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.
• 
This discussion has come full circle. Basically there are two points of view:
Some see three girls who were wearing a flesh colored costume covering their whole body, and having very little resemblance to actual nudity, and possessing no sexual tones whatsoever. The suit may have been tight, but it is hard to imagine super hero suits that are not. The shape bra of one of the girls may have been visible (assuming it was not the result of the flash the photographers were using) underneath the costume, although there is nothing to suggest that this was the reason for the principal’s decision.
The principal and others consider the costume’s flesh color and tightness (as well as designed to evoke the image of a naked baby) as indecent and inappropriate as it creates an appearance of nudity. To make the point the use phrases like simulated nudity, simulated toplessness, and speak about the possibility of adding nipples to the costume and so forth.
Peter thinks it is wrong that the point of view and sensibilities of the second group (the more cautious? more conservative? more puritan?) concerning the said costume will determine what is appropriate for the girls to wear, going contrary to the girls’ individuality, creativity and intent. This touches on an underlying problem in an increasingly culturaly divided society in which agreement of what is acceptable dress, art and so on is often in dispute. Who should determine what is appropriate in society?
I think this is an imprtant point. I didn’t find anything wrong with the costumes myself in the pictures I saw. I also think the use of phrases like simulated nudity and toplessness, male toplessness, female toplessness in this discussion, as well as references to adding nipples to the costumes are unfair, since they suggest the girls were trying to be sexualy provocative. To me it seems that we can’t even say that they were trying to simulate the nudity of a male baby.
However, I understand the principal’s concerns He has a tough job to set bounderies in a situation where boundries are hard to define. I also don’t think it is a clear cut case in which it was obvious whether or not the costume’s were appropriate. I had to think of it for a while. And even if we can dispute his decision (which I do), and even joke on his prudish attitude, I don’t think it is fair to place him in a middle of battlefield of a cultural conflict which our society is experiencing. There are other times when it is necdessary to stand up and prevent an over conservative or over politically correct, or more militant point of view from determing for everyone else what is appropriate at the expence of artistic integrity, individuality, and free speech. this does not seem to me to be such a case, assuming the girls were not harmed (beyond indignation) by being sent home.
———————-
The idea of hate crimes is that a person who, for ideological reasons, goes around seeking and attacking a segment of society, is a greater threat to society than someone who commits and single act of violence. Such a person is comparable to a terrorist or a serial killer. His actions have repercussions to society beyond the single incident, just as the killing of cops does.
The idea of hate crimes is that a person who, for ideological reasons, goes around seeking and attacking a segment of society, is a greater threat to society than someone who commits and single act of violence. Such a person is comparable to a terrorist or a serial killer. His actions have repercussions to society beyond the single incident, just as the killing of cops does.
But a hate crime can be a single act. Certainly any case of a person going around attacking an entire segment of society is worse than someone attacking a single person.
My point is that if an Eskimo assaults me on the street and it turns out that he may have picked me over anyone else because of my ethnicity and general good looks I don’t see the value of tacking on an extra penalty. And if, as would be likely, he DIDN’T get that extra penalty but another white guy who assaulted an eskimo DOES, it will make me feel like my life is somehow less valuable in the eyes of the law. Which will do little for racial harmony.
Good points though, Micha.
What the hëll is going on?
Look at the highlighted words. If that isn’t genocide, what is?
What is your problem?
Wow, a 253-post debate spawned by three high school girls being sent home to change clothes, with stops at cop killing and hate crimes along the way. Astonishing, truly astonishing.
Micha, just to preface my question, I’m not trying to start an arguement with you, here. But in your post, you talk about someone who commits a hate crime being comparable to a terrorist or serial killer. I wonder, what exactly is it that marks the delineation between the three? I myself would’ve said all three can be intermingled, but if you’ve got some definition or idea or something I’d like to hear it.
….
Stricter sentencing either places a higher value on the life protected or it doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways, Bill Mulligan. Pick one and give it another try.
