Conference back40::soapbox

>    4. Crime down, because local merchants can readily identify which
>       school shoplifters and trouble makers are from

I find this hard to believe.  Do the kids wear their uniforms all day or do
they go home and change?  Knowing which school a kid is from probably doesn't
narrow down the number of suspects enough to allow the perps to be caught.

    
    I find the uniforms worn by senior high school students of the female
    gender to be distracting, so I'm agin 'em.
    

    Perhaps the means of achieving the shoplifting reduction is different
    than advertised; perhaps the lack of baggy clothes makes shoplifting
    more difficult. Or perhaps the crime reduction takes into account a
    reduction in the number of kids assaulting each other over status
    clothes?
    

    According to the report I read, a great deal of the shoplifting and
    vandalism that occurs at shops close to the schools occurs right after
    school gets out and the students flood the stores.  The statistics
    showed that crime immediately dropped after uniforms were required. 
    Students who were interviewed said that the fact that a merchant would
    immediately know which school they went to was a deterent.
    

    I'd guess that it gives the cops a starting point and a good chance to
    close the case.  Given the school and an approx age, the cops can
    narrow down suspects to a few dozen.  When confronted, not all kids who
    shoplift are brazen enough to stand up to questioning.  It was policy
    in my old Grammar school to punish the whole class until the guilty
    party fessed up or someone squealed.  
    

    this was a m-a-j-o-r topic in the last box, n'est pas?

    I find the uniforms worn by senior high school students of the female
    gender to be distracting, so I'm for 'em.
    
                                        

    
    Re .0
    
    You forgot:
    
    7] about 50% reduction in the number of fights at the school.
    
    

 I am all for school uniforms.




 Jim

    
    	And where's the "Constitution" crowd that's supposed to be cry-
    	ing about infringing on people's rights via freedom of express-
    	ion?
    

    Uniform schools would be nice too.
    

    
    	Is that where the students go to learn how to wear the uniforms?
    
    	Or is that where the manufacturers go to learn how to make them?
    

    Maybe we should make the entire country wear the same clothes, I think
    the Chinese used to do this. After all we don't want individuals
    expressing themselves. Everyone must act as a group. The USSR called
    them Collectives and they seemed to work great. Sounds like the way to go! 
     :-)

    
>    	And where's the "Constitution" crowd that's supposed to be cry-
>    	ing about infringing on people's rights via freedom of express-
>    	ion?
 

  They can express themselves by whining about their freedom of expression
 rights after they're out of the public school system.  In the meantime, put
 on your uniform and get to school and learn.  It ain't a fashion show.



 Jim   

re .13:

We already do.  Jeans.

    
    I am in favour of school uniforms.
    
    

   .16  moi aussi

    I can hardly wait for the ACLU and/or other such folks to start denying
    the results and making up their own facts.  All the while ignoring the
    facts that crime is down, and al;though it's too soon to tell, learning
    may be up.
    
    What I believe is at the heart of this is that these kids sense that
    someone actually cares enough about them to say NO and tell them what
    is acceptable.
    
    I hope the trend continues to other parts of the country and other
    issues.
    

>    I can hardly wait for the ACLU and/or other such folks to start denying
>    the results and making up their own facts.  All the while ignoring the

    Without knowing for sure, I would predict that the ACLU's reaction
    would be along the lines of "So what if crime is down if your trampling
    on our rights."

    There was a lawsuit against the school district because of the
    uniforms.  I believe that the ACLU was involved.  The basic premise was
    that you were forcing poor people to pay money to buy their kids school
    uniforms (like they don't already need clothes).  Before the lawsuit,
    the school district had set up a second hand school uniform purchase
    program where you could get the uniforms for dirt cheap (a boys shirt
    was less than a pack of cigarettes.)  If you showed real hardship, then
    the (used) uniforms were free.

