Dreadlocks are distracting.

[Amanita]

In other words - if the rules about conformity aren't in place, how is "being different' being disrespectful to oneself or the establishment?

Exactly! I know several people who dye their hair, and if my job allowed it, I might dye mine too- perhaps coal black with a couple of red streaks. Or perhaps blue or purple (Mako Mori, anyone?)

We don't dye our hair or wear gothic clothing for attention or to show off, nor do we do it to disrespect anybody. We do it because we enjoy it. And that shouldn't be a problem.

I'd rather see kids taught to accept difference, rather than see conformity enforced for its own sake. I'm all for reasonable rules, as long as the reason for them existing makes sense. For example, I think rules banning long hair for male students are BS- they're sexist and based on outdated antipathy towards "hippies" and the like. But I can fully understand rules banning offensive slogans or images on clothing.

Teaching kids to accept difference is more likely to encourage other kinds of tolerance- they're less likely to be upset by the sight of somebody who's disabled, or somebody who wears a turban or veil for religious reasons, for example. And maybe they will be less likely to bully because of it.

Somebody mentioned uniforms and students getting expensive hairdos to show off- how would a school plan to stop that? Insist everybody get the same institutional haircut? Even then, students are going to brag about what salon they went to. So then what? Require all students to get their buzzcuts in the school nurse's office? Sounds a lot like prison, then. I won't compare it to the military- people choose to join the military, school not so much.

[wolfie]

14 - shorts and skirts must be no more than 1/2" above the knee (top of kneecap)

I own a pair of "walking shorts" that are at least 3" above the knee, and they're perfectly respectable. In fact, it would be hard to find ANY shorts (as opposed to "flood" pants) that would fit your rule.

Shorts should be given more leeway than skirts, since due to their nature they have less risk of a "forbidden view" than skirts of the same length.

[s_stabeler]

I own a pair of "walking shorts" that are at least 3" above the knee, and they're perfectly respectable. In fact, it would be hard to find ANY shorts (as opposed to "flood" pants) that would fit your rule.

Shorts should be given more leeway than skirts, since due to their nature they have less risk of a "forbidden view" than skirts of the same length.

Wolfie, the skirts rule isn't about genitals being visible- which is what I assume you mean by "forbidden view". It's actually more or less a holdover from the era when you weren't supposed to be able to see a girl's knees. (or, going back to the Victorian era, ankles)

well, that, and it helps deal with girls that wear skirts that either barely cover their ass, or not even fully cover their ass. ( literally, at my old school, girls kept wearing skirts that were literally stretched taut over their ass. Can't say I minded the view, but it did always look ridiculous.)

[Jester]

The argument with the "faddish" styles I'm guessing is because they're trying to teach the kids about what a respectable appearance is and how to maintain it.

Silly me, I thought the purpose of schools was to educate children, not preach to them what is and is not respectable appearance.

And I find it amusing that so much of society is far more concerned about themselves and others appearing respectable than about actually being respectable.

Maybe this kind of steaming horse shit is one of the many reasons our educational system has fallen so far behind most of the rest of the industrialized world.

Wait. They couldn't figure out if NON dyed hair was breaking dress code?

Welcome to the fun-filled world of bureaucracy!

Yes, because the school dress code allowed for dying of hair so long as the student kept it within the spectrum of blonde, brown, natural reds, and black. So a blonde student could go brunette or a brunette could go auburn etc. So long as it looked natural (No bright red, not overly bleached, no blacks with blue or purple bases, etc). But grey hair wasn't included in that list, as most teenagers don't have grey hair. The dress code was so strict that it didn't they weren't sure how to deal with this.

They would have really struggled with a kid I went to grade school with. His hair was basically ghost white. Or platinum blonde. Call it what you will. But it was his natural hair color. And if you didn't know that--or ignored the obvious fact that he was an eight year old--it might have looked "overly bleached" to the average passerby.

Or maybe one of the teachers was just really strict.

Or maybe one or more of the teachers and/or administrators were idiots, assholes, or fucktards on power trips with nothing better to do. Like, say, actually educate the children that had been put in their charge. What a novel concept that would be, huh?

Just take it to the logical extreme - no clothing in school, all students must be naked while on campus. It stops being titillating after the first few days, and stops being embarrassing after the first week.

(Edit: Note that I'm actually making a semi-serious suggestion - it's impossible in today's societal climate, but it's eminently practical.)

I'd be all in favor of this. Having been in clothing optional places of various sorts, I can tell you that the tittillation ends quickly. And kids have far less hang ups about such things than adults, generally speaking, unless and until adults teach them about the "evil" and "sin” and about the human body. And other equally ridiculous claptrap.

That being said, there are situations where such a system would not be practical. Like, say, any place with winter. Or any place with hefty amounts of sun. Or from personal experience, simply carrying a backpack. Those straps can really chafe your shoulder and arm.