I’m still stuck on the whole “real-life principal tells students they can’t dress up as the popular, crime fighting alter ego of a fictitious, power-hungry, mean principal”
Eventually I might get around to caring about how someone who is so clearly does not understand children and adolescents ever get that job. Perhaps, at some point, I may even care enough about whether the costumes are innapropriate or not to ponder that question for a few nanoseconds.
At the moment, I’m still boggling over the fact that a real life Mr. Krupp is mad at some kids dressed as Captain Underpants.
What’s he going to do next, accuse an ex-cheerleader and the school librarian of being in cahoots to bring down the mayor?
and to whomever felt the need to say they thought the costumes looked gross:
Well, yes, of course they do. That would, after all, be the point. This is Captain Underpants. Dav Pilkey originally came up with the idea when he was in second grade himself. Captain Underpant’s foes include Professor Poopypants, Talking Toilets, the Wicked Wedgie Woman, and the Bionic Booger Boy.
If the costumes weren’t silly and gross, they wouldn’t be worthy of the title “Captain Underpants”
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’.
This is an important point I think everyone is ignoring in their attempts to score points off each other–the picture is of questionable value as evidence because not all materials look the same under normal lighting as they do under the intense light of a camera flash. Therefore, any argument hinging on “you can make out that girl’s bra in the picture” has a hole in it, the hole being that the picture doesn’t prove the bra was perceptible under normal lighting conditions. (There are plenty of pictures out there of female celebrities on the red carpet, wearing tops that were probably opaque under normal conditions but became partially see-through under the photographers. Same idea.)
Doug, it’s a valid point. I don’t think that a flash was needed to take the picture in question but it may well have been the case.
Anyone remember the digal camcorder that had some kind of night-vision option that apparently made certain clothes see-through. They yanked it from the market and it brings big bucks on ebay. As others have pointed out though, being able to see through clothes might not be the thrill most teenaged boys think it would be–seeing bodies mashed up and squeezed against clothes would probably be more gross than titillating.
OTOH one can well imagine young Clark Kent absently staring in the direction of the girl’s shower room during math class…
Funny that Doug should bring that up. A few of my TV working friends and I have wondered on more than one occasion if these, um, alternately translucent garments weren’t picked on purpose for these events just to get people talking. Just to keep things even, I don’t think that’s what happened with these girls. I doubt that this is in the same country, let alone the same neighborhood, of the valedictorian who was pulled off the stage for mentioning Jesus in her speech when she’d been told over and over that Jesus couldn’t be in her speech. The only thing I have to wonder about, seriously, is all three of them dressing as the same character. Was this planned, or was it “Let’s see who’s a better captain?” or was it that bane of teenage exisitence,”She’s wearing the same outfit as me!”
I really think I’ve been spending too much time thinking about this. I’m gonna go watch Dracula.
…because if we aren’t supposed to hold you to what you say, why are you bothering to post here?
Bill, I’m astonished, ASTONISHED, that you would insinuate that a paragon of virtue like Clark Kent would stare in the girl’s shower room during math class. After all, he stands for truth, justice, and all that stuff.
(Of course, he could look at it as the truth that he’s got these powers, justice because none of the girls ever paid any attention too him, and what’s more like the American way than looking at girls?
And, as a videographer, I wanted that camcorder as soon as I heard about it. Yeah, just because I’m a videographer…really…I’d never use it for evil…or e-VIL, as it were…
As I recall, it worked best on white spandex. Have you ever SEEN the kind of people who wear white spandex? Do you really WANT to see them naked?
Great, just GREAT. First, Bill, you make me think(they just finally got the smoke alarms to shut the $#%! up from THAT one) and now you put THAT visual into the vast wasteland between my ears. If I need to act scared on Tuesday, I’ll just picture that…
And just hope the therapist has a LOT of open sessions…..
….
Bill Mulligan, I’m particularly glad you are retreating in a manner that leaves such little opposition to my explanation for the merit of hate crime law. Thank you.
I know that I’m slow and dimwitted, but how is a school headmaster sending home students inappropriately dressed a hate crime?
Megan, Peter said the principal’s ruling on the costumes was like the merit of a hate crime law: “I think when you start punishing people for what they’re thinking, you’re on a slippery slope.”
