Maybe dresses are for girls, but not all girls are for dresses
Region 8 Student Challenges Graduation Dress Policy
Doniphan Jr. High has an unwritten dress policy for its graduation ceremonies. The dress for girls is dresses (or long skirts). No pants allowed to the female students. 8th grader heather Williams disagreed and did something about it.
“Girls should not have to wear dresses to be able to do something big,” said Williams.
…Williams’ mother Tracie Turner contacted the American Civil Liberties Union in St. Louis for help.
“The student was told that she would not be allowed to participate in any graduation activities unless she was wearing a dress. Not only would she not be able to walk in the processional, but she would not be able to sit with her fellow graduates and they would not even read her name at graduation. Essentially erasing her from the roll of graduates,” said Denise Lieberman of the ACLU.
The school’s excuses were typically lame. We’ve always done it this way. It’s too late for a change. It will cause chaos. Girls look prettier in dresses. I’ve got a few women in my life that I strongly recommend you never use a “girls look prettier in dresses” excuse on. It would hurt, trust me.
The school eventually changed the policy for Heather, but says it was not because of legal action from the ACLU.
Superintendent Dr. Steve Bounds said, “There were some extenuating circumstances that I really can’t go into detail on. Some issues involving the young lady in the past and that’s why we made the exception to our policy for this particular graduation ceremony.”
The key here is they changed it “for Heather”. The policy isn’t actually changed, they made an exception for her. They don’t anticipate changing the policy because the graduation ceremony is “more of a privilege than a right, so to speak”, according to Superintendent Bounds. I suppose that’s true in a way but it actually is a right for pretty girls to receive equal treatment from their schools, even when it is privileges that are the item of concern.
I can imagine nothing less important than this issue.
There is real “zero tolerance” out there. Can’t we just focus on that a bit, hmmm?
You’re wrong, Ed. This issue is important and does deserve attention.
This is not precisely a zero tolerance case, but then this is not precisely a zero tolerance site. I examine any and all aspects of administrative idiocy and this is one of them. This case is a perfect example of the ivory tower “untouchable” mentality that infects school administrations and leads to unfair and often illegal policies (like the one detailed here).
A school system is institutionalizing their students with a “little girls should be cute and silent” mentality. They defend their position with logical fallacy. When it is pointed out to them that their position is illegal and indefensible they still refuse to admit that they are incorrect. They abjectly refuse to correct the illegal policy, adding another fallacious argument in defense of it. They do all this despite the fact that they acknowledge that they are wrong by buckling under when a student convinces them she will actually stand up for herself.
This might not be as outrageous as a boy expelled for possession of a rubber band shooter but it’s just as important.
And I want to distinguish this case from the one we got into heated discussions over a short time ago.
First, unlike the military uniform controversy, there is no particularized garb specified for a graduate. In the other case, the requirement was for the cap and gown in the name of uniformity. It applied to all students. In this case, limiting girls to dresses in only the most fleeting way establishes a uniformity of garb.
More imortantly, this young lady and her family sought to defuse the situation before graduation, rather than taking the matter in to their own hands at the graduation. Thus they sought to work within channels to resolve the conflict.
An eighth grade “graduation”? Who cares? The silly idea of kids “graduating” from anywhere they don’t get a diploma is where this whole stupidity began. Take away the nonsense “graduation” and what do you have? A dress code. And one that simply says (in part, I’m sure) that girls wear dresses for this nonsense event. So? A non-issue for a non-event.
Pretentious flapdoodle. Zero Intelligence awards ought to go to parents, schools, students who get their panties in a twist over something as stupid as an eighth grade “graduation”—no matter what other non-issue they attach.
I’m going to take a wild guess that David doesn’t have any children.
I can assure you that completing the requiremets of grade school and moving to high school are of great import to the students and their families. No, it’s not the life event that high school or college graduation are. But the graduation itself doesn’t matter in the least here.
It doesn’t matter that the cute girl dress code was invoked at graduation. It could just as easily have been an assembly, homecoming, dance, field trip or just a regular day at school. The event couldn’t be less important. The important thing is the illegal and improper policy of the school and the school’s bullheaded and illogical defense of said policy.
I’m glad she stood up for herself and won. Typical red neck mentality in that school, I might add. The south is an anti-youth area of the country.
Just because a school believes girls should wear a dress doesn’t make it a redneck school. Is it the height of intelligence to have boys wear dresses?
On the other comments, rites-of-passage are a too often forgotten way of giving people a sense of accomplishment. Something can have importance whether it is finishing eighth grade or having a child, or losing a loved one to cancer, or making it to 30. Most people wouldn’t cancel baby showers and funerals or birthdays.