    -- Dave

Why don't they make the school uniforms something "cool" that the kids
would want to wear (maybe jeans and a sweatshirt or t-shirt) instead of
some geeky looking outfit of dress pants and a tie for the guys, or plaid 
skirts and a blouse for the girls?  

    I'm all for school uniforms.  Maybe jackboots for the teachers would
    work well, too?!

    
    Hey, plaid skirts aren't geeky!  I wear them all the time 8^).
    
    

    
    <------
    
    How about other plaid stuff????
    

    
    That's argyle!  Didn't you get a good look at Uno's?
           
    

Uno's makes an argyle pizza?

    
    >That's argyle!  Didn't you get a good look at Uno's?
    
    Argyle... plaid.... what's the difference??? Lines is lines!!!!!
    
    Actually, I think the customers just the other side of the window got a
    better look that I did!!!
    
    ;) ;)
    

    
    	so *that's* what happened at Uno's
    
    	one less inside joke to deciper...
    

    
    "stuff" can include a broad spectrum of... well.. stuff...
    

    I wore school uniform as a child and as a parent I bought school
    uniform for my child and I can tell you why crime is down amoung 
    children who wear them.  They scratch and itch so much you can't 
    thing about anything else but getting home and scratching!!!!
    
    They Uniforms are overpriced, badly cut and mostly made of shoddy 
    material.  They should be made of soft denim: pants, jumpers and 
    a jacket with the school logo on it, and a dark blue shirt under.
    
    Nuns in jackboots?  Under their habits who knew what they wore,
    but I wouldn't be suprised if they did.

>    2. Students cannot associate themselves with gang colors
>    3. Can't tell the difference between rich and poor, stylish and
>       non-stylish students (lessens class differences).

Yet more evidence that kids these days must really be dumbing down.

I spent two years in a "uniform" school (St. John the Evangelist,
Syracuse, Nort side) from 60-62 and watched my older sister spend
six years in another "uniform" school (Convent) before that. It
wasn't so much "gangs" as it was social cliques (same thing, no?)
but kids had no difficulties whatsoever differentiating and associating
themselves in ways that were perfectly obvious and recognizable by anyone 
even remotely familiar with the "society" of the school. A particular
size or color of ribbon worn pinned to a particular place on the
uniform, a hair style, a pin - plenty of ways to buck the system
and retain individuality.

    
    I wore school uniforms as a child also and I didn't find them
    uncomfortable or unattractive at all.  Grey pleated skirt, gold blouse, 
    grey felt hat, grey wool coat, & grey/gold scarf in the winter - 
    gold/white dress & straw boater in the summer.  Grey blazer with gold 
    trim & school logo year round. 
    
    As to overpriced, well, perhaps - they were sold at Harrods 8^).
    

    
    	"Colors" and city gangs are much more than "cliques".
    
    	Different color combinations denote different gangs, and if
    	the gangs are currently feuding then the feud could possibly
    	continue in the school.
    

Most, if not all, Australian primary and high schools require that students 
wear whatever the designated uniform is. The uniform for summer and winter may 
be different, and most primary schools now have a hat as part of the uniform.  
(Many of the primary schools also supply sun-block to the students)


\C

I think you missed my point, Shawn.

    
    	No, I didn't miss it ... MY point was that the "cliques" aren't
    	the problem when it comes to appearance.
    
    	Of course there are subtle ways of making yourself noticeable
    	that won't be obvious to an observer.
    

    They should also ban kids talking with their hands.  After all some
    could be gang recognition signs.  
    
    Don't need the gang colors to figure out who is who.
    
    meg

>    They should also ban kids talking with their hands.  After all some
>    could be gang recognition signs.  

    I'm sure that will go over real big at the School for the Deaf.

    -- Dave

    given that a deaf teen in CS was hassled by gangs thinking she was
    "dissing" them and supporting a different gang, the dangers are already
    present.

    OK deaf kids, you're no longer allowed to talk in school.  It's for
    your own good you know.

    But if it saves one life............
    
    
    

        Gawd, Deb - I can just see you as a St. Trinians kid!!
        