I'm not talking any dyed hair, just outrageous colors. If you're doing it for Comicon, yes, dye your hair. Halloween, yes, dye your hair. For school or anything else, it just looks ridiculous. It shows you aren't respecting yourself enough to get a good education.

What was that phrase I used above? Oh yes...steaming horse shit.

Someone who is expressing their creative or artistic side is not respecting themselves enough to get a good education? No. They are simply not as willing to be conformist clones as others. Plenty of artistic and creative people who do and have expressed themselves via nonstandard clothing, hairdos, hair colors, etc, have tons of self respect, AND want a good education. Many of them are fantastic students, who go on to great things, perhaps because they were encouraged to express themselves and their creative side, rather than being shamed to repress it to fit in.

There are, however, plenty of students in the average school that do conform, that play by the arbitrary rules laid down about dress and hair, who have little or no respect for themselves or others, and/or who really don't give a shit about getting a good education. But they play by the rules to fit in, to be accepted, or to play on sports teams.

Personally I have found that in many cases, kids who do express themselves in such ways are actually quite courageous, since they know they are almost definitely going to catch shit from some other kids for it.

I myself never dyed my hair in school, got any tattoos, or got any piercings. Why? Such things just didn't appeal to me. But I certainly was not a conformist. I had my own way of being different, and for me it was mostly verbal. Of course, not everyone got my sense of humor, and I got some of the same shit for "being different" that those with purple hair did. But that didn't stop me. Why? Same reason, really....I was expressing myself and who I was.

I found later in life that people would often try to use the "you're not respecting yourself" line to try to get me to fall in line to their way of thinking, whether or not they knew a damn thing about me. I heard this line on more than one occasion from clothed people who would encounter me in the clothing optional bar I frequented and later worked in. According to them, I did not "respect" myself because I was naked in a public place. According to me, however, I just didn't have a problem with the naked human body, mine or others. So I filed their comments under "S" for...wait for it...

Steaming Horse Shit.

Here is a link showing some "gang related" clothing/emblems/images
http://www.gangsorus.com/gang_signs_and_symbols.html

Ah, yes. Gang symbols. By a self-proclaimed expert on such things, Robert Walker.

Well, according to the good Mr. Walker, some of the "gang symbols" we as a society MUST guard against in order to protect our children include:

--red Nikes.
--red and black Nikes.
--the Thunderbird (the bird, not the car).
--the number 13.
--the Star of David.
--clothing promoting a prestigious university named Duke (some of you may have heard of it).
--clothing showing one to be a fan of the professional baseball team known as the Chicago White Sox (Some of you may have heard of them, too.)
--clothing showing one to be a fan of the professional baseball team known as the Pittsburgh Pirates. (And them.)
--clothing showing one to be a fan of the professional football team known as the Oakland Raiders. (And perhaps even them.)
--top hats.
--rabbits.
--the Pink Panther.
--hammers.
--jesters.
--clowns.
--interlaced palms.
--the pitchfork symbol that every alumnus of Arizona State University, such as myself, is very familiar with.
--a whole lot of sign language.

Now, I am not dismissing the danger of gangs to our country, our society, or our children. But I have a bit of trouble taking seriously anyone who claims to be an expert on gangs and cites the above as some of their "identifiers" that we should be vigilant against. And since you cited him and his site--every item in the list above is taken from the page you linked to--when asked about "gang-related clothing," I have to presume you believe that such things should be part of the banned list in any respectable school's dress code.

Which is, with all due respect, sir, utterly ridiculous.

It shows you are not respecting the educational process by being a distraction in the classroom by having multiple colored hair or non-naturally occurring hair colors (ie: blue, orange, green, whatever).

It is showing that you want to make yourself noticed and be the center of attention. In an adult environment (work included) it is different because adults (sometimes) have enough brains/willpower to overlook hair color, multiple piercings, whatever to allow work to be done (and give respect to the work process).

Yes, because the jocks and cool kids who abided by the dress code while bullying o kicking the crap out of the kids who felt like they might want to be a little different were CLEARLY respecting the educational process.

As for adults? Please. Kids can be cruel, sure, but they are far more forgiving as a group to people who are different than are adults. Most kids who have problems with other kids who are "different" get those attitudes from adults and from adult society. Kids aren't racist until they are taught racism. Likewise, kids generally don't have a problem with blue hair unless they are taught that there is something different about it.

Frankly, if the teachers and administrators would just let the kids chill without enacting such arbitrary and conformist dress codes, the kids would probably teach the adults something about acceptance and tolerance, not to mention showing that blue hair isn't that distracting after the first "Wow, look at that!" moment.

The lacking self-respect is that one would rather make school about them and showboat than allow the real reason they are in school to commence.

Okay, putting aside for the moment the fact that not every student who expresses themselves thusly is doing it to be the center of attention as you claim, and as I addressed above, this brings up an interesting point:
No showboats or showboating allowed in school?
Well, congratulations! You just eliminated the jocks, the class clowns, and the drama club!

