Category Archives: dressing disruptively

Ada Calhoun on the People Involved in Dressing Controversies

by

clothes racksIn her article, “Fashion police are no joke in some cities and schools,” over at Al Jazeera America, journalist Ada Calhoun explores the stories and people behind three controversies: sagging pants, Borgata “babes,” and students’ “I Heart Boobies” breast cancer awareness bracelets.

Ada Calhoun knows her clothes: She’s the co-author of the bestselling Tim Gunn’s Fashion Bible.  But she also knows that attire provokes strong responses from people.

Want to know what the major of Wildwood thinks about the ban on saggy pants?  Or what rapper The Game thinks?  Want to know what the attorney representing the cocktail servers at the Borgata casino thinks should be qualifications for the job rather than “dominatrix outfit” (hint: not spilling drinks might be important)?  Want to hear from the students who pressed for the right to wear the breast cancer awareness bracelets to school?

Take a look at Calhoun’s excellent reporting.

Florida Schools Ban Their Own Cheerleader Uniforms

by

At the end of last month, public schools in Pinellas County, Florida banned their own cheerleader uniforms in classrooms because the uniforms violate the schools’ new dress codes.

Screen Shot 2013-09-06 at 12.45.44 PMAs reported, the ban is part of a “broader crackdown” to enforce the dress code and administrators will no longer turn a “blind eye” towards the fact that the cheerleaders’ uniform, typically worn to class on game days, violates the dress code.

Questioning why the uniforms are “suddenly too vulgar,” many cheerleaders and their supporters have reacted strongly to the switch from short skirts to track pants. They question why too much teenage thigh and academics don’t mix for the school year of 2013, despite the uniform being classroom appropriate for years.

But the administration has been staunch in their position, with one principal telling reporters that, though the skirts may be appropriate during the game, “a school has another purpose, and that’s academics.” The pushers of the policy also say the ban promotes egalitarian skirt length among cheerleaders and non-cheerleaders.

For now, one school in the district found an obvious compromise: longer cheerleader skirts.

[image via]

Op-Ed in LA Times on School Dress Codes

by

Today’s LA Times includes my op-ed  “School Dress Codes: Miniskirt Madness” arguing that “School districts should focus more on educating students and less on enforcing seemingly arbitrary dress rules.”

Of course, it’s not just miniskirts.  After reading the op-ed for other examples, also look for our recent posts on leggings, a seven year old’s “dreadlocks,”  breast-cancer awareness bracelets,  male cosmetics, the continuing controversy over confederate flags,  the Second Amendment,  and religious clothing, not to mention problems at graduation for students as well as parents.

And for even more, see Dressing Constitutionally.

 

 

 

image via

 

Leggings too Provocative? More on School Dress Codes

by

Back to school wearing leggings?  Perhaps not.

Highland High School of Salt Lake City, Utah posted several images on facebook and twitter to guide students on how to appropriately wear leggings to school —

994532_631701273514655_2086817981_n

As reported, the administration now requires that students cover up between the waist and thigh with another layer of clothing when wearing leggings. Though an outright ban has yet to happen, if the school deems a student’s leggings to be too tight, the student is given sweatpants and a T-Shirt saying “I Love My Administrator.”

Unlike past fashion trends of the youth involving too much skin showing (e.g., mini-skirts, spaghetti straps, etc.), leggings do not directly expose one’s body. However, as Assistant Principal Nelson told reporters, “Sometimes, they can be so tight that there’s really nothing left to the imagination.”

The actual dress code standard requires that clothing be of “modest design” and prohibits “provocative” dress.

Reactions have varied, but several students question the tightness of male athletic uniforms and have also commented that several teachers wear the tightly fitting pants. Others have noted that the school does not ban discrimination against LGBTQ students.

Seemingly unfazed by these points, the administration continues to focus on the trend of young women, finding the form fitting pants just too provocative for an educational environment.

1011588_631639133520869_1432153801_n

[Images via]

Charter School Hairstyles

by

Another charter school has decided that a student’s hairstyle is unacceptable.

As reported, the Deborah Brown Community School in Tulsa objected to a seven year old’s hairstyle described as “dreadlocks.”  The school seems to have a policy banning “faddish” hairstyles.  The child seems to have changed schools.