Then I proposed another justification for hate crime law, and Bill Mulligan became unhappy as it slowly dawned on him I was right.
Nor am I a big fan of punishing kids who are being clever. This, to me, was clever.
If anything, they were “punished” because they were not half as clever as they, or others, thought they were.
They dressed as a topless male hero, making the erronious assumption that most, if not all witnesses would be familiar with the character, a bald, obviously male character. Even with the body stockings, the three girls are very obviously girls. Also, all three have long hair, and at least one was wearing makeup. The first thing anybody unfamiliar with the character (and many familiar with him) would think upon seeing one of them would not be “Hey, Captain Underpants!” but “Hey, topless… er.. maybe not… girl.” Regardless of their professed intention, it’s, quite frankly, a half-assed costume, and a potentially (if not deliberately) racy one.
It’s somewhat akin to what would happen if I slapped on some white body paint or a body stocking and a bikini, then got miffed because nobody got that I was supposed to be Lady Death, despite the short dark hair and beard, and the obvious lack of bazooms.
Now, I can’t speak for the actual educators here, or the other young parents, but it worries me a little bit that people consistently bemoan the sad state of American puclic education, but then a relatively minor thing like this happens and some of the same people can’t wait to try and undermine the authority of the school administration a little further. Especially the press. These girls turn on the water works and every reporter I’ve seen paints them as heroes and martyrs, with the principal as the villain of the piece, instead of just reporting the dámņ facts like they’re supposed to.
(Oh, sorry about the new mental image, guys.)
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by: Jerry C at October 28, 2006 06:55 PM
Bill, you can have him back now.
Are you addressing me? Because, when I said he’s “all yours,” I meant it. I’m done with Mikey McTroll, dude.
“Megan, Peter said the principal’s ruling on the costumes was like the merit of a hate crime law: “I think when you start punishing people for what they’re thinking, you’re on a slippery slope.”
I have tried to frame several responses to this, but I remain flabbergasted at the leap from a headmaster doing his job, to thought police & hate crimes.
Bill,
Well, I was talking to you but it seems that Mulligan thought I was talking to him. Hey, it’s all good by me. If he wants to deal with a twit that doesn’t know the dif between one death VS thousands, can’t figure out the dif between cartoon or comic characters and flesh and blood people and can’t seem to grasp, either by being just plum stupid or lack of hands on knowledge, the dif between males and females (with all that that entails), then he can have him.
Have fun, Mulligan. Myers and I thank you for your selflessness and willingness to sacrifice yourself on our behalf.
🙂
Rex,
Thanks a heap.
:() *barf*
Rex, I can’t equate this with the problem of teachers that are decidedly out of touch with the people they’re teaching or not getting the resources they need or parents that just don’t give a bleep. This just reflects the state of intitutions all over this country. They’re so, SO afraid of offending someone and getting slapped with a lawsuit or losing their position that they do things like this. More is learned at school than the three R’s. One of the big things that I learned over my years was “You need to fit into this pattern!” Well, I never fit into that pattern, still don’t. But there are people out there that will just bow to the pressure, and let any sense of individuality be beaten out of them.
Sean
How many children have your raised to adulthood?
“quotes cherry-picked by “journalists” more interested in writing a superhero story than news.”
I’m guessing that it was a slow news day.
Sean, sorry if I wasn’t entirely clear on my meaning. The problems with public education are legion. The one I’m referring to specifically in this instance is the movement over the years to replace actual education, and the actual preparation of children and young adults for the real world with a desire to make sure that everybody feels important and nobody gets their feelings hurt.
More than one teacher I’ve had the pleasure to know has commented on how it’s gotten to the point they’re afraid to hand out F’s. One has actually had parents show up and try to argue over their child’s grades. It’s gotten to where the students’ and parents’ opinions mean more than those of the educators. More and more we bemoan declining education standards, while more and more we take away the tools necessary to provide that education.
I know it’s probably a bit of a digression from the original thread, but this situation is symptomatic of larger problems.