        &y
            

Deb played hockey?


\C

>    I find the uniforms worn by senior high school students of the female
>    gender to be distracting, so I'm for 'em.

pedofool.

    
    If you only knew the *power* of the Dark Side...
    

    I see nothing wrong with school uniforms.

    I think they should read the Sneeches on the Beaches.
    
    "Now the star bellied Sneetches had bellies with stars.
     The plain bellied sneetches had none upon thars .
     Those stars weren't so big they were really quite small.
     You would think such a thing wouldn't matter at all.
    
    
    But the star bellied sneetches would laugh.
    "We're the best sneetches on the beaches.
    With their snoots in the air they would sniff and they'd snort,
    We'll have nothing to do with the plain bellied sort.
    
    

    re: .45
    
    Did you ever wear them?  Six years of scratchy, itch-provoking
    wool jumpers, six years of navy blue knee socks that never stayed
    up, six years of crisp white short sleeved blouses that made you
    freeze in the classroom all winter long....no, I'm sorry,
    I would not wish those memories on any child.
    
    The only ones who benefit from uniforms are the parents.
    Uniforms are universally uncomfortable, poorly designed
    for play, and not well made.  
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
    re: .47
    
    Mary_Michael...
    
    You're showing your age!!!
    
    That's why I'll never admit to wearing those baggy wool baseball
    uniforms in Little League and Babe Ruth!! 
    
    :) :) :) :)
    

    
    
    
    re: .47 Mary-Michael,
    
    
    All this, all that!!!!!!
    
    
    What BS.
    
    My kids currently wear uniforms and they are none of the above in your
    diatribe.  Even if they were, there's no reason that a new uniform
    couldn't be designed to be economical as well as fully functional.
    
    
    Mike

    re: .49
    
    I agree.  Children do not need to look like little adults
    every day.  They are children.  They have the remainder of
    their adult lives to experience the joy of wearing uncomfortable
    clothing.  Uniforms should be something designed for play, like
    denim.  Denim is tough and inexpensive.  You can have seasonal
    accessories like short and long sleeve shirts and sweaters and
    even sweatshirts.  Comfortable, functional clothing.  That would
    be a much better alternative.
    
    Mary-Michael

    Mary-Michael are you opposed to uniforms or just the ill-fitting,
    uncomfortable ones you wore?
    
    If the discussion is around how is it designed and what is it made of,
    that's one issue.  the other is it a good thing to have school
    uniforms.
    
    I believe uniforms are very positive for numous reasons, but they can
    be a bit more comfortable than the ones of prior decades.
    

    RE: .40

>    But if it saves one life............

    Wow.  You'd actually eliminate the 1st ammendment to save one life?
    How many other stupid things can we do and justify it with "if it saves
    one life ..."
        1.  Reduce the speed limit to 5 mph (except for emergency vehicles)
        2.  Force everyone in hurricane areas to live in basements only.
        3.  Force everyone in earthquake areas to live in tents only.
        4.  Force everyone to eat a balanced diet within the USRDA
            guidelines (including government centers to do all the cooking
            and monitoring).
        5.  Quarintine all HIV+ people in a "leper colony".
        6.  Require chaparones for all dates.
        7.  Remove children from their parents at birth.

    I'm sure there are 100's more of equally inane things that can be done
    in order to save one life.

    -- Dave

Sensayuma disorder, there, Dave?

 .53  i'll say.

    
    	Dave, "if it saves one life" is a long-running joke in here.
    

	Ban Dave.

    
    Man, that Dave cat is a real flat tire.
    

    
    
    
    The objective of the school system is to educate our children.  Is
    keeping the fashion statement component out of the equation (By having
    uniforms) a step in getting this done.  
    
    
    Mike
     

>    	Dave, "if it saves one life" is a long-running joke in here.

    Oh sure.  Nail me for not recognizing an insider joke.  It didn't even
    have a smiley face on it.