As a constitutional matter, the threshold issue is whether or not the charter school is sufficiently public to be deemed a “state actor” and thus be bound by our constitutional principles of equal protection and liberty, even for school children.

As a nonconstitutional matter, parents and other policy makers can bring pressure to bear on a private school in some of the same ways as they can bring pressure on elected school board officials.

City “Entertainment District” Proposes Dress Code

by

Seeking to create a “sophisticated” and “family friendly” atmosphere, the organization running a Lincoln, Nebraska, “entertainment district” will reportedly enforce a dress code for those using its two outdoor courtyards.

railyardThe “entertainment district” consists of two courtyards separated by a public street, which can be closed and made part of the district during special events. The courtyards also serve as an outdoor dining space for a number of restaurants. The area is across the street from Pinnacle Bank Arena, home of the University of Nebraska’s men’s and women’s basketball teams. 

The dress code, as reported, would ban clothing with profanity, tank tops, cut-off shirts, exposed underwear, excessively long shirts, excessively baggy clothing, wave caps (see below), “any type of clothing that could be used as a weapon,” and “clothing associated with gangs.” In addition, “all hats must be straight forward or straight back and not to the side.” Private security guards, information “ambassadors,” and off-duty police officers will enforce the dress code. 

12-2--6-1-05pinwheel-cap-man

banned in the Lincoln “Entertainment District”?

The proposed dress code has already created some controversy in Lincoln, including worry that “those of certain demographics” will be unfairly targeted. Stefanie Warner, who oversees the district for the private operating company, reportedly stated that the project’s goal is “to create a more sophisticated and mature atmosphere for the young professionals we are trying to attract to the area,” “a family-friendly area,” and an area “unique from other areas of Lincoln.”

A vague dress code enforced on what might appear to be a public plaza (and street) by off-duty police officers seems like trouble. Those looking to challenge unfair expulsion from the “entertainment district” may be disappointed, however. While the Lincoln City Council created the district, and the dress code reportedly addresses council members’ security concerns, potential litigants will face the threshold issue of state action.

In the 2008 case of Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Association, discussed in Dressing Constitutionally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City of Gilroy, California, in a civil rights action brought by members of a motorcycle club. Off-duty police officers had expelled the club members from the Gilroy Garlic Festival, held in a public park, for violating a dress code. The “unwritten policy” in that case banned “gang colors or other demonstrative insignia, including motorcycle club insignia.” The Ninth Circuit held that the off-duty police action at the festival did not constitute state action: running festivals is not a “traditional municipal function” and the city was not a “moving force” behind the police enforcement of the dress code. 

The Lincoln City Council has apparently ceded management of the “entertainment district” to a private organization, and the private organization will create and enforce the dress code. Although potential litigants might, for example, compare administration of a street and plaza to a “traditional government function,” they may, like the plaintiffs in Villegas, find the courthouse closed.

[images via 1 and 2]

Bar Exam Revises Headwear Policy After Hijab Incident

by

After a proctor asked a test-taker to remove her hijab during the bar exam, the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners changed its policy regarding its approval process for headwear.

As reported, law graduate Iman Abdulrazzak received approval before the bar exam to wear her hijab during the test, as required by the exam’s security policy in July.

However, in the morning session of the 16-hour test, a proctor passed Iman this handwritten note:

Screen Shot 2013-09-03 at 1.43.49 PM

Iman told reporters the interruption caused her considerable confusion and frustration, though she was able to receive official approval (again) during the lunch break.  

Various news sources reported the incident, and a plethora of commentators chastised the board over the discriminating nature of the policy. The exam board then revised the policy, which now allows headwear worn during the exam for “religious reasons or reasons of medical necessity only.”

In addition to apologizing to Iman, the Executive Director of the exam board told reporters that “the decision to change the policy was an easy one to make.”

But if it was “an easy one to make,” why did it take this outrageous incident to elicit change? After all, requiring an anxious test-taker to jump through an approval process seems constitutionally questionable under the First Amendment’s right to free exercise of religion.  With any luck the issue is resolved, at least in Massachusetts. 

[image via]

Police Allegedly Remove Girls’ Hijabs in a Bronx Park

by

On Monday night, NYPD officers reportedly detained four teens in a Bronx park, and during the process, the officers forcibly removed two Muslim girls’ hijabs.