-Rex Hondo-
“rrlane at October 26, 2006 04:59 PM”
At my children’s School (and their old Primary school), blazers are part of the Winter uniform and must be worn to and from school (boys and girls), and when out in the playground during Terms 2&3. They may remove them while in class, but need to wear them when moving between classrooms. For the Seniors (Yr11 &Yr12), the blazers must also be worn during Terms 1 & 4 (Autumn and Spring) to formal school functions such as a Full Assembly and Senior Assembly.
Have fun, Mulligan. Myers and I thank you for your selflessness and willingness to sacrifice yourself on our behalf.
The great thing is, if you just ignore him he keeps on trying to get you back into it! I keep checking back to see how many posts he’s made begging for me to pay attention to him. It’s nice to be wanted.
But I’ve had enough of an ego boost for one day. Hey Craig! Wanna crack at him?
“rrlane at October 26, 2006 04:59 PM”
At my children’s high school (and their old Primary school), blazers are a part of the Winter uniform and must be worn traveling to and from School, moving between classrooms and out in the playground during Terms 2&3(Winter). They may take them off during class. Seniors (Yrs 11& 12) must also wear theirs for “formal” school functions such as Full School Assembly and Senior Assembly in Terms 1&4 (autumn and Spring).
> 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?”
Or, perhaps, it’s a reference to the idea, mentioned in previous entries, that bringing Hitler into a debate was a sign the debate should be ended?
>>The idea behind hate crimes is that 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!
Which would, to me, be what really matters, yes.
>>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.
Doesn’t wash. If someone massacres the family next door in some crazed, random killing spree, that’s going to affect me a heck of a lot more than if a pusher takes out a narcotics officer on the other side of town. Subjectively, if not objectively. Try and convince me that [hypothetical case suggested by real ones] some drugged up maniacs breaking into my 88-year-old mother’s domicile and beat, rape and kill her don’t deserve to be put down like the mad dogs they are, just as much so as someone who kills a traffic cop or a random passer-by. And the best of luck to you.
>>in school cops can search your locker any time they wish.
See kids, school is indeed educational. You learn all sorts of useful things, such as the fact that unlawful searches laws apparently don’t apply while you’re in schools. Isn’t that a useful lesson to learn about society?
>>Or a cell phone, in some schools
That one I’m all in favour of. Parents need to call the kid in an emergency can call the office and leave a message. Cell phones are used to cheat all over and have no place in school.
So, if anything, sending the girls home was potentially a riskier proposition for the principal, as is borne out by the reactions over the last couple of days. Many people are more inclined to accept the sob story of three teenage girls (teenagers, of course, being known for their fastidious adherence to the truth in all things) over the principal, based entirely on quotes cherry-picked by “journalists” more interested in writing a superhero story than news. The teachers who thought it was “cute?” All based on the girls’ account. Multiple layers underneath the leotards? Not according to the photos. Being “singled out?” Well, girls, you did that yourselves by your choice of costume. All the other people supposedly running around in their underwear? Photos, or at least a reputable account showing this to be remotely true?
Anything, frankly, showing we should take the word of three kids of that of an adult?
-Rex Hondo-
Sorry for the duplicate posts above.
See kids, school is indeed educational. You learn all sorts of useful things, such as the fact that unlawful searches laws apparently don’t apply while you’re in schools. Isn’t that a useful lesson to learn about society?
Except that it’s the school’s locker, not the student’s. Nothing illegal about searching their own property.
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 29, 2006 01:34 AM
The great thing is, if you just ignore him he keeps on trying to get you back into it! I keep checking back to see how many posts he’s made begging for me to pay attention to him.
I know! Isn’t it a hoot?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 29, 2006 01:34 AM
But I’ve had enough of an ego boost for one day. Hey Craig! Wanna crack at him?
Yikes. Craig, you could certainly mop up the floor with him. But do you really want to bother? It’s like shooting fish in a barrel! 🙂
Bill Mulligan,
Here are the plainly observable facts:
You said:
For comparison, here is the definition of genocide:
“Deliberate” meaning on purpose. “Systematic” meaning “presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles.”
As it stands, you’ve only left us to imagine that you are sheltering some kind of nazi sympathy and I touched on a nerve or something.