    And by the way, I do have a sense of humor but it is severly warped.  I
    even have my own comic strip (and as soon as I get my home computer
    running again I'll post 'em on the WWWeb). 

    -- Dave

    re: .51
    
    It's a yes and a no.  I think self-expression and personal
    style are things that should be encouraged and that that 
    encouragement should start in childhood.  The arguments 
    many people have in favor of uniforms could as easily be
    applied to all of us in the working world as it could
    children in school.  The bottom line is that people are
    more easily controlled if they all look the same.  No
    individuality, no standing out in the crowd.  I would 
    concede that for disciplinary purposes in school it 
    may work out, but I believe in that case the uniforms
    should be comfortable and well-made.  It's a "kicking and
    screaming" concession, however, since I also believe that
    making everybody look the same won't solve the underlying
    problems causing the violence in our schools.  
    
    I wouldn't wish the uniforms that I had to wear on
    my neighbor's dog. :-)
    
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    

    
    
    
    One of the things that children must learn is the idea of what is
    appropriate.  When one is older, they can choose to wear whatever they
    want (cite bugman as exhibit A), but they need to learn that anything
    doesn't go.  If you go and apply for a job and wear you pants hanging
    off yer arse, a tilted baseball cap and a t-shirt, you ain't going to
    get the job (9 out of 10 times).  
    
    And, I do have a problem with mandatory uniform, but the decision
    should be made by the parents in the school district, maybe put it to a
    vote.  It SHOULD NOT be the kids decision.  They can practice their
    creativity on their own time, and yes they are on my time when at
    school, you see I fund it with my tax dollars.
    
    
    Mike
    
    

>    If you go and apply for a job and wear you pants hanging
>    off yer arse, a tilted baseball cap and a t-shirt, you ain't going to
>    get the job (9 out of 10 times).  

The tenth time, if you spell like George Maiewski, you'll be fortunate and 
get it anyway.

  .62  i no you.  your making fun of Georges' righting, are'nt you?
       you should'nt of did that.  spelling dosen't madder.

    YThanks for the clarification Mary-Michael.  I had to wear a uniform in
    grammar school, and even though we had some latitude, I still didn't
    like wearing the stupid thing.
    
    I would prefer that the concept of having uniforms in school wasn't
    even a consideration, but the reality is that the alternative in place
    today has resulted in some rather negative outcomes.
    
    Perhaps re-instituting uniforms for a period of time, regardless of
    their style, etc may be beneficial.
    
    I would like to see this done in all school systems where there is a
    drug, gang, discipline, etc problem and then judge the results over
    time.
    

    
    Where I went, the girls were forced to wear mustard yellow
    uniforms (although they had the choice of pants or skirt),
    but the boys had no uniform (although we did have to wear
    a jacket and tie)... not only was it sexist, but it made
    all the girls look like they were victims of hot dog
    accidents.

    -b

    
    Where I went, the guys wore the following uniform:
    
    - torn, faded blue denim jacket over a black & white concert t-shirt
    
    - torn, faded blue jeans
    
    - steel-toed Kodiak work boots, untied
    
    - an Adidas gym bag slung over the shoulder
    
    - if it was cold, a large flannel lumberjack shirt over the jacket
    

    
    .67
    
    What?  What?
    
    My high school was in an affluent urban neighbourhood!
    
    ;^)
    

    I too wore school uniforms.  My children currently wear 
    uniforms.  One thing I should mention however, is school 
    uniforms have improved 100% since I was in grade school.
    They are no longer, itchy, wool (some sort of blends) 
    and hot.  They come in various styles, colors and materials.
    Although my children wear jumpers everyday (in winter they're 
    allowed to wear any style navy blue slacks), many schools 
    have opted for the girls wearing plaid shorts and they are 
    really cute!  Some are even made of a soft cotton blend.
    
