AJC.com > Blogs > Get Schooled > Archives > 2007 > August > 23 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USThe Old Dress Code Debate
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Did you hear the one about the Atlanta city councilman who wants to ban all exposed undergarments in public?
It’s no joke.
According to today’s article by my colleague David Pendered, Councilman C.T. Martin — a college recruitment consultant — is pushing an amendment to the city’s indecency laws that would make any glimpse of, say, a bra strap or the top of boxer shorts illegal.
Martin says the popular style of boys who wear oversize, baggy pants well below their waists, exposing their underwear, is an “epidemic” that has to stop.
“I don’t want young people thinking that half-dressing is the way to go,” he told David. “I want them to think about their future.”
I know educators feel his pain. Many principals have gotten around this kind of dress by requiring young men to tuck in their shirts and barring young ladies from wearing spaghetti-strap T-shirts.
Some educators say it’s a discipline issue — particularly for the students wearing those big, saggy jeans. That’s a lot of material to hide drugs or weapons.
But do campus prohibitions against trendy teen styles make kids more respectful or do they just give them a reason to be rebellious?
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By Jeff
August 23, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this
As long as the rules are reasonable - and this one certainly is - it teaches discipline and the fact that there will ALWAYS be rules that you don’t like that you still have to follow. That is a GOOD thing.
Now, for those that want to be rebellious: SEVERE crackdowns. Make an example out of the first two or so - or the most popular two or so, as in the case of Vick - and you cut out 90% of the undesirable behavior, if your crackdown is indeed severe enough.
By jim d
August 23, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
I just hate fasion cops, myself.
My god, some of us grew up in the turbulant 60’s. I recall being threatend with being expelled for not cutting my hair. I don’t see this as being one iota different. It is simply the man wishing to control the lifes of others.
This bill if ever passed (which it won’t be) would never withstand a constitutional challenge. So why waste the time and money to even bring it up? Don’t these politicans have anything better to do?
By 5th yr in HELL
August 23, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
I feel that dress codes are necessary, in the form of school uniforms. This would end many problems in schools, especially in the city of Atlanta. It ends the discrepencies between the lower and higher economic level students, could serve as a sense of school pride and make early morning decision making for our students that much simpler….that way they could use that extra brain power on the homework they’re finishing on MARTA. Philadelphia has public school uniforms…why can’t we?
By Lee
August 23, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this
I think Atlanta has more pressing things to worry about than someone’s lack of fashion sense.
As far as schools and dress codes, I personally think that all schools should just adopt a school uniform and be done with it. My daughter’s private school has uniforms and it makes life a whole lot easier (and cheaper). About once a month, the school lets them have a casual Friday and pretty much, anything goes within reason.
I have a good buddy who owns a fast food restaurant who says he likes the baggy pant thing. He says whenever he has a teenager ask him for a job and he’s wearing pants around the knees, hat turned sideways, and eyebrow/lip/nose piercings, he tells them he has no openings. It’s a great filter to weed out the dumba55es.
By jim d
August 23, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this
Oh dear!!
Are y’all crazy? We are talking about a law here folks. Not some bogus school policy that only affects kids while in school. We are talking about a law that makes it a crime for your underware to show if you bend over on a public street to pick up a 10 dollar bill. Is that what you really want?
By 5th yr in HELL
August 23, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this
ok, let me re-focus: The law is absolutely ridiculous and also completely uninforceable without racial profiling. I do feel that schools should have uniforms. I never thought that way until I began teaching, I was always for self expression. Until I had a student who could barely afford clothes and cried to me because of being teased about it. Then I had another student do the same thing, then another, then another. It was heartbreaking. I’m constantly cleaning out my wife’s (with permission) and my closet and donating clothes to my school. But this law? Ridiculous! Banning women from wearing sports bras in public? Now that would be the biggest travesty in this city since the early last bar call hours!
By mmm
August 23, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this
I see the pants so baggy the kid can’t walk without holding up their britches every time I drive anywhere in my area of town. I find it comic, but try not to laugh where they can see me. Regulating stupid fashion trends is a losing battle. I’m actually sort of pleased to see the boys sporting something that requires more maintanance than the girl’s current style. (i.e. one hand on the pants at all times. )
By jim d
August 23, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
Rediculous? indeed it is. Nude dancing?—OK. Underware showing —30 days
By jim d
August 23, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this
In all fairness I must say there have been numerous occassions I’ve seen 400lb women wearing a thong well above their pants level that I felt should have been arrested. :-)
By SET
August 23, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this
Educrats have no real intentions of requiring decent dress. Despite their pious comments to the contrary they believe in moral relativity and that all cultures are morally equal.
Their actions and words are at odds. Students would not wear sagging pants to school if they would be openly mocked and held up to the rest of the students as losers who should be shunned by decent people (and fatherless boys who are so deprived of a good role model they don’t have a clue).
As we all know, teenagers are very much tuned to fashion and style. If their dress got them humiliated - or just openly talked about as being low born and worthless (like in the past) they would alter their dress to come within the range of acceptable.
It’s not hard to get teenagers to conform when you have no problem making them very incomfortable.
The schools would have us believe that unless they can suspend a child they can’t keep them from coming to school in immodest or indecent clothes. Well, there’s much more than one way to skin a cat.
Even if you preferred to not comment openly to a class that those among them who sag and otherwise dress shabbily are disgusting and so are their families - you can get the point across in no uncertain terms by integrating that message into lesson plans. Most importantly, you teach that those who associate with rulebreakers are also bad and get the same treatment.
Staff and Administration can tell the bad dressers that they look cheap and shabby at every opportunity. And make sure the notations are sent to their families and recorded in their files in the most unambiguous terms.
Referrals to the Salvation Army, Goodwill and St Vincent DePaul’s Society (in writing, of course) can be sent to the families and to the social service agencies. Whatever…
While this won’t stop every bad dresser overnight, strong efforts to socially marginalize them will decrease their numbers. Correspondingly you reward and reinforce the better dressers.
By SET
August 23, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
Another point. The sagging and other behaviors are actually a tribal dress issue. By wearing things a certain way at a certain time the people described are sending signals which may be quite unconcious that they are not part of the collective school tribe - they are the rebel tribe. Great.
Except the rebel tribe often has their own take on sanitation, promiscuity, stealing, and not doing homework that may conflict with school mores. Additionally the tribe members often will respond collectively to any perceived slight on one of them - and in so doing become stronger or more aggressive than their small numbers would justify.
The contrary tribal dress may be as obvious as sagging or as subtle as wearing a certain pin or ring. Varsity sweaters can be tribal dress as is the Pink Lady outfits shown in the movie “Grease”. The school can’t completely stop tribal dress without going to standard uniforms such as the military has to prevent exactly this issue.
As some point the schools have to pick their battles, or not. If I’m running a school I’d have no intention of allowing tribal dress to embolden a culture that I don’t approve of to operate/dominate within my school. And I’m smarter, older, and far more ruthless than they are.
The eagle scouts I have no problem with.
By lk
August 23, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
I’m all for school dress codes for a myriad of reasons that include limiting distractions, having the kids worry more about school work than what are they wearing and limiting arguments about what’s appropriate. However, a law that limits what you wear (other than one requiring some form of clothing) is ridiculous. I don’t see how it can be enforced and certainly don’t agree it’s worth the money to do so. I certainly don’t want politicians making decisions about what is appropriate wear. This style is already heading out of favor and something else will replace it. Are we going to legislate against everything that we’re uncomfortable with?
By Jay
August 23, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this
I’m willing to put up with baggy pants if it means women can still wear sports bras and expose their thongs.
There should, however, be a law against prudes like C.T. Martin who’s probably so sexually repressed because he’s a latent homosexual.
By Old School
August 23, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this
May I suggest a statewide high school student uniform…the orange jumpsuit?
By Jack
August 23, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
I also see baggy pants worn so low that I can not only see boxers, I see the beginnings of what lies beneath the boxers. And you know what? I don’t care if they see me laughing at them. I will point and laugh as I drive away. And I notice that they see me and are embarrassed. As they should be — they’re humiliating themselves in the name of “fashion” or what is “cool” and I don’t mind pointing them out to them at all. Point. Laugh. Be uproarious about it. You’ll see that the person who suggested embarrassing them will get them to change is right.
By Sabrina
August 23, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this
Treating children (and yes these teens are still children in many ways) poorly by making examples of them for wearing “inappropriate” clothing is treating the symptom and not the cause. Media and adults should be setting an example for the children not making them the example. Ostracize the people in power not the imitators whose frontal lobe has not fully developed.
By Jack
August 23, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
lk — the law won’t legislate WHAT can be worn. It will only try to enforce the idea that pants are worn at the waist, not below the backside. Do you really want to see someone’s ratty old underwear? I don’t.