I didn’t invent that problem any more than I invented the rain or the sky.
Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2006 06:04 AM
As it stands, you’ve only left us to imagine that you are sheltering some kind of nazi sympathy and I touched on a nerve or something.
ZING! In your face, Mulligan! There’s just no beating this intellectual juggernaut!
Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2006 06:04 AM
I didn’t invent that problem any more than I invented the rain or the sky.
Mike, I’ve noticed you’ve taken to repeating this phrase of mine. The fact that you can’t even come up with your own rejoinders anymore, and have taken to appropriating mine, is a tacit acknowledgement of my intellectual superiority over you. Thank you for the implied compliment, and for finally recognizing who’s who and what’s what.
Of course, it seems as though every other poster in this thread is your intellectual superior. So I guess I shouldn’t crow about that too awful much.
😛
“Micha, just to preface my question, I’m not trying to start an arguement with you, here. But in your post, you talk about someone who commits a hate crime being comparable to a terrorist or serial killer. I wonder, what exactly is it that marks the delineation between the three? I myself would’ve said all three can be intermingled, but if you’ve got some definition or idea or something I’d like to hear it.”
A terrorist act and a hate crime have three things in common:
1) Propaganda of action — By commiting the act the criminal is trying to send a political message delegitimizing the group he’s attacked.
2) Terrorizing — he wants the people belonging to the group to be able to live regular open lives without fear, and or work for their own political agendas.
3) Being part of a string of actions motivated by the same ideology — he is likely to repeat the crime for the same ideological purposes, and or have others likeminded people commit similar crimes for the same purpose.
———————
“”Megan, Peter said the principal’s ruling on the costumes was like the merit of a hate crime law: “I think when you start punishing people for what they’re thinking, you’re on a slippery slope.”
I have tried to frame several responses to this, but I remain flabbergasted at the leap from a headmaster doing his job, to thought police & hate crimes.”
Peter’s logic seems to be as follows:
If I oppose the legal administration increasing somone’s punishment (perhaps in the name of a poltically correct way of thinking) for what he or she thinks (i.e. hate of gays etc.), then all the more reason to oppose an educational administrator punishing three girls, in the name of an over-conservative way of thinking, for something others (these conservatives), but the girls, think about their costumes (that they are sexualy provocative).
I don’t think this was a very good way for Peter to make his point, but there it is. And I think the point he was trying to make is important. We all of aware of more serious situations in which the over sensitivity of one group was used to justify penalizing or curtailing the artistic choices of others.
——————-
The reason for reference to the holocaust by Mike is obvious. The holocaust and hate crimes share in common bering acts of violence against a group motivated by racial hatred. However it is a really bad way to make a point. References to the holocaust usually are, which i the point of the Dilbert cartton, it seems.
—————–
Rex, accusing the girls of lying in any way is baseless and wrong. The facts are known: the girls wore a costume which they felt were unfairly considered to be indecent by the principal, and which resulted in them being sent home. They disputed this decision in one of the few ways available for people who face unfair decisions by somebody holding administrative power, namely by appealing to public opinion through the press. You may agree with the principal that the costumes were too provocative (I don’t), and that his decision to send them home was not an overreaction. You may think that the girls over reacted by fighting over such an insignificant decision (I’m not sure myself, it depends on the harm done to them by that decision). But, it is unfair to suggest they were lying. It is also pointless to refer as to the photos. We have all seem them, but obviously we don’t all see them as indecent, or the thread would have been shorter. The only thing we are not sure of is how these costumes stand compared to other costumes stundents wore. At best we can assume, without being certain, that other costumes were also tight and involved wearing capes and/or underwear over the clothes.
My assertion is ridiculous, why? Because there’s no such thing as a nazi?
If there’s no such thing as a nazi, that must mean there’s no such thing as genocide. By Bill Mulligan’s definition, you’re a moron, too.
Nurse Ratched, please don’t tell my mother.
Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2006 07:05 AM
By Bill Mulligan’s definition, you’re a moron, too.
Mulligan!!! How could you have turned on me like this??? You BÃSTÃRÐ!!!!!!