I think the key thing in this story was the fact that the policy was ”unwritten”. If the school policy was set down in writing before this, the student would clearly have needed to comply. But having such a harsh penalty for an unwritten rule is out of line. Its good to see everyone involved worked it out; its unfortunate it had to get threatening (for the school) but sometimes the threat of force helps.
An institutionalized sexism, limiting what female students are allowed to wear at a ceremony? And some of you don’t see this is an important issue?
How do they detail what the boys must wear? I thought we had passed the era when schools could get by perpetuating gender stereotypes…ie., girls MUST wear dresses. What if the girl is from a poor family and doesn’t own a dress? What if the girl simply does not like dresses? How would a nice pair of dress pants and a blouse hurt the proceedings?
It isn’t the event that is important, it is the fact that they are attempting to require a dated gender stereotype upon this female student. Require the students to dress nicely for the event, sure. Demand that they live up to your wish for the type of clothing based upon gender…no way.
Personally, I’d make a dress for my daughter and paint the words “This is the sexist costume the school board insists girls wear.” on the back of it. Hey, it would be a nice dress.
David said: Pretentious flapdoodle.
What a great satement! I love it!
I tend to agree. We put too much emphasis on every little thing in this day an age, but that isn’t the point of this discussion.
I agree with Ed Faulkner. It’s not really an issue of equal treatment: I’ll bet the boys aren’t allowed to wear dresses, either. I don’t see a problem with a school requiring a uniform to take part in a formal ceremony. As for the other aspects, not being able to sit with the other graduates and not having one’s name read, well, either you’re part of the ceremony or you’re not. As I understand it, the girl would still be allowed to graduate. Big deal! Many people choose not to attend graduation ceremonies. It’s up to the particular school, but in many cases those people’s names aren’t read either, although they may be listed in the program.
If the school required a uniform there wouldn’t be a problem. Uniform = same. This school is requiring an anti-uniform. Separate and unequal specifications depending on gender. With real world consequenses for violation of an unofficial rule.
Whether some people choose not to attend these ceremonies has absolutely no bearing on the the issues here.
Interestingly enough, this cloting requirement would prohibit the wearing of a suit by a girl, which is always proper business attire, while allowing a “pimp suit” (almost never appropriate business attire) on the part of a boy.
The “uniform requirement” is so Non-uniform” as to make it capricious.
[comment moved to correct post]
Came across this post why researching the legality of dress codes. Interesting. One thing that comes to mind is the issue of gendered sexism. Forcing girls to wear dresses reinforces gendered stereotypes of what females ought to and not ought to do and be. So, hurray for Heather. But, if this is so, isn’t forcing boys to wear pants also stereotyping boys (and, by extension, men)?
[profane] if you want to wear what you want you should be able to no matter what. im a “REDNECK” and school ain’t stopping me from wearing what i want.
this is outrageous, girls are being steroetyped in my point, i do not want to wear a dress. i am going to my graduation in pants and a sweater, i will look just fine, if nto better. i am against being forced to do anything, i do not want to be a clone. we have a uniform in my school and it forces us to suffocate out individuality and be the same as everyone else. we were made diffrent and so should we dress.
Maybe yall should get all the facts first. It was not totally unwritten, the students were given a note to take home regarding the graduation and the dress attire. It has been a tradition since the graduation itself. One thing this country needs is more of this small town mentality. Look at where all this other ‘liberal’ thinking has taken society, can you honestly say its for the best? Of course Doniphan Jr. High couldnt go up against the ACLU and their huge budget, but what matters is that the community took a stand for what their traditional values stood for. I believe this whole issue only brought more negative attention to the situation and the girl then need be. Tell me this, why did the mom run straight to the ACLU (the same group that supports and defends NAMBLA?). Keep the big city ideology out of our small towns.
Interesting that the Doniphan School District never learns… After making fools of themselves for making girls pretend it is still the 50s, they are now sued by the ACLU for having TEACHER-LED PRAYER IN THEIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. Of course, any one who has been paying the slightest attention to the Supreme Court in the last 50 years knows that is forbidden… but Doniphan says they have always done it. Perhaps No Child Left Behind should be adapted to no City left behind because these folks are stuck in the past, to the deteriment of the children.
once again, another post that refuses to look at reality. where exactly do you live? This kind of stuff happens in small rural schools all over America with no complaints until some out of towner moves with with an agenda. This lady moved from the city and knew she could make trouble with the help of the ACLU. Dont you find it quite strange that she refuses to use her real name? How about the fact she is looking for monatary compensation for emotional distress? Or what about the fact that she attended the first one, they prayed but then she came back again the next day for the other assembly. Just another person out looking for some quick cash, but isnt that hypocritical since the money she is handed will have the words “In God We Trust” on it! Oh my gosh that will kill her! As I said in the previous post, keep this big city ideology out of our traditional communites, if you dont like it dont move there!