Sisters, 12-year old Lamis and 14-year old Khalia, were playing at their neighborhood park when two officers told the girls to leave. As reported, when the teenage girls went to exit the park, the officers followed and attacked them, forcefully bringing them to the ground. While on the ground, the officers “ripped off” both of the girls’ hijabs.

800px-Headscarfalanya

In an attempt to come to the girls’ aid, their brother and a young college student, who tried to film the incident, were also violently detained.

A police source said that the children were “acting disorderly” as they left the park and that the college student grabbed one of the girls from the “escorting” officers.

Regardless of the truth of that account, the fact that the officers removed the hijabs proves problematic for the NYPD. First, it leads one to question underlying intent of the officers for targeting these young girls. Second, the officers’ unconsented removal of the girls’ religious attire is an assault on the girls’ religious expression, and the vehement acts may be a violation of the girls’ First Amendment rights to both free speech and free exercise of religion.  

[image via]

Retailer Removes Feathered Headdress After Customer Complaints

by

This month, popular clothing retailer H&M removed faux feather headdresses from their shelves in Canada. As reported, a spokesperson for H&M said three customers complained that the headdresses were culturally insensitive, prompting the company to remove the product.

One H&M customer explained her complaint to reporters: “Headdresses are a sign of respect and leadership … You wouldn’t find a colorful hijab or a colorful yarmulke on the shelves as some sort of fashion accessory to wear out to a nightclub or to a music festival.”

article-0-1B390806000005DC-272_634x535Online reaction to the news has varied — some see the accessory as a harmless nod to aboriginal culture, while others rebuke H&M as cheapening the First Nations’ heritage in order to make a quick buck, essentially profiting off a people’s history and traditions by turning them into an aesthetic movement.

H&M is not the only company to receive negative press over offensive appropriation of indigenous peoples’ culture. In the last two years, several large retailers, including Victoria Secret and Forever 21, have elicited outrage over insensitive use and mockery of Native American traditions and symbols.

2navajo101311

In 2011, the Navajo Nation brought legal action against retail giant Urban Outfitters for the use of “Navajo” to sell its products, or as Sasha Houston Brown of the Santee Sioux Nation wrote, a “mass marketed collection of distasteful and racially demeaning apparel and décor.” Brown and the Navajo Nation argued that items like the “Navajo Hipster Panty” were trademark infringement and violate the Federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, which prohibits one from falsely representing an item as made by Native Americans.

Given the popularity of the trend and a long history of exploitation of indigenous cultures and histories, it is unlikely that H&M will be the last to receive the charge of cultural insensitivity. But perhaps there is recourse through the legal system in addition to publicly shaming such companies for their serious fashion faux pas.

[images via 1 and 2]

The NFL’s Policing of Players’ Tattoos and Spectators’ Purses

by

Aaron_HernandezThe NFL may employ “police experts” to investigate players’ tattoos. As reported, after the arrest of former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez on murder charges, some linked him to gang activity and pointed to his tattoos as evidence, particularly a tattoo of the word “Blood” as a connection to the Bloods gang. As noted, next to “blood” is tattooed the word “sweat,” as in “blood, sweat, and tears,” so perhaps the tattoo-gang connection remains ambiguous. For a gallery of some tattoos and their supposed meanings, look here and here. 

While it is reported that “it is not illegal to discriminate against someone for tattoos and piercings,” the idea that the NFL would subject its players to some sort of tattoo review is troubling. Tattoos are apparently fairly common among players and potentially quite extensive.  While tattoos are a protected form of expression, private employers are usually free to implement rules governing their visibility on the job. Because the NFL is arguably “private,” this does not raise constitutional issues, but using police “experts” involves the government and there may be collateral consequences.

 

NFLbagIn other NFL news, the League is also concerned  with its fans’ bags.  New size restrictions for handbags are in effect, but HuffPost writer Kimann Schultz says they are so small as to be impracticable or even unavailable. Season ticket holders received a clear plastic bag for their use, expanding an already intrusive bag search to make the contents visible to all, all the time. Schultz concludes: “I encourage the NFL to consider the reality of both retail availability for women when calculating these dimensions and practical application of the few items we have a right to carry with discretion….”  Again, because it is a private forum – – – although stadiums are often heavily financed by governments – – – constitutional questions will remain in the background.  But perhaps there could be a sex discrimination claim?

[images via 1 and 2]