Nerve, meet finger. Finger, meet nerve.
And to be clear, I consider this different than Peter’s objection to the slippery-slope aspect of hate crime law. Bill Mulligan conceded the establishment of intent:
Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2006 07:14 AM
Nerve, meet finger. Finger, meet nerve.
Mikey McTroll, you’ve found me out. The problem is, I realize I can never measure up to you and it’s eating me alive.
I mean, you’re roguishly handsome, you have a vast fortune, women want you, men want to be you, you won a Nobel Prize last year, and your deoderant is strong enough for a man but made for a woman.
How can I get out from under your shadow? Throw me a bone, Mike! Give me a reason to live!
Oh, wait, I think Peter is flattening the distinction between a race-based murder and murder. Ok, I guess I asked for whatever is coming from Peter. Go ahead.
Mike, don’t you think there is another small objective difference between a single act of murder and the murder of millions other than being motivated by racial emotions? Maybe?
Don’t you think a person can oppose punishing hate crimes more severly without actually denying that such crimes do exist?
Don’t you think it is wrong to accuse a person you do not know of being a holocaust denier and nazi sympathiser based on a little (faulty) semantics?
After all, using the same reasoning it could be claimed that you consider the killing of millions that is not racially motivated to be better than the kililng of millions for racial reasons. However, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is not your opinion.
Okay, I’m done poking the troll with a stick.
I’ve been thinking about this issue in terms of a much larger context and decided to share my thoughts. I hope at least some of you find them worthwhile.
Before I address that larger context, I’d like to summarize my thoughts about the facts of this particular situation, and their implications:
Principal Restivo sent three girls home to change clothes because their “Captain Underpants” costumes. He acknowledged that they were not naked, but said “the appearance was that they were naked.” This statement is vague, and lends itself to more than one plausible interpretation. It can be interpreted to mean he objected to their “simulated nudity.” That same statement, however, can also reasonably be interpreted to mean that the girls, while full covered by clothing and therefore technically not “naked,” were wearing leotards that were sheer enough so as to reveal what was underneath and thus gave the “appearance” of being naked.
One definition of the word “sheer,” according to the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary (I could go downstairs to get my big honkin’ Webster’s but I think I can trust Encarta for this), is “so thin and fine as to be almost transparent.” In at least two of the photos available at http://www.newsday.com, the bra of at least one of the girls is clearly visible. That meets the definition of “sheer.” And as Jerry C has already correctly pointed out, the fact that I cannot with certainty identify its color does NOT mean that I cannot see it, or that it is merely an “outline.” Was this merely a trick of the camera, or was this girl’s bra equally visible to the naked eye? I submit to you that we do not know. But I also submit to you that the photographs in question preclude ruling out such a possibility.
According to Peter, one of the girls held up a tank top “on the news” (I’m assuming he meant the local T.V.) and claimed she was wearing it underneath her leotard. Maybe she was telling the truth and maybe she wasn’t. Teenagers are at an age where they’re “old enough to know what’s right but young enough not to choose it,” in the words of my favorite lyricist, Neal Peart (he of the rock band Rush).
So, here we are with uncertainty piled on top of uncertainty, and yet so many of us have regardless decided beyond a shadow of a doubt that Principal Restivo was just plain right or just plain wrong.
To put this issue in a slightly larger context, I was a team leader where I work for about a year-and-a-half. Before Mike pounces on the fact that I am no longer in this role, allow me to explain that I voluntarily left the position when I was offered another, higher-paying position elsewhere in the same company.
When I was younger I was always the in-your-face agitator, always quick to point out what management was doing wrong and wondering why they couldn’t see it! Yeah, that was great for my career. As I grew older and wiser, I realized that it’s easy to criticize leadership but harder to formulate the solution and even harder still to implement it. So, when offered the position of team leader, I saw this as my chance to determine once and for all if I had the stuff, or if I had just been full of hot gas.
According to my managers and even many of my subordinates, I succeeded quite well, thank you very much.
