing as genocide. Check.
Oh, and how’s this: cigarettes are the only commercial product that when used as marketed kill you. Now we have to ban cops from smoking — because they are killing a whole fûçkìņg neighborhood.
I say: What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.
After injesting a bottle of cough syrup, Mike replies: Right. The Holocaust was just the execution of 6 million people. There is no such thing as genocide. Check.
Why did I do it, folks? Why did I hold out some glimmer of hope that Mike McTroll was actually worth responding to in any way other than sarcastic mocking?
(and coming on the heels of the Dilbert reference just adds some irony to the situation).
No, moron, nobody is saying there is no such thing as genocide, though I can see where you would want that to be so, since even a pathetically bad debater as yourself could probably hope to win THAT argument.
I now shroud you from any further discussion in this thread. You may have the final word. Perhaps in the future we will have a thread that you can actually contribute to (“The effects of tertiary syphilis on the brain” for example) and you’ll be worth responding to again, but I think you’ve exhausted your limited repertoire on this topic.
…
Right, there is genocide, but any special concession for it is totally bs.
Establishing Isreal — when it most likely wouldn’t have been established after WWII — was totally fûçkëd up.
Thanks for clearing that up, Bill Mulligan.
…established without WWII…
Y’know, I thought that maybe, just MAYBE, I’d been wrong, that a lot of people here had been wrong about Mike.
Well, I’ve been wrong before. Probably will be again. It’s almost as though he wants to be the blog version of Colbert, though he lacks both the sophistication and the self-awareness to lay claim to the title. But, just because I’m a thick-headed Celt with brain damage, I would see no reason to get aggressive with Rich or Jerry or even you, because 1)I’m a bigger man than to let a difference of opinion stand in the way of enjoying my life, and 2)I’ve got more important things to do like cutting my toenails than to get dragged into a troll fight with individuals like yourself.