By Sabrina
August 23, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
Treating children (and yes these teens are still children in many ways) poorly by making examples of them for wearing “inappropriate” clothing is treating the symptom and not the cause. Media and adults should be setting an example for the children not making them the example. Ostracize the people in power not the imitators whose frontal lobe has not fully developed.
By Sabrina
August 23, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this
Treating children (and yes these teens are still children in many ways) poorly by making examples of them for wearing “inappropriate” clothing is treating the symptom and not the cause. Media and adults should be setting an example for the children not making them the example. Ostracize the people in power not the imitators whose frontal lobe has not fully developed.
By Sabrina
August 23, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this
Are you kidding, Jack? What exactly did you wear “in the name of “fashion” or what is “cool”” when you were their age? Fashion trends are what make old pictures so darn funny. I had a terrible hair-do when I was around 12-13. I see the pictures and I am mortified. That being said, as an ADULT, I can look back and laugh at myself. However, as a teen, it would have really hurt my self-esteem to have a “supposed” adult laughing at me. Kids are just experimenting. As long as they keep certain body parts covered, which for the most part they do, I say, let them laugh at THEMSELVES when they are older and wiser.
By Sabrina
August 23, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this
Sorry about the multiple posts. The web page didn’t refresh, must have hit refresh too many times.
By Sabrina
August 23, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this
For all of you who think laughing at a child and making them feel bad about themselves to get them to change, God help your children. I wish kids had the nerve to laugh right back! Grow up already. I guess the school yard bully never does grow up which is a shame.
By Atlanta Pearl Girl
August 23, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this
If all schools required uniforms….public or private… it’s much more economical and they focus on school…not what you’re wearing. I know it’s a fad…and it totally (to me) identifies a teen or grown person for that matter (seems to beonly males) as being thugs and a low life to boot. I am in favor of not seeing the trend….but I suppose it will go away hopefully.
If it’s a teen..I have to look at athe parents and think ‘Hello! what are you thinking???’
By Jo
August 23, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
Those low, baggy pants are hideous but I say the reason they should not be outlawed is so that we ( decent citizens) can tell who’s in a gang (remember where this, err, “style” originated, folks!) & steer clear/be on the lookout for suspicious behaviour. Guys like that (ghetto trash) don’t even respond to humiliation, because they are devoid of shame & self-respect. Outlawing exposed bra straps is discrimination. The only way to not have straps showing beneath a spaghetti-strap top is to go braless & ladies who are built a certain way simply can’t. So, essentially, that means “If you’re over a certain bust size, you’re forbidden by law to wear such & such”. And, a kick in the head to the prejudiced cretin who said overweight women should not be allowed to wear exposed thongs. I agree, it doesn’t look good, but who are YOU to dictate such a thing? EVERYONE deserves the same rights, no matter what they weigh…sheesh!
By Lily Toad
August 23, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
Break out the burkas! As long as they have undershorts which are often more decorative than the pants there is no indecent exposure. As for bra straps, okay, I won’t wear a bra under my tank top. Happy now?
By jim d
August 23, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this
Actually Jay,
Id rather see their underware, ratty or not, rather than a mile of plumbers crack.
By Josey2006
August 23, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
Sounds like the good people of Atlanta need a new Councilman. Mr. Martin is an idiot. Keeping him in office do nothing to assuage popular stereotypes of Georgians as being ignorant slackjawed hicks.
By jim d
August 23, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
ooops my bad—last one should have been to jack. Sorry jay
By ct Martin
August 23, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
CT Martin is a loser.. Get a life
By JustMe
August 23, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this
I vote for school uniforms. Students should not feel pressure to keep up with fashion or to wear their clothes a certain way. I saw a girl in tears because her friends were making fun of her no-name tennis shoes. That just shouldn’t happen in school. School is a place to learn. Less distractions = more learning opportunity.
Remember that children are not adults. Adults are legal and have rights. Children need guidance (okay, so do some adults).
To SET and jim d- Your policies (of having none) would really result in middle school and high school girls in Daisy Dukes, breasts exposed, and who knows what else. I cannot believe that any rational person thinks that this is okay.
And, actually, I think that the State can dictate what is worn in public school. It is funded by the State and so I don’t know of a legal reason why the State cannot create and enforce rules/laws. Isn’t there already a law stating that students cannot bring guns into a school?
I also want to point out where the problem ultimately lies - it is with the parents ALLOWING their children to wear these clothes. When will parents become parents? Why does the SCHOOL have to be the parent?
If you have a son, don’t buy him pants that are 10 sizes too large. It is impossible for them to let their pants sag if you buy them the proper size.
Check your children’s dress before they leave the house in the mornings and make sure that they are dressed properly. If your daughter has her breasts hanging out, make her change her top!
If parents did their job properly, then schools and/or the State won’t have to step in!!!!!!
By Pete
August 23, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
What is this the Taliban?
By Helen
August 23, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
You guys know where the saggy pants style came from right?…..JAIL!! Guys in jail started this fad because it lets one another know who’s “available & willing”, if you know what I mean. So when I see that style, I won’t even give a man a 2nd look, because it’s not attractive at all.
By jim d
August 23, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
Yo Jo,
I must be the prejudiced cretin. However, I never said they shou;ldn’t be allowed to wear them. What I said was: “I’ve seen 400lb women wearing a thong well above their pants level that I felt should have been arrested. :-)”
See the smiley face? Personally dear I defend everyones right to look as foolish as they wish. (I always have—always will) I get in a lot of trouble here on these blogs when I express my thoughts on school uniforms. But hey, it is what it is (JMHO)
By jim d
August 23, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
Just me,
We’ve argued this one to death already so suffice it to say we disagree. HAGD.
By jim d
August 23, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
With everyone wishing to control what others may wear I’m truly surprised we ever got out of knickers.
By Michelle
August 23, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this
When I was in High School, it was tight jeans that were fashionable, so tight in fact that they were painful. Is that any better? It’s a fad, it will go away, once people realize how silly it looks, not to mention uncomfortable.
By jim d
August 23, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this
Cross blog.
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/town-talk/entries/2007/08/22/bansaggypants.html
By JJ
August 23, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
I don’t know how or why a man would want his pants and belt down around his nads…….i think that would be very uncomfortable, like me wearing a belt around my boobs.
I can’t stand to see baggy pants and someone’s drawers. I just don’t get it.
By tobybishop
August 23, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
What’s next? Law to outlaw Plumber’s Butt and exposed navels?
By jim d
August 23, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
Perhaps someone should shake down Mr. Martin’s computer for kiddy porn.
By tebs
August 23, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
First of all, it’s not just about prison attire, ie, lack of belts and now we’re free…crap. It’s also well known that the wearing of pants around the hips and thighs is also a message meaning “KISS MY A*.” Secondly, just wondering if one trips and falls into the street and accidentally run over them, can I sue THEM? After all, the clothing is hazardous in other ways than just being the #1 fashion don’t I’ve ever seen. I’m laughing as I write, and as I watch them TRY, and not do a good job, at walking. Also, what employer accepts this as part of their company dress code? My company doesn’t let us wear tennis shoes or t-shirts on jeans day, much less butt-bearing jeans and thongs. Okay, and the women who say thongs are really comfortable are lying their head off - I’ve tried them, they are NOT!!! LOL. Happy Thursday Atlanta.
By TERRI
August 23, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
I think it’s a great idea and I hope it passes. I have two sons that “try” to adapt this aweful look after we moved to Atlanta last year. Which is one of the several reasons I moved away from Atlanta.
By jim d
August 23, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this
Let’s see is this really new? Hmmm, hip huggers come to mind.
Up with mini skirts!!
By 31 Years and now retired
August 23, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this
Although this is my first year of retirement, I find myself doing volunteer work at my old school. The dress code when I was teaching, as well as now, is easy. For girls tank tops must cover the stomach, straps must be at least 2, preferably 3 fingers wide, shorts must be no shorter than the tips of the fingers when standing. For boys, pants are worn at the waist with a belt if necessary. No boxers showing. Violaters are given a very ugly t-shirt to wear, clothesline to hold up pants and in extreme cases parents are requested to bring appropriate clothes to school or to take little pumpkin or buttercup home. Clothing may never indicate drug, alcohol or sexual inuendo. I always told the kids in my classes that if I didn’t do their laundry I didn’t want to see their underwear. We found that enforcing the dress code had a very positive effect on discipline and study habits. We have a combination middle and senior high school and rarely have a problem with compliance after the first week or two. Uniforms would be great but in my county parents have fought tooth and nail to keep them out.
