Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    	I saw the picture and read the article. I thought it
    	was much ado about nothing, BUT, a rule is a rule.
    	Either change the rule or abide by it. That was the
    	problem, I believe.
    
    	Scott

    With dress codes you have too basic options. Fight them of live with
    them. To knowingly violate them with intent to fight is one thing.
    It usually only works if you get either a group or a good lawyer.
    If you violate them with out intending to fight it to the wall then
    that's just stupid. We had a big fight over wearing jeans to school when
    I was in high school. 200 students with a face to face with the
    Principal won that change. (even though only 4% of the school was 
    involved I guess he was impressed.)

    The other option is to live with the rule. I never wore a t-shirt or
    shorts to school. Nor did I wear jeans. I wouldn't let any of my
    children go to school the way the girl in the article in .0 was
    dressed.

    I guess a third option is to go to a school with rules that agree
    with your idea. Public School dress codes tend to be looser then
    many private schools though. The school my son goes to has pretty
    strict dress code. (Blue or green [soon to be blue or gray] slacks,
    white or blue shirt and a tie for boys. Similar rules for girls
    though with uniform skirts or jumpers (depending on grade) and no slacks.)
    The student council met with the School Board policy committee and
    there will be some changes but nothing like allowing jeans, tee shirts,
    or short (other then for gym).

    			Alfred

 Re: .0

 I saw the article and I couldn't believe that it made front page news. Talk
about blowing it out of proportion.

 Nit: She didn't miss a day of school; she just had to go home and change. 
[It does seem like a waste of time.]

 I think the incident was somewhat mishandled by the asst. principle. He should
have told her not to wear shorts again. I believe the intent of the rule is
to preclude short-shorts and other distracting or enticing clothing elements.
As such, her appearance was clearly not in contradiction to the above aims.
She appeared presentable enough, and since she was ignorant of the rule she
was <technically> breaking, she should have been cut some slack (especially
considering her exemplary behavior and academic record).

 An alternative would have been to send her home to change at lunchtime so
as to minimize the academic disruption while still allowing the asst. principle
to save face.

 I can't believe that this incident made front page news, especially considering
everything else that goes on @ Nashua High.

 The Doctah

re .3

>	She appeared presentable enough, and since she was ignorant of 
>	the rule she was <technically> breaking, she should have been cut 
>	some slack (especially considering her exemplary behavior and 
>	academic record).

>	 Nit: She didn't miss a day of school; she just had to go home and 
>	change. 

	Sounds to me like she was cut some slack. She was not in compliance
	with a rule, and was told to leave and return when she was in 
	compliance. No additional punishment mentioned. Sounds like a
	perfectly reasonable action.

					Tom_K

 I also went to a private high school where a dress code was well enforced.
Before that, I went to a public jr high. I always knew what the dress code
was at the high school; at the jr high I didn't hear it mentioned. It seems to
me that she was barely "out of code," and she definitely wasn't going against
the intent of the policy. Her shorts looked alot like knickers (they were
almost as long). The only other difference was that they weren't gathered
at the bottom. The only skin showing on this girl were her hands and head.
I can't see the point in nitpicking; especially on one of the few well behaved
students. A simple "in the future, this will not be tolerated" would have
certainly done the trick.

 The Doctah

    I find it hard to believe that such an archaeic dress code still
    exists in a public school. When I was in high school (Burlington,
    MA, Class of '71), the only strictures on dress was that it had to
    be "neat, clean, and modest". Jeans, t-shirts, sweat-shirts, and
    even shorts were acceptable as long as those three adjectives applied.�
    
    Seems to me that a school would find itself better occupied teaching
    the children how to read than how to dress, given the abysmal state
    of education these days.
    
    --- jerry
    
    � Actually, this "three-point" dress code was established when I
    was in junior year. And, as a member of a joint student-faculty
    council created (aside from the regular student council) for the
    express purpose of modifying this and similar rules, I was
    instrumental in getting this new dress code established. Being
    on this council was one of my proudest moments in high school.

    
    When I attended Burdett School (Secretarial/Accounting) in Boston, we 
    had a very strict dress code.  We were not allowed to wear denim in any 
    fashion, be it jacket, skirt, or jeans; neither were we allowed to wear
    corduroys.  The only exception to this that I know of was in wearing 
    corduroy; that is, if the corduroy was in the fashion of a 2- or 3-piece
    suit.
    
    Anyone entering school with denim or corduroy slacks was sent home to
    change.
    

    When I was in High School the dress code was pretty lenient.
    	Clean & Presentable etc.
    	NO shorts.
    
    The only problem with this, you wouldn't believe (or maybe you would)
    the micro-mini skirts that popped up!!  We're talking SHORT ! !
    I think some of them barely covered some girls butts !
    
    And they won't allow shorts??????!!!!!
    
    -Michelle-

    I see this incident as another shining example of an overreaction 
    to a problem that really doesn't matter because it's easier to fix
    than the problems that *do* matter - like the drugs, teenage
    pregnancies, and students who'll graduate without being able to
    read beyond a second grade level.
    
    Much ado about nothing, IMHO -          ...Lisa V...

    AH - HA - Something I feel a desire to reply to.  I was raised in
    a very strict, conservative and religious environment.  The `one'
    thing I can remember my mother supporting me in that went against
    a `rule' had to do with the dress code at my high school.  She never
    allowed me to wear skirts above the knee, etc. and I was always
    well within the limits of the dress code, which amoung other things,
    included - no pants to be worn by the girls.
    
