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.
When you see it, you are gonna feel like a dirty old man for requesting it.
Come on Laz, as a wannabe dirty old man, pictures where what I wanted.
OH please GOD tell me that isn’t you Laz.
Just a minute I need to get the men in black with their memory eraser.
Also you should realize as a person with such a high degree of education that the First amendment is not an absolute right.
No one has the right to libel, slander or yell fire in a crowded movie.
Where is your reading comprehension?
It does NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT say that the girls were **in** school when they were interviewed.
My reading comprehension is quite excellent, apparently the trouble rests with writing skills. You very first sentence implies they were attending school at the time of the interview.
With that said, what does public school have to do with how those girls were dressed when they weren’t in school at the time?
Incidentally, I’ve been sorting through old family photos my father gave me and came across one of my cousin and I in September of 1969, in NYC. We were both wearing tank tops that my grandmother had made for us. I was 9 in 1969.
One of the reasons that dress standards have deteriorated in government schools since the 1960s is due to the court challenges children ( and their parents) have made regarding dress and the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, the courts rule in a narrow manner ( almost always in favor of upholding the First Amendment and those demanding freer expression with regard to dress) and have never addressed the fundamental conflicts that underlies all government K-12 schooling and the First Amendment.
Solution: Privatize universal K-12 education. Get government out of the education business. Dress standards should be decided in a private manner between parents and the private school principals and school directors.
The fundamental problem underlying the conflict reported in this article is the incompatibility of government K-12 schooling and the First Amendment.
It could also happen that the entire matter may become mute. With homeschooling growing, and with legislators desperate to balance state budgets with vouchers, charters, and tax credits that government K-12 schooling may merely become welfare schools or kiddie-prison schools for the most delinquent kids in the community. Or...( Hopefully) government schools may disappear completely and there may be complete separation of school and state.
Not being an attorney, I admit that the above is pure musings on my part. Perhaps, I should write a vanity asking for the opinions of Freeper attorneys on this matter.
Cat got your tongue?
You did not address my comments - which were actually addressing your on the topic - obviously you can’t because your usual rant was blown out of the water.
Have a lovely Lord’s day. I’m heading back out to the garden and then to the beach. It is too glorious a day to be wasting my time once again showing you do not know it all.
Public schooling doesn’t violate the First Amendment because it isn’t compulsory anywhere. You can always send your kids to a religious or secular private school consistent with your beliefs. The taxes assessed to support public school aren’t tuition — you pay them even if you don’t have kids.
A First Amendment right to a voucher would be an interesting argument, but would demand a pretty radical deconstruction of democratic principles, saying that individuals have a right to dictate how the government provides them services. It also creates Federalism issues because administration of education has always been a state issue, and most State constitutions have an explicit mandate for the provision of free common schools.
Hm?....It occurred to me, that in the court cases regarding dress codes that come before the courts, these case almost always begins with a defiant refusal to abide by the current government school dress code. Perhaps this is what the girls are doing. This may be a first step as part of a long range plan to further liberalize dressing standards.
At a certain point, ( hopefully) parents will be so disgusted with the slovenly environment of the government K-12 schools they will refuse to send their children to the government schools and taxpayers will deeply resent paying for them. With the rapid increase in the rate of homeschooling, now at 4% of the school-aged population ( likely higher), and the **long** waiting lists for charters, and vouchers, perhaps that point has already been reached.
Really? Just ask that girl who was jailed in Texas. That happened just this week.
That says the girls were in school at the time of the interview.
Before posting drivel, I suggest that you do a Google on the following:
Vouchers, New Orleans, After Katrina
Vouchers, Louisianna, Jindal
Vouchers, Ohio Court Ruling
Lottery Charter schools Harlem New York City
Vouchers Milwaukee
As usual you are wrong. Every time that dress codes have been addressed by the courts they have been upheld.
Freedom of expression is limited when the expression interferes with the rights of another. Your right to swing your fist is limited by the proximity to my nose.
Further dress codes have been put in place so that other students are not distracted by the attire of others.
Now stop going off on tangents.
The fundamental problem underlying the conflict reported in this article is the incompatibility of government K-12 schooling and the First Amendment.
Again you miss the point you were close when you said that the children were brats. Who raised those brats? Who sent them to that exclusive school? Who signed the code of conduct including the Dress Code?
The answer to all of the above is, THE PARENTS
What writing skills would those be? Seriously to this point I have not seen a demonstration of writing skills and very little comprehension skills.
You would think that someone that claims to have such a high degree would be able to form a cogent argument and put it in paragraph form. You would also think that that person would hit the "Spell" button every once in a while to verify the accuracy of their spelling.
You would also think that a person who home screwled (Intentional misspelling to make a point) Would do a better job to demonstrate their claimed ability to teach young minds.
You would think all of those things. Sadly you would be wrong.
The dress code is very reasonable. These children are just acting out.
And in any event, if this is the best ‘slutty’ dress these kids can imagine, they have a very poor imagination.
Dictionary.com
mute /myut/ Show Spelled [myoot] Show IPA adjective, mut·er, mut·est, noun, verb, mut·ed, mut·ing. adjective
1. silent; refraining from speech or utterance.
2. not emitting or having sound of any kind.
3. incapable of speech; dumb.
4. (of letters) silent; not pronounced.
5. Law . (of a person who has been arraigned) making no plea or giving an irrelevant response when arraigned, or refusing to stand trial (used chiefly in the phrase to stand mute ).
The word you wore actually looking for is Moot
Dictionary.com
moot1 /mut/ Show Spelled[moot] Show IPA adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law . not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
Perhaps, I should write a vanity asking for the opinions of Freeper attorneys on this matter.
Let me know what you want to say, I will decipher it and write it into a cogent paragraph or two so they will be able to understand it. and then you can post it. You wouldn't even have to give me credit as coauthor.
Great now you went and set her off. The next three days will be filled with: socialist, Prussian, compulsory, yadda yadda, blah blah blah.
You set her off your the one that is going to have to baby sit her.
Gabz and I and numerous others have had to hear this regurgitated palaver for several years now. PM if you want to know the truth about her.
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.