By Jane
August 23, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
The school is not the parent and I do not think school uniforms are an answer to anything. School uniforms are a reactionary effect when children choose to become individuals. As long as I purchase the clothing my perogitive. And Uniforms are NOT less expensive—they never go on sale. NO thnaks to Uniforms
By jim d
August 23, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
jj,
would you want governement to tell you it was against a law to wear a belt in that fashion?
By jim d
August 23, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
31,
I think we’ve been programmed to do this.
Ever looked at photo’s of the Hitler youth all dressed neatly in their pressed uniforms?
By DwayneL
August 23, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
One word….UNIFORMS!!!
By Charles
August 23, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
Although I see this allot and don’t care to see it, I feel this would be a violation of an individuals first amendment right. A year ago our school had adopted a dress code. That dress code was challenged buy several parents during the school year and it was ruled to have violated students First Amendments Rights. Look back on the controversy over miniskirts and how that has faded. I would say if this is a college or private school that taxpayers are not funding then the school itself should consider passing a dress code, not involve the general public in its overall views. If you want to wear your clothing like that then look for a school that has no dress code. Martin will have everyone wearing face veils and robes next if he were to get this bill passed. Also ask the police how much easier it is to catch someone running with their pants around their knees.
By Jo
August 23, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
Oh. Yes, another reason I’m not in favour of banning those repulsive baggy pants is they make it easier for cops to catch those thugs. Ever seen one of those ghetto slimes trying to run in those things? You’ve never seen anything funnier! They have to hold the pants up & if their hand slips for a second, the pants come falling down around their ankles & they trip; can’t run from the police that way, ROFLOLMAO. Jim D: Y’ know, I was recently in Ft. Lauderdale on vacation & you wouln’t believe all the skinny old men in shorts with their hairy, stringy, knobby-kneed legs exposed. Now, it just doesn’t get any grosser than that, but, hey, I don’t HAVE to look. (Up with mini-skirts. Ha ha!)
By jim d
August 23, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
jane you are absolutely right.
Public schools are only successfull to the extent they can eliminate individuality. Uniforms are merely a tool to accomplish this.
By Edward
August 23, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this
When I see a kid wearing his pants hanging to his knees I see a sign on their head saying ” Look at me, I will drop out of school a soon as I can and work for minimum wage the rest of my life…” These kids try to copy celebrity types who already have money, the copycats won’t ever have that kind of money. They end up looking plain old fashioned stupid.
By Rachelle
August 23, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this
A little earlier, someone on the blog suggested shaming these fashion offenders by laughing & pointing. No, that won’t work. Don’t get me wrong, these thugs don’t deserve respect but my reason for thinking it’s a bad idea is guys like that are very likely to be carrying a weapon; & a psycopath, especially one on crack, would not hesitate to use it, with being pointed/laughed at as an excuse for doing so
By Jana
August 23, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
How does making a kid change their pants effect their inner voice, the one that says “I want to be a thug, I don’t want to study or work hard in school, and I don’t care about anything but my gangsta lifestyle”? You can take the pants off the kid, but that isn’t going to pull the kid out of the gutter…
By Lives Responsibly
August 23, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
Uh, wrong, Edward, it’s more, like “Look at me, I will drop out of school a soon as I can and end up in prison, on the streets, on welfare, or dead from a drug overdose at an early age”
By Jane
August 23, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
My son wore the pants during high school much to my disbelief—I refused to pay for them so he worked to earn the money to pay $150 for them (granted this was when they first came out) Janko jeans.
Edward: He graduated high school with both a college prep and voc. seal. He went on to college. Attire does not determine education or educational opportunity.
By Hunni
August 23, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this
Just because you see a kid wearing baggy pants doesn’t automatically make them gangbangers or thugs. Unfortunately kids today see this on tv or school and think it’s cool and try to emulate the style. I’ve seen plenty of good kids just following a trend. I have a teenage son who, along with his friends, thinks that showing your boxers looks incredibly stupid…yet on the other hand they like to wear their pants/shorts a size too big because it’s comfortable to them. I just invest in lots of belts to keep them at his waist. :)
By Charles
August 23, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this
I would have to dissagree with Edward, I have seen lots of people when i was in highschool and college who followed the trends of that time grow up to be very succesful. It’s not about how you wear your clothing that dictates if you get that degree.
By JustMe
August 23, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this
First of all, on this blog we are NOT talking about adults - we are talking about children. Parents (should) guide that kids towards what’s right. Letting their butts and breasts hang out is not one of them. I think (hope) that we can all agree on at least this.
You cannot compare this ‘fad’ to previous fads. Previous fads did not include exposing private parts (to my knowledge). Yes, there were bell bottoms, hip huggers (no privates exposed there), tight pants, and hair fashions. But these fads do not compare.
Also, in this blog, we are talking about IN SCHOOL. If parents really want their daughter to walk around in public, half nude with their nipples exposed, that is their business, but not IN SCHOOL. If parents want their sons walking around with pants at their knees, with their gonads exposed along with their butt checks, that is their business, but not IN SCHOOL.
By SET
August 23, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this
Just Me: Actually I do believe that strict uniform policy is best for public schools. I would have variations for the different grade levels.
The uniforms are not going to happen because such things conflicts with Educrat policy about moral relativity, etc.
Current policy is best if you want to screw the kids and prevent them from climbing the economic and social ladder.
Our current Educrat mission - and you see it by what they do not what they say - is to make sure that the proletariat never becomes the slightest political or economic challenge to the ruling class. In this our public schools are an outstanding success.
More Chaos and Less Education.
Brave New World.
By SET
August 23, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this
Just Me: In this state (CA) Public School students are generally without one parent and the other one isn’t all there either in many cases. School policy has to be regardless of parents or lack thereof. Like it or not, schools are raising the kids as much as the parents. So the schools have to be strong, not weak, if the kids are to amount to anything in life.
By fed up
August 23, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this
I say let the idiot thuglets keep their baggy pants. My brother-in-law was a cop for several years and said he caught many a perpetrator because they couldn’t run with their waistband at their knees and their crotch at their ankles.
It also helps kids who are serious about having some sort of a future discern who they should avoid associating with.
By Tony
August 23, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this
Fortunately for schools, principals have broad discretion over dress codes within the school - and well they should. The learning environment can be disrupted by many things including inappropriate dress. Principals should strictly enforce the dress code they establish otherwise it is meaningless.
The law being proposed in Atlanta may never make it through constitutional scrutiny, but an attempt to send a better message is certainly understandable. Perhaps the loud, profane noise coming from vehicles with 10 tons of speakers should also be banned.
By jim d
August 23, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this
Actually just me we are taking about adults this time. The proposed law draws no differentiation between minor children and adults. Like I origionally said this is a proposed LAW not some silly school policy.
If you were to support this law would you then support one that might infringe upon your rights of deciding what you wore? Or is it just “the other folk” that we must control?
By Old School
August 23, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this
Aw…c’mon! Those draggy, saggy, baggy britches can make for some really funny scenes. A couple of years ago, I watched a very plump young man trying to get his cap out of a tree on our campus (his buddy had tossed it there). Up he jumped and down went his WAY TOO BIG britches! It was like watching something on Cartoon Network!
I just wish their attitudes towards learning were sharper than their appearances. Sloppy dressers seem to be far less interested in learning and more interested in entertaining. But that’s just my 33 years of observing high schoolers talking.
Bring on the orange jumpsuits!
By Charles
August 23, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this
If you read the article more closely JustMe you would have noted in the beginning that this councilman wants to ban all exposed undergarments in public. This is a far cry from just College and High school. Yes the article talks about school but this law would cover the entire city, not just schools. At 18 you are considered an adult and usually starting college. Imagine giving police more power to conduct searches because your underwear or bra strap were showing. Sure it’s ok if you have nothing to hide but who feels like being patted down just for a violation like that.
By Vince
August 23, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
Whenever I see one of those boys in oversized, baggy pants, I’m reminded of a huge baby with a loaded diaper. Do teenaged girls really find that attractive?????????
By Jamie
August 23, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this
My daughter started a school last year that requires uniforms. There was a little grumbling at first, but after 2 weeks CLOTHES weren’t an issue anymore.
They have dress down days - that still have to meet our counties standard dress code ( which is strict - no sleeveless shirts, baggy pants - pants or pant cuffs that drag on the floor - etc)
The uniform takes physical appearance out of school (it doesn’t belong their) which provides children an opportunity to find another way to show their unique and creative personalities.
The children also have to look beyond appearance to get to know their classmates - and begin to value their classmates on character, instead of “cover” - when all the books have the same cover, you actual have to open them to see what is inside.
It also helps all the children (even the shy awkward ones) feel like they fit in.
We both love them.
By Sandy
August 23, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this
I hope this passes! I really hate to be MOONED while walking through the mall and down the street.