    Sorry - it takes me a while to get through my story.  Anyway, Mom
    made me a pair of dress pants `as in looks like a skirt - comes
    all the way to the floor, but there is a seam up the middle ...
    Mom supported me wearing it to school, although _technically_ they
    qualified as `pants'.  I was an A student, in the Honor Society,
    never (at that time) very assertive in my opinions, liked by my
    teachers (because I never caused a problem).  Well - I didn't last
    through 2nd period - was called the principal's office and had to
    go home and change in order to continue the day at school.
    
    I didn't agree with the dress code, which was ultra-conservative,
    and still disgree with rules that limit your creativity and personal
    expression.  I'm not saying anything goes - but it seems there could
    be more of a meeting point instead of meaningless restrictions.
    
    The one good thing about the incident was that was one time Mom
    and I really agreed on something that wasn't `by the book' and she
    gave me her support.  It gave me a chance to see a side of her that
    she keeps well hidden.

When I was in high school, I didn't know there even was a dress code until
someone got sent home.  Therefore, it is very likely that the person sent home
didn't either.  I don't think they have the right to send someone home if they
hadn't made the code clear when the student was admitted to the school. Maybe
some schools do make it known, but not all.  (or was it in that silly little
rule book they handed out during orientation that was lost on the floor before
orientation was even over...? :) )

I think the "no shorts" rule is too general considering some of the skirts I see
out there.  There should be a rule that you can wear shorts or skirts as long as
they aren't more than 'insert arbitrary measurement here'" above the knee.

Ln (who doesn't wear short shorts or skirts anyhow...)

	 How ridiculous!   To send someone home to change who's
	 wearing a "tasteful" outfit, just because the rules say "no
	 shorts"?  I think when something like this happens, its time
	 to take a serious look at the rules!  To say "no shorts" is
	 stupid and very narrowminded in my book.  I drive to work
	 every morning and see 8-10 yr olds wearing aerobic pants and
	 tight/short mini skirts.  But those are within the letter of
	 the rules.  HOW STUPID (IMHO).  The rules should say someone
	 about the "look" a person is projecting, not just condemn a
	 "type of clothing" because some version of it could be
	 considered tasteless.

	 k

    Re: .13
    
    Kathy, I agree with you, but the problem is that ambiguous rules
    such as "projecting a reasonable look" are not easily and
    uniformly enforceable.  So "authorities" turn to simple and measurable
    rules that they can understand, even though some perfectly reasonable
    modes of dress would be disallowed.
    
    I've been following this case in the papers, and a later article said
    that the school board backed the school's actions.  Of course, I tell
    myself, what else could they have done?  I too think the whole episode
    was ridiculous, and having seen the picture of the girl and her
    outfit, I thought it was reasonable.  But schools, like government,
    please themselves by issuing restrictive and often arbitrary rules,
    partly out of wanting to demonstrate their power, all in the name of
    "doing what is best for you".
    
    There were equally silly dress codes when I went to school - I had
    to wear a jacket and tie to all classes, even when the temperature
    was in the 90s, had to wear a white shirt to dinner and a suit on
    Sunday.  (This was at a supposedly secular prep school in Maine.)
    My hair could not be over two inches long, or an appointment with
    the barber would be scheduled for me.  (Thankfully some of this
    silliness has been relaxed since then.)
    
    I do wish that schools would spend less time on dress codes and more
    on trying to ensure that the children get a decent education!
    
    				Steve

Re:  .15

>    With conservative Reagan, Ford, and Nixon appointees now controlling
>    the Supreme Court, ...

Somewhat minor nit here:  Ford's only court appointee was John Stevens, and
he hasn't been conservative at all.  The conservative appointees have come
from the Reagan and Nixon administrations exclusively, so far.

						--Q (Dick Wagman)

	Yes, Nixon appointed some *real* conservatives, like
	John Paul Stevens and Lewis Powell...

						Tom_K

Re: .17

Nixon's Supreme Court appointees were Warren Burger, Louis Powell, William
Rehnquist, and Harry Blackmun.  John Paul Stevens was the lone Ford Court
appointee.

						--Q

       re .18 (deeper into the tangent):
       
       Didn't Nixon make two other SC nominations, Carswell and
       (somebody_else), at least one of whom was later caught in a
       very wrong place at a very wrong time?
       
       --Mr Topaz

Re:  .19

>      Didn't Nixon make two other SC nominations, Carswell and
>      (somebody_else), ... ?

Nixon also nominated Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold (sp?) Carswell, both
of whom were rejected by the Senate.  If memory serves, Powell and Rehnquist
were then nominated (at the same time) to fill what by then had become two
Court vacancies.

I no longer recall the details of the Haynsworth and Carswell fights, although
I believe that at least one of them had some doubts cast on whether or not
he might be racially prejudiced.

						--Q

	Aha, I kept wanting to say Harry Stevens, but I knew that
	was wrong, so I finally came up with John Paul... Should
	have come up with a different last name, not a different 
	first.

	BTW: At some point Nixon very much wanted to nominate 
	Carla Hills to become the first female Justice, but felt
	it would be considered another "insider" appointment,
	Ms Hills working in the Executive Branch, and Rehnquist
	having been already appointed from the Executive Branch. Ms Hills
	is now in Bush's Cabinet.

	We return you to the Dress Code discussion already in progress...

					Tom_K