    Also, I don't think the cost of uniforms is any more (in 
    fact, I think it's less) expensive than having to buy outfits 
    daily for 3 girls.  With the fashions now being designer 
    this and designer that, I'd be in the poorhouse in no time! 
    As someone mentioned previously, MOST schools have sales 
    twice a year on used uniforms.  Our school charges $2 per 
    item.... with prices like those you can't go wrong.
    
    
    Of course I didn't mention the cost of tuition... now that's 
    another matter entirely :)

    I grew up in a family of 7 kids with myself in the middle so I always
    wore hand me downs with patches on the knees and elbows.  I'd kill for
    the uniform my daughter currently wears.  Even at the uniform exchange,
    lity. they are a certain quani

    I grew up in a sewer. When I went to school at the dump I would slosh
    on some toilet paper that would float by and by the time I got to
    the dump for class it had dried on quite nicely. Then, my friends and I
    would tease to poor kids.

                                !!!L*U*X*U*R*Y!!!

What!  No tie????


\C

    Yes everybody should wear the same clothes always. Let us not limit
    this great idea to just students. Imagine coming into work and a fork
    lift driver would be dressed in the same thing as an upper level
    manager. Men and women dressed the same would lead, no doubt, to less
    sexual tension in the job. This is truly a great idea lets do it!!
    
    Everybody--blue jeans and white t-shirts only and always for ever more.
    
    

    just one word for dave.
    
    dave, don't lettem get ya down man, you've got a good attitude i'd to
    see more of your attitude in here it is truly refreshing.

>    Also, I don't think the cost of uniforms is any more (in 
>    fact, I think it's less) expensive than having to buy outfits 
>    daily for 3 girls.

Hint: when clothes are dirty, you can wash them.  Also, you can buy more than
one outfit at a time.  There's no need to buy new clothes every day.

>Hint: when clothes are dirty, you can wash them.
    
    Tell us more about "wash", Earthling!
    

    >>>Hint: when clothes are dirty, you can wash them.  Also, you can buy
    >>>more than one outfit at a time.  There's no need to buy new clothes
    >>>every day.
     
    
    Oh, you're soooo funny! (I acknowledge my error.) 
    
    But let me explain it further since you have some difficulty 
    understanding... what was meant by my statement was I do not 
    have to put together 3 separate outfits every morning. All I 
    have to worry about is ironing a few "clean" blouses.
    
    And typically, MOST of my friends/family who have children who 
    do not wear uniforms, buy each child (at the beginning of the 
    school year) one outfit for each day of the week (then again, 
    as the seasons change).  
                
    Personally, I had my fill of selecting outfits for the kids 
    during their stints in preschool... hey, I have all I 
    can do to find an outfit for myself at 5:00 a.m.!
    

   .78  doy.

What's all this about *school* uniforms?  Most people in professional job 
(well, the men, anyway) have to wear something that is scarcely any different 
from the school uniform; dark suit, light shirt, tie etc.  Fortunately, as a 
home worker, I managed to escape from that, although I still have to wear the 
bloody things when I'm visiting customers.

Never could figure out why this doesn't equally apply to women (case in hand, 
whilst at Philips, the women turned up wearing jogging suits and the like, but 
a male colleague got a bollocking for not wearing a tie on a particularly hot 
summer day)

Chris.

    
    I've worked for companies where women *had* to wear nylons, no matter
    what the temperature in summer.
    
    I've also worked for companies where women weren't allowed to wear
    trousers, no matter what the temperature in winter.
    
    It applies all around.
    
    

    
      I've worn "uniforms", and it's no big deal - it has many
     practical advantages.  By the way, people find lots of ways to
     introduce individualism in uniformed situations.
    
      bb

    I used to be forced to wear nylons too. Bloody uncomfortable when you
    have lots-oleg hair. 

    
    I used to wear nylons. I found them comfortable and warm ....
    
    
    Of course, that was the only way I could get my wet suit to slide
    on  :-)
    
    Doug.

    oleg hair?  Cassini calfs?  