Good Luck
By KM Holmes
August 23, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this
If everyone agrees that we need school uniforms in public schools then why don’t we have them already? I happen to live in the City of Atlanta so I see their school children every morning. I wonder how much education is really going on with young girls who look as though they are hookers and young boys who look as though they are putting in applications for the Fulton County Jail or Reidsville State Prison. School uniforms would be much simpler but if parents don’t control how their children dress now could you imagine how horrible 50,000 unkempt uniforms will look?
By DB
August 23, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this
It will never make it as a law, because it is impossible to enforce. “Your bra is showing” “No, I’m not wearing a bra. That’s a layered undershirt”. Does that mean that a man wearing an undershirt that shows a bit of white at the neck under a shirt is also breaking the law? Basically, it’s impossible to legislate good taste for the public.
However, in a school, I am a strong believer in uniforms, or, lacking uniforms, strong dress codes. My children’s school has uniforms, and goes on to specify that NO underwear should be EVER visible, to the point that if a girl chooses to wear the white uniform shirt, you should not be able to tell what color bra she is wearing! (Some clueless (or daring) girls were wearing hot pink, red, and polka-dot bras under the demure white polo shirt — anything to cause a reaction!) Don’t give me that “clothes are an expression of individuality.” Express your individuality on your own time — while you are in school, your job is to LEARN. I don’t care what they wear off-campus, if they want to look like idiots, have at it. But I think a school has the right to create a climate conducive to maximum learning, and if removing distractions like baggy pants and underwear does that, then go for it.
By a Mom
August 23, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this
I hate walking down the street or in a mall and getting MOONED, (especially by dirty underware.) Don’t these people have any dignity, or self respect…..everybody laughs at them because they have a resemblance to orangatangs! Good Luck Mr. Martin.
By Jill
August 23, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this
I dont live in Atlanta,but here in Portland OR, we have the same dress styles. In fact my sons wear their jeans around their butts..and my husband tells them that back in the day in jail, that use to be a “calling card” to let other inmates know that you were available..eww! So they still wear their jeans baggy and laugh everytime i tell them that story when i ask them to pull up their pants! How ridiculus is this person who wants to make it a law. Good grief, what if my bra strap slips down my shoulder accidentaly because its old and i need a new one!? i get fined or jailed? come on!! dont we need to spend our government dollars on something a little bit better than this?
By educator
August 23, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this
In my opinion, uniforms will never fly in Georgia. If you recall, Dekalb County tried it and parents were outraged citing their child’s need to “express” themselves. Many parents want to dress their kids in the latest popular, name brand clothes so their kids can look cool. When I asked a student if she understood why showing her stomach was inapproriate, she retorted, “my mom says I have a cute shape!” Huh?
Parents, it’s up to us to make the change. I love uniforms. My daughter attend Catholic school for years, and we were uniformed from head to toe! Worked out great and I saved money. Her public middle schoo just went to uniforms, although they left out the shoes (one of the most important things to a middle schooler). We’ve had 97% participation.
Kids need to learn restrictions now. Too many parents don’t want to teach their children that sometimes in life, you won’t be able to wear, do or say what you want.
BTW, wearing sagging pants is not a sign of being a thug. It’s a sign of being cool in a teenagers eyes. Grown men that do it, well they confuse me.
By keepin it real
August 23, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this
Here is another example about how our society is too preocuppied with the physical. This should be only part of the dress code policy inside schools, and for those outside of school, let them be!!
By Eva Brubaker
August 23, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this
Hurrah for Mr. Martin…more people should take a stand against the horrible looking clothing the manufacturers come up with…seems they lack a lot of talent in the field of dressing people!
Oh, by the way, don’t you know that the baggy pants thing holds a LOT of stolen merchandise??? Just check with your retailers on who is stealing things these days. Frankly “MOONING” others with their butts hanging out is really repulsive. And, the women and girls who show their butts and boobs hanging out all over the place is very disgusting…especially when you are in a restaurant trying to eat a meal…ugh!
By Old School
August 23, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this
All the blogging in the world isn’t going to change a thing…except make some folks mad and others bemused.
I think I’ll just keep on watching them waddle in their baggy clothes, avert my eyes to avoid the heaving exposed chests, and go my merry way.
Think: March of the Penguins or maybe Dick VanDyke’s “Jolly ‘oliday” dance in Mary Poppins.
By Noelle
August 23, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this
Good Lord, doesn’t this idiot have something better to do? There are way too many real problems that need to be addressed to waste time on something this ridiculous!
By Lost Girl
August 23, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this
Much of today’s clothing is ugly anyway, it has a cheap, mass-produced look. I, personally find the attire of the Medieval era to be attractive, dashing, festive, glamourous & yes, sexy, in a much classier way
By Phantom
August 23, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this
Wow sounds like our counrty is marching to Nazism faster then I thought, way to go retards. May god have mercy on anyone who would challenge the way I dress. You people are Hell bent to take away the freedoms that alot of people cherish. All this is doing is Fueling the fire allready brewing.
By Terry Baradine
August 23, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this
you know, if people don’t realize how much the government is creeping into our daily lives and chipping away our rights with stupid law proposals such as this—- i just don’t know what to say— i am dumbfounded..
prime example— parents getting arrested for truancy that have sick kids.
another— dfacs being called on parents without a reason — yeah, that happens too.
so basically, if you have a kid out with a severe bout of pneumonia and asthma and EVEN IF YOU provided documentation to that effect— the administratrion of the school gets to mark you absent just to make you miserable too— yep and appear to court as well.
It happens all the time. At this juncture— allowing more laws to interfere with people and intrude on rights — just makes me sick. You want a dress code in the school fine— but to legislate this— WRONG!!!
By V for Vendetta
August 23, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this
At the risk of beating a dead horse …
Is anyone noticing a trend here? The government, and our wonderful (cough, cough) judicial system is completely out of control. This is probably one of the most assinine things I have heard (uh, today), and it seriously makes me wonder what type of morons are running our local governments. CT Martin should be slapped with a dead Tuna and forced to wear baggy pants with exposed boxer shorts as punishments. Don’t ask about the whole tuna thing, that just felt right to me.
As for the schools, let uniforms reign supreme. The dress code at my school - again, one of the “good” ones - is completely out of control. It goes on for around three pages trying in vain to close every loophole that may present itself. Which, of course, only creates more loopholes. I’ve been saying we should go to uniforms for a LONG time. I’ll keep saying it until someone listens.
With elections coming up on the distant horizon, let me beg all of you to PLEASE think about who you vote into office. CT Martin is just another case of a complete MORON duping the public. Vote with your HEAD, not along party lines, not because of how you were raised, and for the love of God, NOT BECAUSE OF RELIGION. Vote with your heads people! It’s time for sweeping change. If you haven’t figured it out already, we NEED IT.
By Teacher, Too
August 23, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this
I agree with DB. If the only way to distinguish yourself as an individual is by your clothes, then you must be a pretty weak individual. There are so many other ways to distinguish yourself- through writing, through art, through service to school and community. You can wear your “fun” clothes to express yourself outside of school.
Finally, if uniforms sap the individuality out of so many students, why do most of the private schools require them? Are you really going to tell me that all the students in private schools have no individuality? Those students find other ways to express their creativity.
On a similar note- do these same students express their individuality in church, synagogue, or other places of worship? If not, why is it okay to do in school and not in a place of worship?
By JustMe
August 23, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this
Terry and others….
Schools and government won’t have to create rules and laws to raise YOUR children if YOU would raise them YOURSELF. Our society is ‘heading in this direction’ because an adult generation refuses to take responsibility for their own children and raise them. The only other choice is for the schools and the government to step in to save the kids.
Remember that this adult generation is the “Me” generation that is self-centered and self-absorbed.
If parents would have raised their kids to ‘do the right thing’ then the kids won’t skip and they won’t be truent. Your example of a kid getting sick is completely out of line and wrong.
Side Note: Not all parents fall into this category.
By Stacey
August 23, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this
Teacher, Too…
On a similar note- do these same students express their individuality in church, synagogue, or other places of worship? If not, why is it okay to do in school and not in a place of worship?
Very often, the answer is yes. A lot of churches have gone to a casual dress code. My pastor says that he would rather have people there dressed as some would consider inappropriate than to not be there at all. It makes no sense to me that people can afford to pay $120/pair for jeans and $150 for sneakers but “don’t have money” for proper attire.
I first saw people wearing the droopy pants when I arrived at college in 1988. These were college students following (or starting) at trend, not thugs, gang bangers or drug dealers.