One of the things I learned, however, is that it is easier by far to criticize leaders than it is to be one. It’s like watching someone try to thread a needle. You’re sure you can do it better until, out of exasperation, they hand it to you and suddenly it’s not so easy anymore. You go into it thinking you’ll be the “good guy” across the board until you realize that it’s not possible. You learn that at times the needs of the collective outweigh the needs of the individual.
Trust me, that was a distasteful realization for me. I was always the iconoclast, the rebel, the agitator.
To put this issue in a much larger context, there was a time when people respected authority figures and tradition far more than we do now. That had its advantages, but also a very big and very ugly dark side. For example, it meant that we tolerated racism far more than we do today; racism hasn’t been eradicated but this nation no longer tolerates blatant Jim Crow laws and no longer accepts the “separate but equal” doctrine.
I look at the 1960s civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, and Watergate as a few watershed events that helped us see the folly of putting the collective ahead of the individual to the extent that we did. Unfortunately, humanity tends to move like a pendulum, from one extreme to the other. We’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater. We are now at a place where authority figures are questioned to a point of causing near-paralysis. Now, when a principal sends girls home for the way they are dressed and it becomes a news story and the subject of lengthy debates.
This kind of attitude — a near-presumption that authority figures are wrong unless proven otherwise — comes with pernicious consequences. Because it is that same attitude that led a high school athletics coach in my old school district to be fired for attempting to punish his players. You see, they were throwing crap all over the bus while coming back from an away game, and one of them hit the bus driver in the head with an ice cube. That kind of distraction could have caused an accident. So the coach decided that the boys would be required to clean the bus. Unfortunately, the coach wasn’t familiar with all of the cleaning products involved and many of the boys were sickened by fumes. No one was hospitalized or in any way suffered lasting harm, but the coach was fired and the boys were never given an alternative punishment. The lesson: whine and bleat and you can dodge the consequences of your actions. That is becoming increasingly truer in our society with each passing day, and it is just as pernicious as allowing the collective to hold too much power over the individual.
It is for that reason that I believe in a situation like this “Captain Underpants-gate,” where there are significant and reasonable questions about what actually happened, where the principal was clearly acting within his authority, and where the consequences to the students were minor and easily forgettable, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the principal.
That’s not a “cool” point of view but I believe it is the correct one.
So, here we are with uncertainty piled on top of uncertainty, and yet so many of us have regardless decided beyond a shadow of a doubt that Principal Restivo was just plain right or just plain wrong.
A fair assessment, Bill, but I’d add another category: There are those here that admit they weren’t there and don’t know the whole situation, and because of that are simply willing to give the trained professional the benefit of the doubt in lieu of more facts. We concede that there are poor administrators out there, but there are also poor journalists who will go out of their way to paint a story one way or the other to make it more appealing. Because of the latter, we don’t assume this principal is one of the former.
Posted by: Rich Lane at October 29, 2006 09:26 AM
A fair assessment, Bill, but I’d add another category: There are those here that admit they weren’t there and don’t know the whole situation, and because of that are simply willing to give the trained professional the benefit of the doubt in lieu of more facts.
Oh, agreed. I hope my post didn’t imply otherwise. In fact, I think you and I are saying the same thing in slightly different ways.
You’ll note, Rich, that I came into this debate with one point of view but am coming away from it with another. Funny how that works sometimes, eh? 😉
“It is for that reason that I believe in a situation like this “Captain Underpants-gate,” where there are significant and reasonable questions about what actually happened,”
I don’t think there is as much doubt as you suggest. It is unfair to say that the girls were lying based on no evidence. And the pictures provide enough proof that the costumes were not transparent enough to reveal their bodies, but enough to reveal the color and shape of one bra (no flash was used, or there would be no shadows covering parts of their bodies). The principal’s statement indicates that he was concerned about the appearance of nudity, despite the fact that the costume was not transparent. He may also have been concerned about the bra.
“where the principal was clearly acting within his authority, and where the consequences to the students were minor and easily forgettable, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the principal.”
I agree to that part.
How can we have a society that questions authority without underminding it to the point of paralysis. a more balanced attitude would probably help. Both the principal and the girls reacted to extremely in a silly situation.