     SJC says school wrong to ban T-shirt:Says
     outlawing 'Naked' item OK only if it caused
     disruption

     By Matt Bai, Globe Staff, 07/26/96

Co-ed naked marching bands at the state's public school are still
definitely out. But the T-shirts can stay.

Essentially putting to rest a three-year legal battle that pitted two
brothers against a school system, the state Supreme Judicial Court said
yesterday that South Hadley High School did not have the right to ban a
T-shirt that administrators said was vulgar.

The T-shirt, bearing the slogan ``Co-ed Band - Do it to the Rhythm,'' could
only have been outlawed if it incited an actual disruption, the justices
said.

But at a time when teen-agers are skirmishing with school officials
throughout the state over everything from baseball caps to nose rings to
proposed uniforms, the decision seemed unlikely to put to rest the
decades-old war over what is appropriate dress in a public school.

Karen Northrup, whose 16-year-old daughter was forbidden from wearing a
nose ring to Carver High School, said she would seize on the decision to
try to have her daughter reinstated to the school, nose ring and all.

Northrup's daughter, Casie, spent last year at a public school in Plymouth.
But Northrup has been notified that now she must either move to that town
or send her daughter back to Carver High without the nose ring.

``It a form of expression, just like when I was younger, long hair was a
form of expression,'' Northrup, 39, said. ``I think we have a fighting
chance because of this new precedent.''

Others said the court's decision guaranteed free speech - not free dress -
and that schools could continue to ban clothing as long as they did not ban
the sentiments depicted on it.

``If the school had said they weren't allowing any T-shirts, I don't think
it would be an issue,'' said Robert V. Antonucci, the state's commissioner
of education..

The South Hadley controversy started innocently enough in 1993 when Jeffrey
Pyle, the newly-elected drum major of the marching band, wore the shirt his
mother had given him for Christmas. When his gym teacher ordered him to
turn it inside out, Pyle, now a senior at Trinity College in Hartford,
refused.

He and his younger brother, Jonathan, then set out to protest the school's
dress code by wearing other T-shirts deemed offensive. They sued the school
system later that year and lost in federal court.

But a federal appeals court threw out that verdict and asked the state's
high court for an opinion based on the state's Free Expression Law. That
opinion, issued yesterday, is not binding, but lawyers said the federal
court is likely to heed it.

The justices' decision harkened back to a precedent set in federal court in
1969, when the court ruled that students in Des Moines could wear black arm
bands to protest the war in Vietnam.

William C. Newman, the lawyer who brought the case on behalf of the Pyles
and the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the goal of the suit
was to get school officials to talk to students or parents about offensive
clothing rather than ban it outright.

``Censorship is the last resort, not the first reaction,'' Newman said.
``If the teacher talks to the student, that would solve the problem most of
the time.''

South Hadley school officials and the former principal of the high school
declined comment yesterday, saying they had not had time to read the
ruling.

State Rep. John C. Klimm (D-Barnstable), the author of a bill that would
authorize public school districts to impose dress codes, including
mandatory uniforms, said the court's decision would galvanize support for
his measure.

The bill, which has not yet been voted on, has the backing of Gov. William
F. Weld.

Robert C. Norton, principal of Woburn High School, said the ruling isn't
likely to affect his dress code, which is one of the toughest in the area.
Norton has banned a range of T-shirts and hats that he deems offensive,
although the ``co-ed naked'' shirts are not among them.

``Anything that creates a climate of controversy is disruptive,'' Norton
said. ``You don't have the right to offend anyone else.''

This story ran on page b1 of the Boston Globe on 07/26/96.

Hmph.  Wonder where these kids parents are.

 Well, now that that is settled, perhaps they can deal with the minor issues
 for which schools exist, such as educating them.



 Jim

re .88

It seems like the parents are right there, buying nekkid t-shirts and
nose rings and helping to pay for the kids' fights in court.