*
By fed up
August 23, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this
Here is an interesting article on saggin’ written by an African American. Read it and post you thoughts.
http://notthead.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/saggin-backward-n****-pull-your-pants-up/
By JustMe
August 23, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this
Stacey, You really miss the main points here. It is not to ‘restrict the kids’ as much as it is to maintain some minimum level of safety and decorum.
First, regarding safety. That extremely loose clothing can easily hide anything. It could be a weapon or drugs or whatever. In addition, in science labs, loose clothing isn’t allowed for safety reasons. Your overly-baggy tee-shirt could swing around into a flame and catch fire without you even noticing.
Second, can you really state with a straight face that it is okay with you for some 13 year old girl that is overly developed to walk around school with a plunging neckline mini dress - one where her chest is buldging out and about to fall out - one where it is so short that you might get a glimpse of her developing pubes? If you think that this is appropriate school attire, then you have issues way beyond anything that a blog can address.
Remember that these are KIDS and not college aged young adults. These KIDS only see what they watch on MTV, for example. They obviously have no parental guidance at all.
By Ernest
August 23, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this
Not to beat a dead horse but educator @ 2:41 is right with regards to DeKalb. Dr. Brown thought he had a ‘mandate’ from parents to implement a uniform policy when he started. Unfortunately, he may not have spoken to enough people thus it did not endear him with many parents. Ironically, he is about to implement a uniform policy in the system he is in now and it seems to be received favorably.
IMO, this is mostly a publicity stunt to draw attention to a problem. Legally, this would be unenforceable. People in the community are seeking a ‘legal’ solution to address something that should be taught at home. The ACLU has already indicated this would not fly. Who knows, maybe it will cause some parents to speaks to their ‘angels’ about the way they dress.
By SET
August 23, 2007 5:30 PM | Link to this
As far as trying to legislate dress codes for the general public about the city… It won’t work.
The personality mentioned above who thinks that a city council seat makes him dictator is just a dummy.
Dress codes within a city are created and enforced by public ridicule and not being allowed into decent restaurants. Trying to legislate in that area is notoriously counterproductive.
Those who don’t read history live it.
By Sam
August 23, 2007 5:50 PM | Link to this
We had uniforms at my middle school…a couple of color choices for pants, shirts, blouses, etc. Belts required. HOwever, the rule had absolutely NO support from the county [Dekalb] in the enforcement. THe consequence for not wearing the designated uniform began as in house suspension for the day….but deteriorated to nothing because the county office {Dekalb} stated that the policy was unenforcable….
I agree with those who have pointed out that most private schools [which seem to be the gold standard ] require uniforms. Of course, if their students don’t comply, they cannot attend.
By Lee
August 23, 2007 6:07 PM | Link to this
“The only other choice is for the schools and the government to step in to save the kids.”
Oh my God, not the “save the kids” argument.
Parents have been raising their kids for thousands of years without the government’s meddling, thankyouverymuch, and now in the past 30 years or so, everytime some pond scum politician or meddling nincompoop wants to get their face in the 6:00 o’clock news, they roll out the “save the kids” mantra.
Give me a break.
Ride by any school and you will notice they no longer have the old slides, swings, Jungle Gyms, and see saws. Too dangerous. It was a real bloodbath. Got to save the kids.
He11, I aint been able to open an aspirin bottle since 1978. Apparently, kids were dying by the thousands from eat’in aspirins by the handfull.
“If it will save just one kid, it will be worth it…”
Lord, save me from the government and meddlin’ fools.
By Ernest
August 23, 2007 6:11 PM | Link to this
SET, I’m glad you mentioned what you did @ 5:30. Nicer restaurants have dress codes in which they may require some combination of a jacket and tie (for men) and/or sometimes spell out what they will not tolerate for service. Is that legally enforceable? If so, is there anything that can be learned from that?
Sam, I’m not sure how long you’ve been at that school but the school system did not want to deal with uniform issues because of the amount of time spent on it a few years ago. When the dress of the child is deemed ‘distracting’, it is usually addressed.
By WhatWillBridgetDo?
August 23, 2007 6:14 PM | Link to this
It’s amazing that ONE SIMPLE QUESTION would unnerve Bridget to the point of coming on this blog to suggest to readers that my posts be deleted. Are you THAT afraid of the truth Bridget?
The fact is (not the rumor, gossip or innuendo, FACT!) that YOU wrote the original story of the falsified South Atlanta discipline data, and YOU sat down with Dr. Hall for today’s Q and A which took an entire half page of the AJC (with more online) and YOU made a conscious choice to NOT follow up on the story YOU wrote.
Instead you have come on this blog and talked about everything BUT the ORIGINAL question: Why didn’t you choose to follow up the original story?
You said Patti Gheezi was “responsible” for the follow up but is now a stay at home mom…conveniently omitting the fact that YOU wrote the original story.
You said the original story was about it “metro and statewide” discipline problems…conveniently omitting the fact it FEATURED South Atlanta High
You said you’ve only been assigned the AJC beat “in the last few weeks”…conveniently omitting the fact that your Q and A today featured a WIDE RANGE of topics…yet with a system that had FORTY schools claim to have ZERO discipline problems and by your very own reporting falsified discipline data at South Atlanta (verified by Atlanta Police Dept. records) you make a choice to not ask Dr. Hall a SINGLE QUESTION about discipline (at least in the print version)
You said you’re going to do a follow up on the next year’s data…but what good does that do ANYONE if you won’t FOLLOW THROUGH IN DEPTH? Since “the new data” hasn’t come out, why not ask Dr. Hall about the old data…it’s not like the AJC didn’t give you the space?
For those who would wish I’d let the matter drop. I would if Bridget had the integrity to answer ONE simple question: Why didn’t she follow up on the South Atlanta FALSIFIED DISCIPLINE data (the story SHE wrote) when she talked to Dr. Hall?
This story SHOULDN’T die, and Bridget SHOULD be held accountable (and the AJC should hold Dr. Hall accountable) because APS teachers deserve better.
At least Bridget isn’t under the constant threat of physical assault when trying to do her job, unlike many APS teachers are when trying to do their job.
Why should an APS teacher EVER be literally SHOVED TO THE GROUND, with no consequence to the student?
Why should an APS teacher EVER have to be told by a student “I’m going to bust a cap in you mother f**kin’ head” with no consequence to the student?
Why should an APS teacher EVER be sucker punched (or punched AT ALL!) by a student, with no consequence to the student?
Why should APS teachers have to wait months, weeks, and even YEARS for APS to address their LEGAL right to grievance on discipline and other issues?
But these things can and DO happen to APS teachers. And when Bridget has a Q and A with Beverly Hall, and doesn’t do a follow up on ONE SIMPLE QUESTION, Bridget and the AJC become no less than silent co-conspirators to the abuse and mistreatment of APS teachers.
Again Bridget, rather than try to silence me by dropping hints to the readers to do so, OR by throwing out a bunch of red herring responses that DON’T deal with the original question, why don’t you try to silence me by telling the truth and answering ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: Since you are NOW the APS beat writer and you ARE the author of the original story that FEATURED the falsified discipline data at South Atlanta High, why don’t you explain to the readers why you haven’t done a follow up?
APS teachers deserve better. APS students deserve better. AJC readers deserve better. Ralph McGill’s legacy DEFINITELY deserves better. The truth deserves better.
By PJ
August 23, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this
You can’t legislate good taste.
By Lisa B.
August 23, 2007 6:46 PM | Link to this
The law isn’t needed, and I am against it. I agree with Jim d., and others on that point. History has shown that we can’t legislate morality. All social and economic groups have their accepted mores and standards. When people chose to dress as thugs, prostitutes, Goths, etc., they simply chose to ostricize themselves from mainstream, middle-class America. I have a very pretty, smart niece who recently graduated with a nursing degree. She aspires to marry a doctor. I’ve warned her repeatedly that the array of tatoos covering her body, and her pierced tongue may limit her options. At least saggy, baggy pants are easier to get rid of.
By Stacey
August 24, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this
Teacher, Too…WHOA! I did not mean to step on your toes! If you have read any of my posts on here (including this particular blog), you will know that I’m not saying that this appropriate attire. I was simply stating that I have seen this type of attire in church. I happen to think it’s ridiculous that people can spend so much on designer jeans and sneakers but “can’t afford” (what I consider) proper attire for church or a job interview. The second paragraph was not addressing you in particular. I was just pointing out (whether you agree / like it or not) that not everyone who dresses like that is a gang banger and/or hiding drugs and weapons. I don’t like the look, I don’t think the attire is safe but I also don’t assume that anyone dressed that way is menacing. For the record, I don’t assume that everyone wearing a shirt and tie is a “good guy” either. Happy Friday! :-)
By Frank
August 24, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this
The law should be used to solve problems only as a last resort. Is this a matter of wanting to exercise control over an insignificant issue because we can’t control the very important ones, i.e., real crime? An example: 1. Women are allowed to go topless in Toronto; 2. Toronto’s homicide rate is one tenth that of Atlanta. Coincidence? I think not. ;-)
By WFC
August 24, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
RANDOM THOUGHTS from a retired 31-year educator:
School administrators, as a general rule, will NOT support teachers who try to enforce the dress code. We, at Northview, simply gave up.
