If her parent, I would have measured from the ground with her kneeling, myself, and sent her back to class… then had a serious talk with the principal, about being a dick. Something would be included, such as, “from this point on, don’t ever go near my daughter without my consent!” and “if I have to return here due to another false claim, I’ll be bringing my lawyer and a harassment lawsuit along with me.”
Also, I don’t think the rule said anything about the dress being within 6 inches above the knees when the girls arms were raised over her head… proof that he’s a dick! Anything that hangs from the shoulder goes up with the arms, it’s not rockets science. They’d need a separate rule for skirts that hang from the waist and dresses that hang from the shoulders, if they wanted to nitpick such things.
I also concur with the conclusion that opaque leggings qualify as pants… so in essence her shirt or tunic was being misjudged due to a severe lack of fashion sense.
Well, some people would question your moral compass for supporting a severe criminal response to harassment or the questionable judgement, or severe lack of fashion sense, of a school principal. But, on the other hand, my immediate response to his request that she “walk around with her arms raised” probably would have been to push him fiercely in the throat to ensure he didn’t say any more stupid shit that day.
This student’s situation brings back nasty memories of my good old school days.
Girls in my school were to wear skirts below the knee and the only colors permitted were white tops and black skirts.
Girls were also forbidden to cut their hair, with boys required to cut their hair so that no hair touched the ear or the collar of their shirt.
As with girls, boys were only permitted to wear white shirts and black pants, along with black ties, which were mandatory.
All footwear was to be black dress shoes.
Glasses or contacts were strictly forbidden, as you were supposed to pray for better eyesight.
Etc, etc, ad nausem…
Thanks to the warm and welcoming atmosphere created at this undetermined level of hell, I am now a devout atheist, practicing my non-religion whenever possible.
Agreed. I think the only behavior that should be subject regulation should be dangerous behavior. Schools should concentrate instead on creating safety and tolerance. It’s not like she tried to use a gun to take over a wildlife preserve or something.
No, that’s what the point of these dress codes are.
Teaching kids European history or underwater basketweaving is way more important than teaching kids to treat each other with respect. Also that’s more important than teaching them how to read an insurance coverage statement and what a deductible is. How to safely handle one of the over 300,000,000 unregulated firearms in the US they’re likely to eventually come across. Or how to draw up a budget. You know important things that everyone should really know, but they don’t bother teaching in school besides one quarter of home ec if you’re lucky.
A lot of my friends from the Christian college I first attended right after high school experienced the same phenomenon that I did: a devout evangelical/fundamentalist Christian upbringing leading to lifelong atheism as an adult. My best friend at that college was a preacher’s kid who slept around as much as possible and got kicked out for breaking too many rules. Fortunately, I couldn’t afford it after a year and promptly quit any association with the church after I left.
I was required to read Sigurd the Volsung, and a chunk of the Prose Edda in high school. The Prose Edda was interesting and all, but I think that time might have been better spent learning about my rights for when a cop hails me. Or how to get a car unstuck from the snow. Or how to travel interstate and internationally safely.
[quote=“AcerPlatanoides, post:51, topic:72609”]
Pretty much my thought process. but this next part… [/quote]
My point is that I can understand some dress codes having valid reasons. Like telling someone to put a towel on a bus seat or park bench before they sit their naked, sweaty ass on it. Or to wear shoes in a food market. So sure, if she was wearing a really short skirt, and not wearing anything else under there, it would be unsanitary. But since she is even completely clothed under her dress makes the whole thing irrelevant anyway.
But:
Which seems to be a really contentious matter these days, amongst those who seem to feel that it is important to agree upon clothing norms for whatever reason. There are entire pages and blogs apparently devoted to arguing over whether or not tights or leggings can or should count as being pants. It seems pragmatic to me that they might as well do. The arguments against seem to be comprised entirely of “I shouldn’t have to look at them” by people who in all honesty don’t need to look at them anyway. There are lots of clothes I don’t particularly like, but I don’t make a point of fussing about them simply to confront people with my own personal tastes.
If somebody is fully clothed right up to their neck, I’d be a fool to accuse them of being naked!
