Skip to main content

Air condition-less high school enforces new dress code

A story just surfaced which reported that despite hot temperatures outside and lacking air conditioning inside, the interim principal at Tottenville High School in Staten Island has handed out detentions to 200 students for violating the new dress code - 90% of whom were female.

The new dress code prohibits the wearing of tank tops, low-cut shirts, and shorts that don't reach fingertip length. Especially due to the "sweltering" classrooms, many students have continually protested against the new dress code by wearing tank tops, shorts, and the like.

As one senior at the school said, "That's what girls wear when it's hot out. It's unfair to them."

Another student said, "Tottenville should just be an all boys school considering this dress code is only affecting the girls."

Yet another commented that it was "humiliating to be pulled aside like an object."

Due to the growing controversy, school district officials released a statement where they said the dress code was enforced to prevent distractions in the classroom. Those whom have been punished for violating the dress code have been asked to either put on a large t-shirt and gym shorts provided by the school or wait for their parents to bring them a different outfit.

While I can understand teachers wanting their students to not be distracted during class, especially nowadays, clothing should be the least of their worries. Let's be realistic. At that age, boys will constantly get distracted by girls they find attractive, regardless of what they wear. The same goes for girls at that age and finding a boy in class attractive. It goes both ways, and it rarely has anything to do with their choice of clothing. At work, what's one more likely to get distracted by? A phone call from a friend or partner, emails, social media, a game of some kind, or someone's outfit? Will a boss punish 200 people for wearing outfits which may draw gazes from members of the opposite (or even same) sex?

Also, what's more distracting to the learning environment - sweltering hot classrooms due to a lack of air conditioning or someone's outfit? What's more distracting to the learning environment - wearing a tank top or fearing you may get embarrassed and punished for wearing that tank top?

Lastly, while people of all ages should display respect for themselves with what they wear, women's fashion freedom shouldn't be diminished just because some men may not showcase genuine respect for them depending on their choice of attire.

School district officials should be focusing on the bigger problems at Tottenville High School. As a matter of fact, I recommend students (protesters) at the school start a new phrase: "Distraction free! If you fix the A/C!"

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/09/15/3567291/dress-code-staten-island/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"