pesco at May 29th, 2014 13:17 — #1
jandrese at May 29th, 2014 13:24 — #2
They edited out the tattoo too. I guess this is very important for all of the future employers who are poring over high school yearbook photos of their potential employees... I mean they wouldn't want to accidentally hire someone who isn't pretty or white.
boundegar at May 29th, 2014 13:27 — #3
The original photo is in no way inappropriate, except it is sexy, and people under 18 do not have sexual identity, except sluts. Q.E.D.
ashen_victor at May 29th, 2014 13:28 — #4
“We only apologize in the sense that we want to be more consistent with
what we`re trying to do in that sense we can help kids better prepare
for their future by knowing how to dress appropriately for things,” said
Terry E. Shoemaker, who is the superintendent of schools for the
Wasatch County School District.
"We will proceed to add burqas to every single female student yearbook picture" gleeful continued the superintendent.
rjmeelar at May 29th, 2014 13:30 — #5
This is what the American religious establishment is most concerned about in our schools; The bare shoulders and cleavage of white girls, not teaching science, not allowing students to read anything that might encourage students to think.....
Do they also retouch acne when removing your child's breasts from school photos?
Also, I bet the pictures of their swim team are precious.
dobby at May 29th, 2014 13:33 — #6
I have always thought of the yearbook as a collection of local mugshots, as or more useful than collecting fingerprints. Everytime there is a criminal incident the press goes to the local libarary to grab a pic from the collection, obviously the police too. Editing out the tatoo might just save some kid from being dragnetted in a few years. I am more pessimistic about the actual police state than the waning modesty police in small town Dirty Dancing America.
daedalus at May 29th, 2014 13:36 — #7
They hate our freedoms and want our women to hide their beauty. They stand for everything that is un-American. They forbid alcohol and even coffee. They won't be happy until we are all under their religious laws. The believe in a different God, in a different holy book.
They are: Mormons in Utah.
ghostly1 at May 29th, 2014 13:36 — #8
Of course, because, who knows, they may be acne, they may be extra nipples. And it would be illegal to show THOSE. Better to be safe than sorry.
dobby at May 29th, 2014 13:39 — #9
Daedalus, I once heard that God sent mormons down so regular Christians would finally know how the Jews feel.
deidzoeb at May 29th, 2014 13:47 — #10
Hiding kids' witchmarks may save them from being burned at the stake by others in this community.
jandrese at May 29th, 2014 13:48 — #11
You're in luck, I've found a picture of their swim team.
Edit: Rehosted the image.
boundegar at May 29th, 2014 13:55 — #12
Hmm, 404 on my end.
EDIT: working now, damn that's some hot porn!
ffabian at May 29th, 2014 14:08 — #13
Do you know where else cleavage is censored in official pictures in exactly the same style? Iran!
The US gets frighteningly similar to Iran over time. Religious extremists in politics, torture and now this ...
spunkytws at May 29th, 2014 14:14 — #14
That superintendent's "apology" is one of the most asinine things I've read in quite a while. I get that educators often feel pressured to try and guide young people to make the right sorts of decisions about their future, but this seems like overdoing it.
And if the superintendent really thought this was a concern then there should have been a stated dress code for the yearbook photos. But I guess she didn't want to say "no tits and no tats".
ghostly1 at May 29th, 2014 14:44 — #15
The tat thing is kind of especially weird to me. Because with the clothes, you could at least sort of argue that you're representing them... sure, it may not be how they looked on that PARTICULAR day, but at least they're covering, not altering. It'd be like if they had a teacher standing by with an overshirt and forced them to put it on if their clothes were deemed inappropriate... just a lot more cowardly, because they're doing it after the fact and thus not giving them a chance to protest or change on their own. It's still wrong, but a lesser wrong.
But the tattoo, they actually changed what the person's actual skin looked like... and not in a transient way like removing a pimple that is only there for a few days and it was just bad luck it happened to be on photo day... this is what her skin's going to look like for the forseeable future, and they changed it. To me, that's more like a big ol, "Your body ITSELF is unacceptable to our standards." And... %$#! that, you've failed as a school if you ever send that message.
malarkey at May 29th, 2014 14:50 — #16
I immediately suspected the tatt was the reason for the edit. Grownups can be SUCH a buzzkill, sometimes.
redstarr at May 29th, 2014 15:02 — #17
If the Superintendent really wanted to do what they said they want to do, teach kids how to dress appropriately for things, they would have made a strict policy that would be in place BEFORE the pictures are shot, not alter them after.
If you really want to teach that school pictures are something you need to dress conservatively for, you lay out in no uncertain terms what clothes are okay for picture day, and then any student who doesn't show up dressed appropriately has the choice to borrow a loaner top (it's not tough to have a couple of plain one-size fits most tee-shirts on hand that they can throw on for the shot over their inappropriate clothing) or they can opt to not have their picture taken and included in the year book. That would help kids to learn to stay within the guidelines for appearance or to deal with the consequences of opting to be outside of those guidelines. And it would require no photoshopping and no difficult or inconsistent choices for the school to make about the pictures after they're done. The only decisions would be super basic, like if there's no sleeves on the shirt they show up in or it doesn't have a collar that comes up to the neck in front, they get to put on the loaner tee shirt or get pulled from the picture line right then and there.
skeptic at May 29th, 2014 15:54 — #18
The school district rules say that girls' shoulders must be covered for the sake of "modesty". But it also says that head coverings may not be worn indoors, except for religious reasons. You have to have the exact right balance of modesty. I wonder if they would have Photoshopped off a head scarf worn by a non-Muslim girl and replaced it with hair? You know, what they'd have to do if this whole Photoshopping thing was really about enforcing the district rules...
roomwithaview at May 29th, 2014 16:15 — #19
Your body ITSELF is unacceptable to our standards.
Looks like they evened up her teeth a bit as well.
skeptic at May 29th, 2014 16:19 — #20
You're in luck, I've found a picture of their swim team.
Ironically, those modest swim outfits don't meet the school district standards - they show bare shoulders, one of the things the school Photoshopped out, adding sleeves.
next page →