SERIOUSLY, dude? I don't know where your getting this stuff, but you might want to return it to the decade you found it.

Could the proscription on hair colour be an uncanny thing? It's hair on a human head that not a normal colour.

Define "normal." Because what's normal for me is not what is normal for my niece, as just one example.

That's really the best reason I can think of for that rule existing, either that or some old fuddyduddy just deciding he doesn't like it.

I think you just stumbled upon the real reason: people getting old and not liking what the new generation is doing or how they are expressing themselves. You can find criticism of teenagers going all the way back to Aristotle. Or was it Socrates? I get my classic ancient fuddyduddies confused.

[Rapscallion]

Hesiod - 800BC.

Rapscallion

[SkullKing]

Hesiod - 800BC.

Rapscallion

for those who do not know the quote:

“I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth
of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words....When I was young, we were
taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise
and impatient of restraint.” —Hesiod, 800 B.C.

[wolfie]

Ah, yes. Gang symbols. By a self-proclaimed expert on such things, Robert Walker.

Well, according to the good Mr. Walker, some of the "gang symbols" we as a society MUST guard against in order to protect our children include:

--the Thunderbird (the bird, not the car).
--the number 13.
--the Star of David.

So Jewish members (or fans) of UBC's sports teams who have written the date on anything in the past 8 1/2 months are clearly gang members?

Note: UBC's teams (in all sports) are known as the Thunderbirds.

[bex1218]

To me, that is a pretty decent list that does not discriminate against any nationality or ethnicity and it doesn't limit people to a "uniform" either. What it says is "dress with some respect for yourself".

There is a huge difference between respecting yourself and how you dress and what hairstyle or piercing you have. Only things I really agree with is the no holes (unless it just happened, or outside of school you work in construction/landscapping) and pajamas and slippers. Flip flops, I don't mind. Also, showing underwear. Profanity, not in a school setting, but its alright.

But why no shaved heads unless for medical purposes? Why no mohawks? Why no afros? Or dreadlocks? After a day it really isn't all that distracting.


I don't color my hair odd or style it odd for attention. I don't get tattoos or piercings for attention. i do it cause I just like it. And my clothes are a bit baggy, but thats because I hate form fitting clothing. Plus, I wear men's stuff, so its a bit hard to find the right pants on my budget. I don't go all crazy. I am respected at my job. I am a hard worker. I have an artistic style.

[Nekojin]

Why no hats? Without justification, that one makes no sense at all.

And while I understand the reasoning behind the "not too tight / not too loose" rule, that's just begging to be abused by staffers with a grudge. If you're going to make a rule, make it consistent and not at all subjective or arbitrary.

Several of the other rules in the list (most notably the piercings section) are purely because the author doesn't like them.
rule 6 - no midriff, cleavage, or underwear. No underwear makes sense. But the other two are straight-out puritanism.

[SongsOfDragons]

Define "normal." Because what's normal for me is not what is normal for my niece, as just one example.

I thought of 'normal hair colour' in my post as 'anything other than blue, green or purple', i.e. any colour that human hair of any type can naturally be from white to black through every shade of brown, orange, red and yellow.

Though that said it could be that someone's normal hair IS sky blue pink with yellow dots on because they dye it by rote.

I'm really just digging my own grave here aren't I >.<

[Jester]

I thought of 'normal hair colour' in my post as 'anything other than blue, green or purple'...

I briefly dated a girl with bright magenta hair. No redhead was ever born with this color, so you can't really call it "normal." And definitely NOT "natural."

I'm really just digging my own grave here aren't I >.<

I don't think so.

[MadMike]

The local paper ran some prom pics recently, and they showed this one girl who had her hair dyed a light green. It's not something I'd ever want to do personally, but I actually thought it looked kind of pretty on her. Not "disruptive" at all.

[Kheldarson]

Why no hats?

Couple of different reasons.

1) In some areas, it ties in to gang symbolism. The color/style of the hat, the way you wear it, the angle it's on, etc. can (and do) mean different things to different gangs. Banning hats ties into that.

2) It can block the eyes. Since you're supposed to be awake in class (at least visibly), this is, of course, a deterrent.

3) Ties into old school good manners of men not wearing hats inside buildings.

[Jester]

I love how so many of these school systems that are all up in arms with these dress codes that cut down in certain hairdos and clothing that are "potentially disruptive" are often the same school systems that take little to no action against bullies. Because clearly bullies have never been disruptive to anyone's ability to learn.

[bex1218]

Couple of different reasons.
2) It can block the eyes. Since you're supposed to be awake in class (at least visibly), this is, of course, a deterrent.

That could be done with them taking the hat off inside the classroom.

It got to a point at my school where if someone had a hat on them (not even on their head), it would get taken away unless they were JROTC. I really see no problem with hats.

On the gang related note, pink was almost forbidden on guys cause it was "gang related". Not everything worn certain ways have to be gang related.