/john

    I had a chat with a liberal's liberal the other day about public
    schools. She was working as an interpreter in a high school in MA. She
    claims that any actual education that occurs is strictly incidental;
    public schools are "babysitting services" and she is "afraid for the
    future" after having spent 8 hrs a day in an actual high school for the
    last year.

 Ah, they're just kids being kids..



 Jim removing tongue from cheek to say that he shares her fear for the 
 future.

    Parents have a responsibility to raise some consciousness
    on school boards and get involved in a child's education.  No point in
    fearing for the future and pinning it on educators alone.  having been
    involved in the schools my kids have attended, I know that without
    parental involvement and teaching responsibility and respect in the
    home, kids will not get the education needed during school hours. 
    However, I fail to see where a co-ed band shirt is any more offensive
    than most stuff I see on the back of many cars, that ADULTS, (at least
    in name) drive.  As long as a shirt is relatively clean, and not
    creating a disturbance, I fail to see a problem with the content on it.  
    Instead focus on teaching reading, mathematics, history (something which
    apparently too many people have forgotten) science, and survival
    skills.  
    
    meg

    Hey, in a sense I agree.  The shirt is a reflection on the parents low
    rent mentality.  People of this ilk don't have to be heeded as trend
    setters.
    
    -Jack

    Attention is the reason for the shirts. I guess it worked. 
    
    I say we stop these kids now!!! This expression of individualism should
    not be tolerated. We do not want the public schools in the United
    States of America turning into bastians of individual free thought. It
    might interfere with those who want to pray.
    
    
    In case you are wondering, the previous statement was sarcasm.

I'm still 'fused.

I got no problem with expressing individualism, etc.

It's just that if any of my siblings or I tried to wear a Tee-shirt to
school (be it flat white or one that said "Kill all cops"), my parents
woulda stroked out on me.  After beating me to a senseless pulp, that is. 
(No comments on whether they finished half the job anyway.)

Which again begs the question: Where are these kids' parents?  What are
these kids' parents?  What am I missing here?

  oh yeah right - naked co-ed bands, doing it to the rhythm is really
  expressive of individualism.  sher.  duh.


  "It's possible to be so open-minded that your brain slips out."

    Things are not the same with kids in school today as when we went to
    school.  And I'm not saying they are worse, or better, just that they
    are not the same.  When I grew up in Maryland public schools in the
    50s they would not let kids wear jeans or tee shirts.  You could wear
    slacks of your choosing and shirts of your choosing, but the school
    definitely had *some* say in what people wore.  Girls could not wear
    skirts that were too short.
    
    I see plenty of adults wearing "coed naked [whatever]" shirts out in
    public in stores, so what on earth do those people think is so awful
    about kids wearing them?  My son and all his friends wore them in
    school from time to time with no problem.  What's the big deal?
    
    And also back then teachers and/or school administrators could spank
    kids or otherwise handle them (hug 'em or break up a fight, e.g.)
    without fear of prosecution.  I remember in 3rd grade a kid liked to
    hit other kids, so one day the teacher held his arms and invited all
    the other kids to hit him, most of whom did not take her up on the
    offer.
    
    In case anyone thinks we should go back to the way things were in those
    good old days, the kid above led a very bad life and ended up killing a
    cab driver in Florida when he was 17.  His mother, when interviewed by
    police, didn't even know that he hadn't been in Maryland for the past 3
    months.
    
    There were problem kids back then, and there are now.  All in all, I
    don't think that a regression to earlier ways of doing things is
    necessarily going to help anything.                            

    > oh yeah right - naked co-ed bands, doing it to the rhythm is really
    > expressive of individualism.  sher.  duh.
    
      It's a T-Shirt. No one is really naked. HTH!

>   <<< Note 613.99 by GENRAL::RALSTON "Only half of us are above average!" >>>

>      It's a T-Shirt. No one is really naked.

	no kidding.

>      HTH!

	it doesn't.

    If we go back to the '50s, can they wear a "Dated, Cowed Student"
    T-shirt?