The “baggy style” originated in public to conceal weapons. That was way back in the day.
It’s been said many times on this blog that the baggy style does not indicate future success. That’s true in a few anecdotal cases. However, I’ll make you this bet. Let’s go to any mall. You choose any 100 “baggy style” kids. I’ll choose any 100 kids not adopting this style. We’ll track them for 15-20 years. I’ll give you $1000 for every one of your kids who is a successful adult and you do the same for me. ANY TAKERS?
The baggy style is self-profiling.
Uniforms do solve a lot of school problems.
More fathers in homes would solve the “baggy-style-underwear-showing” problem. I guess that would be too much to ask.
By Bridget Gutierrez
August 24, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this
WWBD: I was not suggesting that your posts be deleted. I was simply letting Jeff and other readers know that if they ever find posts that are offensive, they may now request that those be erased.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that the posts ultimately will be taken down. It simply means readers have a new avenue to voice concerns.
As you know, I have the power to delete any post that violates our online policies. Many of yours have overstepped those lines, including the one above, which uses profanity. But I have continued to let them slide because I realize this is an important issue for you.
I have answered your questions repeatedly. You obviously are not satisfied with my responses. As I’ve told you previously, you are always welcome to contact our public editor with any concerns. She may be reached at atuck@ajc.com.
By Jeff
August 24, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
It seems that WWBD has a grudge against South Atlanta High FAR larger than my own again Bobby Jenkins.
WWBD, I urge you to get help for your rage and obsessiveness. While I don’t know any good phsychiatrists in the Fulton area (where it seems you are located), I’m sure someone here does and can refer you to one. PLEASE get the help it is so obvious you need to deal with your rage and stop directing it towards people who have no control over any facet of it.
By Jo
August 24, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this
Yes, the sagging-pants “style” (???) is certainly ghetto & low-class; decent people don’t want to see a mile of underwear and/or sweaty, hairy crack hanging out, but a lot of bloggers on here, with appalling mis-spellings & ghetto grammar, are just AS low-class. Illiteracy & ignorance are never bliss.
By SET
August 24, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
I restate my tribal dress argument. The USA is decending into a non-homogenized society where we have a growing underclass that the taxpayers keep on life support for some reason I don’t agree with.
The underclass must identify themselves for reasons best covered in cultural anthropology classes. They do so in the ways we find annoying, but it’s important to them to fly their freak flags so they can recognize each other and gain false feelings of strenght their economic and political power can’t bring them.
You cannot stop this process. It’s no difference than spotting syphillis by observing the chancre. It’s pathology.
If we are bothered by butts in boxers in our faces all we can do is get rid of the underclass (preferred method) or shun them.
Besides, when you see these people in their tribal dress you know who not to take a check from without even buying a credit score.
And I worked retail credit for 4 years in the early 1970’s during undergrad. We didn’t have credit scoring and made decisions about Character very quickly without actuarial based instruments. We wouldn’t give a charge account to a girl in an ankle bracelet for example, or if we didn’t like an applicant’s tattoos. Nice of them to display for us.
Some things just can’t change.
You can’t legislate away the signs of decay.
By DB
August 24, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this
My kids are at a private school, and I love the draconian dress code. Two choices of polo shirt color, must have school logo on it. Two choices of skirt, if you’re a girl, and detention if it is too short (surprise “skirt checks” keep it in line.) Only one kind of slacks, for boys, and they must be a specific brand. Full blazer, tie and oxford button-down one day a week. Shoes no higher than a 2-inch heel, black or brown. Blue or white socks, no logos. Uniform sweatshirts or sweaters are available for the cold-natured. Oh, and by the way — no “unnatural” colored hair (i.e., no purple hair or blue streaks.) Girls may only have one piercing in each ear - and nowhere else. None for boys.
There’s no angst in the morning getting dressed. The school has done as much as they could to cut down opportunties for label flaunting, but of course, the accessories such as purses, jewelry or sunglasses suddenly take on much more importance — or, at least as much importance as the parents allow.
By Stacey
August 24, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
DB…I wouldn’t mind my son’s (public) school adopting everything about your dress code except for brand specific. A lot of parents can afford to buy $12 khakis and $8 polos at Wal Mart but truly not be able to afford $30 Dockers. (For example). I realize you specified that this is private school and money is (usually) not as much of an issue. I’m just tweaking your description to fit what I wouldn’t mind for my son. That said, he’s in 1st grade and doesn’t dress like that most days. During the summer months his “uniforms” is (fitted) shorts, nice t shirt and sneakers. He’s in that “rough & tumble” stage (like the boys of my generation) where he crawls the knees out of his pants, scuffs the toes of his shoes and uses his shirt as a napkin! LOL
By Jo
August 24, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this
DB, you’re lucky; the strictures of your childrens’ school DO save you, and the kids, a lot of grief. But, the only problem I’d have with that is that a few of the restrictions affect how the child expresses him/herself on their own time (piercings, wild hair colours.) Oh and by the way,I MUST commend you on your excellent spelling, grammar, vocabulary & general eloquence. As you may have noticed in a recent post, I can’t stand “street talk” & illiteracy. Grrrr!!
By SET
August 24, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this
Jo: Children do not have their “own time”. They have their families’ time if they are fortunate enough to have a family that counts. Children do not “express” themselves “on their own time” until they have moved out and are paying their own rent. Until that day they do as they are required by their family and by the state - in that order. Starting with keeping their mouths (among other things) shut, turning the music down, & cleaning their rooms and the rest of the house too.
When they are paying their own bills they only have to worry about obeying the state (and federal, I suppose) rules about behavior.
You seem to think that children are people, expected to do what they want to do while still not paying the bills and doing adult time in prison for lawbreaking. Part of the reason children are insulated from the cold hard world is that they are not responsible enough to decide or to pay the full price for their decisions. They are too immature.
If Sonny and Cher want out of children’s controls they can go down to the courthouse and file for emancipation and get a judge to sign off on it. At that point their parents no longer have any obligation to provide them health care, food, clothing, education, cellphones, etc. Otherwise until they turn the age of majority the parents own their paychecks and everything in their rooms. And the Parents can destroy any of their toys as they see fit.
By Lisa B.
August 24, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this
I’d love for my school system to require uniforms. The way it’s done in SW Georgia is more like uniform dress. Khaki pants, skirts or shorts (any brand) and plain white or navy polo shirts. In neighboring counties uniform dress is in place, and after initial resistance, the parents seem to like it. My school system always votes it down. Maybe someday….
By WhatWillBridgetDo?
August 24, 2007 5:43 PM | Link to this
Jeff,
Not since the dawn of the Iron Age, when the first kettle called the first pot black have I seen anything SO hypocritical as your response to my posts on the South Atlanta falsified discipline data.
As much as you rant and rage on everything you want to suggest I get help? For what? Insisting that a “reporter” report? What should I insist she do? Spin? As far as I know, her job has nothing to do with yarn or looms, so I’m not really in the mood to suggest she spin. (I doubt Ralph McGill would be either.)
For all your bluster, you totally backed down from my challenge to you yesterday. You resorted to all manner of personal attacks, but you REFUSED to answer the challenge:
As a defender of Bridget, if Bridget wrote the original story on the falsified South Atlanta discipline data, and Bridget is now “the APS beat writer” and Bridget just sat down with a Q and A then give us a legitimate reason for her not to FOLLOW UP on the story.
You won’t…because you can’t because you know, even if I have “pounded it into the ground” it’s a legitimate question.
I’m sure Jim D and Earnest are every bit as sick of it as you are, but at least THEY acknowledge it’s a legitimate question.
You’ll have to excuse me if I’m every bit equally as sick that the AJC acts not unlike an “unindicted co-conspirator” in covering up the fact that APS officials FALSIFIED federal documents on discipline.
Bridget has said that she has addressed this “repeatedly” and she’s ALMOST right. What she has done is come on here and NOT addressed it…repeatedly.
I challenge anyone on here to look at all of Bridget’s responses and point out to me where she SPECIFICALLY addressed why she didn’t follow up the *original story”.
The closest she came was in telling a poster (I think it was Jim D) that with all the stuff she has to cover following up on what’s now two year old data wasn’t the highest priority.
Let me get this straight. You do a story. You, the original reporter to follow it up for over one full year. Then when you are challenged on it, you imply that it’s not important because it’s old news.
