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.
Please read my post #40. We have the same problem in our community, and the principals do NOT support the parents.
Dress is an expression of speech and therefore there are fundamental conflicts between government owned and run schools and the First Amendment.
In private schools there is no such conflict. Dress codes are decided privately between the parent, principal, teachers, and members of the private school’s board of directors.
The “sluts” had a homosexual boy as their leader.
How about congratulating THIS SCHOOL and THIS PRINCIPAL for maintaining standards and condemning the obviously irresponsible parents who let the children dress like little tramps?
Let's face it the majority of the schools problems are irresponsible uninvolved parents.
This story clearly underscores that.
Answer:
Fundamentally, there is a conflict between government owned and run schooling and First Amendment human rights. It is a conflict for the student, the parent, and the taxpayer that can not be resolved.
In my county, the principal respects the First Amendment human rights of the students by allowing them free expression in dress, but tramples the First Amendment rights of the parents. In this school, in the article, the principal upholds the standards set by the voting mob, tramples the rights of students.
Within a government system of socialist-entitlement schools, this conflict can NOT be resolved. I should **congratulate** those who actively seek work within this system of inevitable human rights abuse?
As for this particular school, why are those kids still in government school? Hm? Why aren't these brilliant children finished with college by this time and working on their Ph.D. research? What a waste of talent and life.
If generations of children are sent into godless, socialist-entitlement, and compulsory state schools this is what eventually happens. We get moral degeneracy, socialism, and compliant prisoners of the state.
My grandmother ( born 1894) attended secular ( godless) government schools that merely nodded to God on occasion. How many generations of citizens is that? And...Every child since that time who has attended a godlessly secular government school since at least her time has learned to think and reason godlessly. They had to just to cooperate in the godlessly secular school. How could it be otherwise?
By the way, if hard core tyranny comes to the U.S., the oligarchy will not use cattle cars to haul the citizens off to the death camps. No. No. The” Powers that Be” will use big yellow school buses, and the sheeple will meekly board them just as they have been trained to do.
A) Purchasing or allowing their little angels to purchase such clothes.
B) Allowing the children to wear clothes like that in public.
C) Not supervising them closely enough to make sure they were dressed appropriately.
Make no mistake the parents are the ones to blame here and only the parents.
Of course an intelligent conservative person would never jump to the wrong conclusion in spite of all of the evidence and blame the school. No they would never make rash statements or blame the school for the obvious poor parenting skills, or for spoiling their precious angels who would never think of doing something wrong. No a real conservative would never do that.
You can still differentiate single women from married women by how they dress in the workplace.
Ok...So, let's assume a parent is capable of controlling a teen’s dress. ( This is isn't always possible since many teens work and have their own money and have friends who are more than willing to lend clothing.)
Why should this child, and his family, be **FORCED** into assembly ( remember that “assembly” is a First Amendment human right) with children whose parents hold different standards and values regarding dress, or may tempt the socially, spiritually, and psychologically immature child to borrow inappropriate clothing? Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for this First Amendment abomination?
Answer: Godless socialist-entitlement schools.
Schools are within their legal rights to establish dress codes and enforce them. You are also using red herrings saying that the parents can't control what the students wear.
Those are two logical fallacies.So please condemn these parents for doing a lousy job of raising their children.
Because a person with such a high degree of education would never ever resort to using logical fallacies to try and prove a point, they would never ever avoid answering a direct question by trying to switch the topic. Nope a person with a such a high degree of education would never ever resort to those types of tactics, never.
Would that include all those who now home school or have ever home schooled in the past.
I am surprised at this statement of yours, you would think that a person that claimed to have such a high degree would make such rash generalizations with out having all the facts. NO a person with such a high degree of education would never ever resort to the logical fallacy of boradstroke condemnation. No that would never ever happen. I am certain that they would stick to the topic at hand as well and not try to take a topic off on little rabbit trails and I am also certain that they would have enough character to actually commend the school for trying tho do the job that these parents are to careless or irresponsible to do themselves.
Legal right? Huh? Jim Crow was **legal** too!
my bad— Axelrod is correct
Here’s a broad stroke condemnation:
Fundamentally, there is a conflict between government owned and run socialist-entitlement, compulsory-attendance, and compulsory-funded schooling and the First Amendment!
All schools must control speech, press, assembly, and expression of religion just to maintain safety and order within the school. And...It is IMPOSSIBLE for any school to be politically, culturally, or **religiously*** neutral. This is axiomatic.
Therefore......When government owns and runs schools the government will trample the First Amendment Rights of the children, the parents, and the taxpayers who under armed police threat to pay for them.
Just within this thread there are differences of opinion as to whether the girls in the photographs were appropriately dressed for school,...and...this is a **conservative** site! How a child dresses is based upon the cultural and religious beliefs held by the parents and the child, himself. If conservatives can not agree here on this small thread ( a **conservative** site) it is IMPOSSIBLE for an entire community to come to an agreement. The most powerful political bully will win the cultural tug of war, the losing side will have its precious cultural, political, and religious beliefs crushed by the government and the voting mob.
Fundamentally....Government schools are a First Amendment and freedom of conscience abomination.
Solution: Begin the process of complete separation of school and state.
But Jim crow was declared unconstitutional and was discriminatory. Dress codes are legal and have been upheld by the courts. They are also not discriminatory because ALL students are expected to abide by them.
I am really surprised by the number of logical fallacies that a person who claims to have so much education resorts to. You would think that a person that claims to have spent that much time and money getting such a prestigious degree would not need to resort to the use of poor debating tactics.
And seriously if you can't stick to the topic at hand or form a decent argument then don't respond
I don’t get it. They look like normal girls in normal clothes. Not what I was expecting at all.
So let me get this straight...Your screen name harkens to freedom, yet you preach authoritarianism? Not just authoritarianism, but punitive authoritarianism where you want to gouge parents with ridiculously priced uniforms?
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.