    I remember back in the 60's when I had a T-Shirt with a picture of a
    male bovine on it with the inscription:
    
    			BULLSHIRT
    
    I was not allowed to wear it to school, though the principle laughed
    when he saw it. Oh and by the way, I didn't actually bring a bull to
    school. Some people in here think there is no difference between a
    t-shirt inscription and the real thing.

    Still like to live dangerously eh?

    You betcha!  :)

>  <<< Note 613.102 by GENRAL::RALSTON "Only half of us are above average!" >>>

>   Some people in here think there is no difference between a
>   t-shirt inscription and the real thing.

	They do?  Who are these people and why would Digital hire such
	mental midgets?

     >Who are these people and why would Digital hire such mental midgets?
    
    Need a new topic for that one.  :)

    Also went to a private boys prep school for last couple of years of
    high school.  Had to wear a uniform of grey slacks, blue blazer, white
    shirt, and blue/gold striped tie.  Black shoes.  
    
    I did not know anyone who minded the uniform.  In fact we all felt
    kinda spiffy in it, and the local girls seemed to be favorably disposed
    towards it as well.
    
    I wonder how those public schools are doing that have instituted dress 
    codes or uniforms.
             

    > "It's possible to be so open-minded that your brain slips out."
    
    Oh yes, this is indeed true.  

    re: .107
    
    Glad you liked yours.  I hated mine.  It's no small
    coincidence that when you have large groups of people that
    you want to unquestioningly follow orders, the first thing you do is
    give them all a uniform.  Without a uniform, they might think
    they were individuals, might starting thinking for themselves,
    eeesh, how could we have that?
    
    I think I'd prefer to teach kids proper costuming for everyday 
    situations (and it's all costuming, really), and leave them some
    latitude for a little creative expression.  
    
    I find uniforms extraordinarily offensive.

    I'm trying to remember why I didn't mind the school uniform back then. 
    I actually surprise myself by that, given my attitude about most
    things... :-)
    
    Perhaps it is because the school I went to was not in itself a
    repressive place.  I liked the school, liked most of the teachers, and
    liked most of my fellow students.  The school was not the kind of place
    where they also try to inculcate the students with a prescribed set of
    moral beliefs in addition to history, math, physics, etc.  It prepped
    mainly for the Naval Academy, but was also just a good all-around
    school that gave me a chance to get one year older before going to
    college.
    
    If it had been an oppressive school that was also trying to brainwash
    me into beliefs I did not want to accept without question, then I
    probably would have seen the uniform as an extension of that, and would
    have hated it too.

    >Without a uniform, they might think
    >they were individuals, might starting thinking for themselves,
    >eeesh, how could we have that?
    
     On the other hand, some people don't need clothes or an earring or
    long hair or tattoos or body piercing to demonstrate their
    individuality. Some people find that deeds can be sufficient to
    differentiate them from the rest of the pack.
    

    re: .110
    
    But that doesn't mean that people who do have tattoos,
    or body piercing are any less intelligent or successful
    than anyone else.  As a society, we are more stuck up on
    looking like everyone else than other cultures.  I think people
    with purple hair, nose rings, tattoos, aren't much different
    than people in blue suits, wing tips and starched white shirts.
    Be it a nose ring or a power tie, you're still making a statement about
    yourself.  After all, we're all born naked :-)
    

    These things are fads anyway, and they'll change as soon as the kids
    have gotten all the mileage out of it then can.
    
    Who knows, maybe they'll start showing up in tuxes next.
    
    I can remember when it was outrageous for a guy to show up at school
    with long hair.  And I remember when my son's generation thought it was
    pretty wierd when some guy showed up with a crew cut.
    
    Best thing is don't get so excited about stuff that doesn't mean
    anything anyway.

    > After all, we're all born naked
    
    Not all of us.  Some babies are born wearing a caul.  (Which was highly
    prized by the purple-haired tattooed Celtic druids.)

You certainly cauled her on that one.