What do you want to bet Michael Vick wishes to God the AJC reported on his story with the exact same LACK of vigilence as it has the discipline problems at APS
I can see it now
“It was a few dogs; several months back. No big deal. How ‘bout we just do a big Q and A with Arthur Blank on the state of the team instead?”
Sorry, but I happen to think enough of the teaching profession that when APS teachers are physically assaulted it’s a “big deal”.
When APS officials FALSIFY data to cover it up, it’s a “big deal”.
When APS teachers’ legal rights to the grievance process are violated, it’s a “big deal”
Of course the way to not make this a “big deal” is to go ahead and DO THE FOLLOW UP, and as Ernest said “let the chips fall where they may”.
But that takes integrity, something that seems to be falling as fast as circulation numbers at the AJC.
Now Jeff, you and many others can safely say I am ABSOLUTELY guilty of not letting the matter die.
But what you can’t do (and I have OPENLY challenged you TWICE to do) is show me SPECIFICALLY where I am wrong on the fact that the South Atlanta falsified discipline data is a legitimate issue that SHOULD have been followed up.
If you’re so “hard core” about things Jeff, and such a defender of Bridget step up to the plate and show me where I’m wrong about the original question: Why no follow up when Bridget met recently with Dr. Hall?
PS As far a contacting Angela Tuck, it has been my experience that when AJC personnel are asked “tough questions” they simply refuse to respond.
Furthermore, her repsonses on issues in general haven’t given her much credibility as a true ombudsman (Creative Loafing has done excellent work on explaining the difference between a true ombudsman and the dog and pony show put on by the AJC)
But if Bridget has such faith in her, why not have Tuck come on here and address the ORIGINAL question so that we can ALL see.
By Bridget Gutierrez
August 24, 2007 6:12 PM | Link to this
WWBD: You seem to have a failure to recall my responses to your questions. I will make this abundantly clear for the final time:
It was not my responsibility last year to follow up on the APS piece of that story — which amounted to exactly five paragraphs out of 26 total. It was the APS beat reporter’s responsibility.
Now that I have taken over the APS beat — a year after the original story was written, mind you — it has not been my top priority to go back to see what balls may have been dropped by the previous reporter.
For the third time: I have every intention to write another story about the latest discipline data when it is released.
By WhatWillBridgetDo?
August 24, 2007 6:35 PM | Link to this
Well Bridget,
My hope is that you do write another story; and as Ernest suggested (and Ernest seems to enjoy a lot of respect on this board) you link it to the 8/8/06 South Atlanta High story.
And I hope the story is so completely in depth and with enough extensive follow through (for example comparing APS data with that of the Atlanta Police Dept. especially in the high schools, interviewing the various teachers and ALL teachers’ unions for background info) that I have to come on this board and REPEATEDLY, PROFOUNDLY and PROFUSELY eat a veritble feast of crow, because someone at the AJC will finally uncover the reality that Dr. Hall and APS officials don’t want to acknowledge: discipline is out of control and APS officials have repeatedly underreported the data.
I hope you do such a good job (and I am dead serious about this; APS teachers and students deserve no less) that Jeff and all other defenders of you come on this blog and OPENLY mock me for ever doubting your, or the AJC’s committment to finding out the true extent of discipline problems in APS and the as true extent of the underreporting of said problems.
Finally, I’d like to see a story so detailed, so compelling, that the AJC editorial board can’t help but finally acknowledge what Creative Loafing and other publications have: discipline is out of control at APS and APS has been less than forthcoming about it.
It’s a story that needs to be written; so hopefully you’ll be true to your word when the data comes out.
By luvs2teach
August 24, 2007 6:35 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Happy Friday! Boy have my first couple of weeks been busy - I have missed you all :-)
First, as to this being a legislated law? No thank you. I don’t think it’s enforcable, and I don’t appreciate the further intrusion of government into my life.
That being said, once upon a time, social mores took care of things like dress codes…things “simply were not done, my dear” (in my grandmother’s voice as I hear her asking me if I had on a slip under my lined wool skirt - and this was the early 80s).
Casual Friday at the office has become casual dress at church and some people have no taste or decorum, casual or not, LOL. (BTW - I’ve been watching Mad Men on AMC, and while I’m glad some things have changed….my goodness, do I appreciate a man in a sharp suit & grey fedora, yummmm).
We have had “Sunday dress” days at school, and I have to say, there is a definite difference in behavior when they are dressed to the nines than when they are saggin & baggin.
I have no problem with optional school uniforms - they do help with the ‘$100 sneaker issues’ as well as make life simple in the morning (and I say this as someone who has had jobs with and without uniforms - sometimes, not thinking about what I have to wear is nice).
I also have no problem with dress codes that promote a ‘business of learning’ environment - instead of ‘the world’s oldest business’ if you know what I mean (some of my girls need to be told there is a difference between ‘sexy’ and ‘slutty’ - and actually in the 8th grade, I would prefer “wholesome” to either of those!)
Just for fun this year, instead of my hammering them about the dress code, I had them do a survey of their parents to find out about dress codes in the real world. Boy were they surprised to find out that grown-ups had them! I was surprised to find out a major metro employer does not allow jeans AT ALL - not even on Fridays. Dress codes could be as simple as a company shirt or as complex as a military uniform. Some dress codes came about as a safety requirement (hard hats and steel toed shoes, for example). It was very enlightening for them and me.
I know some people put great value in allowing kids to express themselves - but kids also need to learn that there are limits - many societal - that will impact their hireability (? is that a word) and job success. I’m afraid that these well-meaning parents who stress their child’s individuality at all costs (and common sense) will still be supporting them when they are in there 30s.
But, hey, at least they can express their individuality.
HAGWE
By DB
August 27, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this
Jo, thanks for the compliment regarding the writing. My mother, the English teacher, would be so proud!
Re: expressing individuality. That has always been a bit of a sore spot with me. If everyone else is doing it, how can it be a sign of “individuality”? (The old adage: “I want to be different — just like everyone else!”) I abhor body piercings and tatoos, and I hope to God I’ve instilled enough self-respect in my two that they would never consider disfiguring their body in such an ugly way. The hair color doesn’t seem to hold much fascination, except for a henna rinse my daughter tried one summer with my permission. Her own hair is so lovely, she finally figured out that not much could improve it :-)
I have drilled in them since they were old enough to listen: If they really want to stand out from the crowd, then make a 4.3 GPA, knock the socks off the SAT, excel in music, dance or a sport, throw your energies into a favorite service project … there are dozens of way of “expressing yourself” that doesn’t involve making an idiot of yourself or involves something that you’ll regret 20 years from now.
When you think about it, most of the self-expression vehicles are merely outward symbols of total self-absorbtion — which is another thing that I’ve spent a long time trying to knock out of them. :-) It’s difficult to do in this self-absorbed society. Things like “My Space” and “Facebook” seem to especially promote this continuing fascination of self — look at most pages on either of those websites, and most of them are about “me, me, me”, and what “I” feel about this and that, and what people are saying about “me”.
Stacey, I agree about the cost of the uniforms. The reason our school went to one brand across the board was at first, no particular pant was specified — just “khaki”. But then the one-upsmanship started: Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, etc. The school then looked for a brand that would fit pretty much everyone from kindergarten to high school senior. They aren’t Dockers, they are some uniform brand. The school runs an active second-hand shop for outgrown uniform pieces, and it’s amazing how many school uniform pieces are lurking at Goodwill!
By jim d
August 27, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this
L2T,
Thanks, i did have a great one.
There is a recording artist named Keith anderson who recorded a song entitled “Cloths don’t make the man”
The lyrics go something like this.
Designer names
Rips and stains
Shouldn’t tell you who I am
Cause sometimes angels hid their wings An’ the Devil’s dressed like a lamb
Yeah, The Clothes Don’t Make The Man
They all laughed an called him names when he said that he was sent to be their king
You don’t even own a home
You’ve got simple clothes an’ sandals on your feet
Stripped of his pride
He was crucified
On a cross with nails of haterd in his hands
But he rose from the grave in 3 days
Yeah,The Clothes Don’t Make The Man
Just a little something to think about.
By jim d
August 27, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this
I believe the key thing regarding how one dresses is this… Be yourself. Like yourself. Be comfortable in you. Wear the clothes you like, because you like them. WHY you like them is up to you. YOU decide why YOU like them.
We’d all be well served to remember that what is happening on the inside of you is the cake… what happens on the outside is just the icing.
