Posted on 06/08/2012 8:12:40 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Students at New York City’s Stuyvesant High are unhappy with a dress code that bans girls from wearing Daisy Dukes and tank tops to school along with other such inappropriate clothing.
To protest the restriction on their supposed right to wear as little as possible to school, the girls held a so-called “Slutty Wednesday” demonstration this week. They complained that Stuyvesant’s dress code is unfair, particularly to well-endowed girls.
Lucy Greider, a Stuyvesant freshman, told the New York Post she’s been sent to the principal’s office 10 times this school year for showing off too much cleavage, midriff or shoulder.
“Sometimes the teachers will call you out in the hallway,” she whined, adding “I like what I wear. I want to have my own style in school.”
Meanwhile, boy students, protesting in solidarity with underdressed female classmates like Greider, complained that school administrators assume they cannot control their raging hormones when they’re in the company of teen-aged babes wearing next to nothing.
But it’s not like Stuyvesant is telling Greider and other female students that they have dress like Amish girls.
Its dress code, put in place last year, states that shoulders, underwear, midriffs, and lower backs are not to be exposed. Shorts, dresses and skirts must extend below a student’s finger tips with their arms straight at their sides.
In practical terms, that means Stuyvesant girls can’t wear tank tops, halter tops or sports tops (the kind often seen in workout videos). Nor can they wear short shorts, micro-miniskirts or itty bitty dresses.
It also means that Stuyvesant boys can’t wear wife beaters and “sags” to class.
The girls have to make do with clothes that don’t make them look like teen-age street walkers. The boys have to do without gear that makes them look like they just got out of the joint.
If the upper-middle-class Stuyvesant girls just have to get their hoochie on, if the white-bread Stuyvesant boys feel they need to represent that they’re living the thug life, they all can do so after school each day, on weekends, on spring break and on summer vacay.
The pity is that the parents of the students who staged the New York City high school’s “Slutty Wednesday” protest gave it their tacit approval.
They are obviously unmindful of the Scripture that advises parents to train up a child in the way he (or she) should go. Otherwise their teens wouldn’t go to school each day wearing whatever – or not wearing whatever – their precious little hearts desire.
So, then, since so many of the Stuyvesant kids are apparently getting no adult guidance at home as to appropriate school attire, the responsibility has fallen to the New York City high school’s principal and teachers.
Those beleaguered educators are not the bad guys in the highly-publicized dispute over Stuyvesant’s student dress code. It’s the Stuyvesant parents who don’t care how slutty their kids look when they leave the house.
I don't think anyone in this forum is surprised by this statement. But you would think that someone that claims to be so much in favor of proper education would be more careful with the way they presented themselves, or even how they kept up their house. You would think that a person that claims to be so highly educated would be capable of writing a simple paragraph.
I'm so sexy!
A First Amendment right to a voucher...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A First Amendment Right to a voucher? ( Palm slamming head)
Please tell me. Were you schooled by the government in a government K-12 school?
Also...Regarding: “You can always send your kids to a religious or secular private school consistent with your beliefs”
There are two problems with this statement:
1) Unless a parent can ransom their child by paying private school tuition or by taking on the expenses of homeschooling, they and their child are by law required to send their child into a government school. If they refuse, the government will threaten them with armed police and court action. If they are sufficiently defiant of the authorities the government might even kill them.
2) Government socialist-entitlement K-12 schools are a price-fixed monopoly. They are giving an educational service away for the price-fixed cost of tuition-free. This cartel of government price-fixed schooling creates a very hostile environment for the creation of private schooling. Many counties, such as mine, have NO private schooling. This is to be expected. What business can compete against a government protected cartel of price-fixed schools?
The word is “moot”.
Obviously I am too old to know what “Daisy Dukes or wife beaters” are. sob~
Is the topic Dress Codes or my writing skills? Hm?
Just wondering, since you have been very concerned on this thread about staying on topic.
It could also happen that the entire matter may become mute.
I know it is moot, apparently you don't know the difference.
Hello kettle this is the pot you're Black!
all of a sudden you realize this after how many posts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.