Feds ruling on skirts

Non-fashion, non-skirt, non-gender discussions. If your post is related to fashion, skirts or gender, please choose one of the forums above for it.
Post Reply
User avatar
Fred in Skirts
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 3570
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Southeast Corner of Aiken County, SC USA

Feds ruling on skirts

Post by Fred in Skirts »

Federal ruling on skirts could put some of our best schools — charters — at grave risk

https://nypost.com/2022/06/19/federal-r ... s-at-risk/
"It is better to be hated for what you are than be loved for what you are not" Andre Gide: 1869 - 1951
Always be yourself because the people that matter don’t mind and the ones that mind don’t matter.
User avatar
r.m.anderson
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2410
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:25 pm
Location: Bloomington MN USA

Re: Feds ruling on skirts

Post by r.m.anderson »

I did not read anything about male students wearing skirts - no options ?
"Kilt-On" -or- as the case may be "Skirt-On" !
WHY ?
Isn't wearing a kilt enough?
Well a skirt will do in a pinch!
Make mine short and don't you dare think of pinching there !
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1065
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am

Re: Feds ruling on skirts

Post by Coder »

This one's an interesting one - and dare I say relevant to some degree. I went to private school (grade school and high school), but not a charter school. In high school the girls could wear pants during the winter, but they might have had to wear skirts over the pants. In general - I was envious and bitter throughout my education. Now with that said...

1) The school's stated reasons for requiring skirts is a bit outdated (even for a conservative-leaning person like myself):
The school implemented a dress code that its founder, businessman Baker Mitchell, in an email and testimony said would “preserve chivalry” and ensure girls are treated “courteously and more gently than boys.”
It would be nice to find the full quote, in context, but this comes off as tone-deaf and ironic. It's a bunch of BS for people who hearken back to a time when.. "In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and..."* - you get the picture. YES, being chivalrous is good - but it has to come from the heart, best intentions for others, and not be because "them women are fragile creatures".

2) If I'm reading the case correctly, charter schools would have to remove gender restrictions from their uniforms to keep receiving federal fundings - let anyone wear whatever is on the uniform list - and see what happens. Knowing how people work, 99.9% of boys would remain in pants, the girls would immediately start wearing pants, and you'd only see a few in skirts. I mean, it's already self-selecting, right? It's not like thousands of guys are going to start wearing skirts to school. What are the schools afraid of? Girls wearing pants? The horror!!!

3) It's possible this will eliminate all dress codes from these schools - it's harder for me to reflect on that. I hated dress clothes at my schools, and they were a pointless distraction... I also question whether they actually help education or not (I suppose we could discuss the merits of having uniformity amongst students) - for me at least it wouldn't have had much of an effect, except I would have resented going to school less.



*google for full quote
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6296
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Contact:

Re: Feds ruling on skirts

Post by moonshadow »

Fred in Skirts wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:14 pm
Federal ruling on skirts could put some of our best schools — charters — at grave risk
Grave risk of what??

I'm sorry... a bunch of grown adults fretting over a girl wearing pants...

This. Article. Is. Stupid.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 12954
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Feds ruling on skirts

Post by crfriend »

Bloody reactionaries.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6296
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Contact:

Re: Feds ruling on skirts

Post by moonshadow »

crfriend wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:03 pm
Bloody reactionaries.
No seriously, my question was not rhetorical... I poured over that article at least four times and I have yet to determine exactly what the "grave risk" is...!

It seems like to me all it is is a cookie cutter, pointless RANT about Biden, Democrats in general, and public schools...

Look, there's plenty of other low hanging fruit for Republicans to grasp when it comes to the current Democratic party... picking on girls that want to wear pants is asinine.

Typical partisan b.s.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 12954
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Feds ruling on skirts

Post by crfriend »

moonshadow wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:14 pm
Typical partisan b.s.
Typical reactionary BS: pick a meaningless target, whip it into a frenzy, and use it to bludgeon one meaningless faction or another.

Republican and Democratic politicians are in the pay of the oligarchs, and enormous efforts are going into hiding that from the electorate -- and the best way to control the simple is to keep them confused, enraged, and in fear. This theme repeats consistently through history.

As far as the electorate, they're as varied as is imaginable, but there is more common ground than that which divides -- and if they figured that out there'd be real trouble for the controllers.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1281
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: Feds ruling on skirts

Post by Jim »

moonshadow wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:37 am
...
I'm sorry... a bunch of grown adults fretting over a girl wearing pants...
...
At least try to understand the concern. From the article:
This decision goes far beyond dress codes.
...

Why? That “state actor” finding is key. If the ruling stands, it could mean, in effect, the end of charters as they exist.
So the concern is that this is a precedent for charter schools to be regulated in detail by states, which would challenge the reason for them--they want to be different from the public schools in their own ways.

So girls wearing pants or boys skirts is not the problem here. Personally, I'm not convinced charter schools are a good idea, so I don't agree there is a problem.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2853
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: Feds ruling on skirts

Post by STEVIE »

Gods Almighty, you lot do believe in complicating things wherever it is possible.
When I read that article the first thing that struck was that the images looked very much like standard British schoolwear.
That has been pretty much the norm since education became available en masse.
However, a modern snapshot from here would likely show a much wider dress diversity from a cultural or religious perspectve.
So, a question, could a Charter school be established on the basis that it would be run under Shariah or Sikh rules and traditions?
On the wider question of skirts, as long as there is choice, the status quo will remain unscathed.
Parents and society in general will see to that.
Your weird political and legal systems won't change entrenched attitudes one iota.
With sympathy.
Steve.
User avatar
Bodycon
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:25 pm
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland

Re: Feds ruling on skirts

Post by Bodycon »

Fred in Skirts wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:14 pm
Federal ruling on skirts could put some of our best schools — charters — at grave risk
The ruling on skirts appears to be a levelling up exercise on clothing, which, on the face of it, is a good thing.

What causes this to put the schools in danger?
rode_kater
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:46 pm

Re: Feds ruling on skirts

Post by rode_kater »

I found this article much more illuninating.
The school had argued that the school is not a state actor subject to the Constitution, and that the federal law banning discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs did not apply to dress codes.
Uuhh, what?!? TIL that the Equal Protection Clause only covers the government. Apparently because the school gets 95% of its funding from government, it has to comply anyway.
Turning to the merits of the equal protection claim, the appeals court rejected the school’s argument that there is no violation because boys face different requirements that ban long hair and jewelry.
WTF?
“A state actor’s imposition of gender-based restrictions on one sex is not a defense to that actor’s gender-based discrimination against another sex,” the 4th Circuit said.
Indeed. Mixing up sex & gender here bit though.
“Student dress codes in particular are unsettling to those who believe, as plaintiffs do here, that they connote feminine inferiority,” [a dissenter] wrote. “But the view is not universal. … To a great many people, dress codes represent an ideal of chivalry that is not patronizing to women but appreciative and respectful of them.”

The majority responded that some scholars described the age of chivalry “as a time when men could assault their spouses and commit other violent crimes against them with impunity. … So contrary to the second dissent’s view, chivalry may not have been a bed of roses for those forced to lie in it.”
I can't believe we're still having this sort of discussion in the 21st century.
User avatar
alexthebird
Distinguished Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 12:37 pm
Location: Philadelphia USA

Re: Feds ruling on skirts

Post by alexthebird »

On the other hand, we have this Texas school district prohibiting skirts and dresses for everybody as a means to encourage professionalism.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/us/forne ... index.html
Post Reply