By Ernest
August 27, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this
More food for thought on this topic. In several DeKalb schools, they have instituted a ‘Tuck and Pull’ policy. As a parent, I think it is GREAT!! Surprisingly, my little ‘angel’ does not like the policy as he feels there are more important issues to deal with. I looked him in his eyes and told him if he makes an ‘adult’ decision to protest and violate this policy, he will take the ‘adult’ consequences that go along with that. If he comes running to daddy for help, I’m siding with the administration. Needless to say, I haven’t had any problems thus far with him on that.
Because I can appreciate dissent if it is done in the right way, I did encourage him to speak to other students then speak to the administration in a respectful manner. While I don’t expect the policy to change, it does/can provide a life lesson for the students.
By OmegaWolf747
August 27, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this
To those of you who disfavor the Atlanta saggy-baggy ban but favor school uniforms and dress codes: There is no difference between the two. High school dress codes are what lead to laws like this crap in Atlanta! The only way to preserve freedoms for adults is to allow teens to have the same freedoms! Otherwise, they grow up not knowing the difference and expecting to have their freedoms restricted.
Do we really want to live in a world where even our clothes and hair are dictated by the government? I certainly don’t.
I believe rights, freedoms and self-expression are more important than discipline, decency, school pride and anything else the conservatives can pull out of their hidden orifice to use as an excuse to oppress young people.
Message to conservatives: Your time in power is gone. This is the young people’s country now. Why don’t you just take a clue and bow out gracefully?
Don’t like how we dress and wear our hair? Don’t look at it.
By DB
August 27, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
OmegaWolf747, don’t give me that crapola about teens deserving the same freedoms as adults. When they pay taxes like adults, hold down full-time jobs like (some) adults, are raising a family and are contributing members of society, THEN they get the freedoms — and responsibilities — of adults. Until then, they are non-adults, and some of them are obviously direly in need of guidance as to what constitutes acceptable dress and social behavior. I don’t want to see the crack in your butt, I don’t want to see your underwear, and I don’t want to see thongs and bra straps slipping and sliding as if the girl just jumped out of the bed. To use an old-fashioned word: It’s tacky.
That being said, if you want to go ahead and make an azz out of yourself, go right ahead and dress like an idiot. I agree - the government can’t protect everyone from themselves. We all have the right to make fools of ourselves.
Your “message to conservatives” is an old, old song, honey. I was singing that in the 70s, and my parents were singing it in the 50s. It’ll be a “young people’s country” when the young people hold the economic reins. Unfortuantely, most of them think that a bankruptcy is an acceptable way of dealing with too much credit card debt and don’t have a clue what supporting YOURSELF means, and not depending on the government to do it or bail them out when they get in trouble.
When the government is acting in loco parentis, then the government can and will dictate terms, just as any other parent. If you want TRUE freedom, start establishing some economic freedom. However, if you don’t even have enough sense to use a belt to keep your pants up — why would I hire you to in any form of responsible management position?
I don’t choose to look at it. I completely ignore it. I don’t hire it, so I don’t have to look at it.
Enjoy your freedom. :-)
By OmegaWolf747
August 27, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
Ernest, I wish your son godspeed in getting a ridiculous code like that overturned. I never tuck in my s** as it is uncomfortable and restricts movement.
Individual freedom must be paramount with no consideration for decorum, decency, morality, school spirit, blah blah blah. The only thing that matters in this so-called “free country” is the right of the individual to feel comfortable in their own skin. This cannot be achieved in the buttoned-down, conservative society we are seeing formed before our eyes.
By Jeff
August 27, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
DB:
Here’s a BIG AMEN!!!
Omega:
“Kid, kid, kid. I don’t know whether I should kick you azz in this race right now or just take you ‘cross my knee.”
2 points if you know the movie that is from.
You’ll be thinking like an adult when you learn well its lesson. (Granted, the lesson is the object of the movie and not the one line.)
By OmegaWolf747
August 27, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this
So freedom must be bought. That is what you are saying?
Well teens would be able to get those full time jobs if we didn’t have child labor laws and compulsory education stopping them.
By OmegaWolf747
August 27, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
For you guys’ information, I’m 29. I just happen to be a libertarian.
By luvs2teach
August 27, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
Well said, DB, well said.
By Image Conscious
August 27, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this
Bold**Take some pride in the way you dress. Clean this crap up, and represent with class or just dress for success. If that means monitoring that tacky look, then I’m all for it. I monitor my children and tell them they’d better not let me catch them socializing with kids that have their cloths too big or sagging. Yes, I said it. Having a fashion fad is one thing, looking like a looser is another. And for those of you that don’t know, if it was all done tastefully from the beginning, none of this would’ve ever gotten noticed. But they messed it up for the rest of the world and their too stupid to even know it, and you want to stay quiet about it. If more people would get involved and hold others accountable for their wrong doing, then the gov wouldn’t have to monitor us. So you that want to shrug it all under the rug, it’s your fault too.
By Larry
August 27, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this
Did anyone do their reseach on this? The sagging pants started in prison. The homosexuals in prison created this to disply to others who will give it up, so the new comers won’t have to get punked. This generation that started this is laughing at the younger generation for doing their research to find out who they’re representing. Because so many of the younger generation don’t read and aren’t made to research by their parents, very few know this.
By Voltaire:
August 27, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this
So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
By OmegaWolf747
August 27, 2007 4:28 PM | Link to this
What is the big deal about the clothes that people wear anyway? It’s not right to judge a person by how they appear. Get to know them and see what they’re really like.
I for one, would like to see “dressing for success” fade into the background and just let everyone wear their jeans, t-shirts, baseball caps, piercing tattoos. We can have a flourishing culture of self-expression instead of a buttoned-down culture of button-pushing drones.
By DB
August 28, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
OmegaWolf747, freedom is not “bought”. It is financed. :-) The more money, the more responsibility — and, coincidentally, the more freedom. Those with the most money are most free to do what they want — either indulgently or with an eye towards the greater good — than those who are struggling to feed themselves from day to day.
Child labor laws are in place because, incredibly, there are still families who place a low value on education. Otherwise, you’d have 15 year olds choosing to work at the car wash instead of doing geometry. Those families and their children would ditch school for the short-term goal of $6.50 an hour at the local supermarket, and lack the ability to see the big picture that education equals earning power. Granted, one can lead a child to school, but you can’t make him learn. But at least the opportunity is there.
Re: “the big deal about the clothes that people wear, anyway”. The simple fact of life is that judgements are made on people from the moment you see someone. Grooming, clothing, etc., are all outward reflections of how a person feels about themselves. With very few eccentric exceptions, a sloppily-dressed person will almost always be a sloppy worker (I don’t mean expensive au courant clothing, ok? I just mean CLEAN and reasonably well-fitting.) You say that everyone should just wear their jeans and t-shirts. I would no more be comfortable in jeans and a t-shirt at work than I would be wearing a bikini to a board meeting! I don’t own a baseball cap, and alas, I have no tattoos to proclaim to the world a momentary lapse in judgement and poor taste in self-decorative arts. :-)
However, please note that I have not said that you should not dress to please yourself. Just keep in mind that pleasing yourself can backfire when you put yourself in the position when you have to at least not offend others.
Which circles back around to economic freedom to do what you want …
By Lee
August 28, 2007 8:01 PM | Link to this
OmegaWolf747, you think you’re the only generation who ever came up with that “rebel against authority, let us do our own thing” mantra? I seem to recall the same thing in the 60’s.
Guess what? Those hippies are now in their sixties, checking their cholestoral, playing golf, checking on their 401k.
Remember, all men are born equal. We then spend the rest of our lives working on the fat, bald, and gray part.
By luvs2teach
August 28, 2007 8:56 PM | Link to this
Lee & Db - great comments!
I just read a great line:
Teenagers are those who will act like babies when they’re not treated like adults!
no more so than in the dress code, LOL
BTW - I am probably one of the worst enforcers of the dress code at my school - a kid can be right in front of me dressed like a hoochie and some things just don’t register - I guess I’m too busy trying to teach.
By Bluthunder2k1
August 30, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this
I THINK IT IS A GREAT IDEA ONLY BECAUSE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO DO SAG ARE THOSE WHO HAVE NO RESPECT FOR OTHERS, LET ALONE THEMSELVES.
THERE IS NO WAY, IN THE LATE 90’S, MY GRANDMOTHER, OR MOTHER, WOULD ALLOW ME TO SAG MY CLOTHES, NO MATTER WHO WAS DOING IT.
NOW, PEOPLE WANT TO ACT LIKE IT SO COOL, BUT ACTUALLY, IT SHOWS IGNORANCE.
NOW, A LIL SAG IS OK, BUT NOWADAYS, YOUNG MEN HAVE THEIR WHOLE REAR END EXPOSED, AND SOME EVEN THEIR FRONTAL AREA BECAUSE THEY WALK AROUND WITH THEIR SHIRT IN THE AIR.