October 26, 2006
Principal Poopypants
No, this is NOT a joke:
Long Beach High School has an annual "Superhero Day" for its seniors. According to Newsday, while other students came dressed as Superman and Wonder Woman, three girls--Ashley Imhof, Eliana Levin, and Chelsea Horowitz--came attired as kid's book superhero Captain Underpants. There was nothing remotely indecent about the ensembles: They were covered head to toe in flesh-colored tights (not see-through), sporting white jockey shorts on the outside. But the head of the school, who will henceforth be referred to as Principal Poopypants, insisted they change because they had "the appearance" of being naked.
What the hell was he TALKING about? They were wearing capes, so seen from the back, they wouldn't appear topless. Seen from the front, they would only appear naked if the biology teachers at Long Beach failed to teach the kids that girls have breasts. Nevertheless, the mere suggestion was enough to make Principal Poopypants issue an ultimatum that the clever teens cover up. Having no clothes to change into, the girls had to go home.
The Principal (real name Nicholas Restivo) stated he didn't know the character, "not that it mattered." Talk about having your underpants in a bunch. Someone should send Principal Poopypants a collection of the series.
PAD
Here is the photo that was taken by Dick Yarwood for Newsday for the article.
I think the girls should take the jockey shorts they were wearing, package them up, and have them delivered to the principal via messenger with the following note: "Eat these."
I think school administrators are just as out of touch with reality as politicans these days.
When did high schools start teaching kids that girls have breasts?
Seriously, though, it probably wasn't a wise idea for girls - who do have breasts, I had to wait until college to find that out - to dress as a bare-chested male figure, even if covered by tights. Even if it was a prepubescent character. Unless you wear very heavy underwear under tights, a lot still gets revealed. I still remember, in the 70's, musician Todd Rundgren appearing on stage in shiny silver tights, his male equipment clearly visible. A good reminder why male superheroes don't have obvious genitalia.
Finally, remember that all high school principles err on the side of caution. And they err a lot. They have a terrible responsibility, the responsibility for teaching kids about proper behavior that has been shucked by parents. Anything that any parent might concievably object to will get them fired.
lmao...
When I was a kid, my highschool used to celebrate a "verbena" (sort of a night fair) with a costume contest included. They ended up issuing a veto to prevent any boy dressing as a girl/woman. Seems a kid did that so succesfuly and genuine-like he got even to flirt with a teacher, or so the legend say.
With these cases I allways think the problem is in the eye of the beholder. If something is made as a joke, meant as a joke and you turn it into something nasty or dirty, you shouldnt be anywhere near kids.
"Anything that any parent might concievably object to will get them fired."
Then remove such power from parents. The alternative is to have the most prude, small minded and puritan sectors of our society rule what everyone's kids should be exposed to.
"Then remove such power from parents. The alternative is to have the most prude, small minded and puritan sectors of our society rule what everyone's kids should be exposed to."
What do you mean, "alternative?" Between this and the art teacher whose contract wasn't renewed because she took her kids to an art museum where there were nude statues, I'd say that's what we pretty much have right now.
PAD
"What do you mean, "alternative?" Between this and the art teacher whose contract wasn't renewed because she took her kids to an art museum where there were nude statues, I'd say that's what we pretty much have right now."
Well, at least it's still "news". Maybe I talk from the perspective of a place where this same process is taking place too, but at a slower pace.
A school administrator overreacted? I'm shocked.
Wait, no, I'm not shocked. The last 6 years have taught me not to be shocked by examples of glaring absence of common sense.
On the other hand, tights (flesh-colored or otherwise) don't leave much to the imagination, so I can't say without seeing pictures (no, this is NOT a subliminal request for a link) if he was off-base or not.
wow... what's more disturbing, the fact that this guy is so overly uptight and inappropriate in his reaction to high school kids or the fact that he works with this population and has no idea about the popular culture or books that influence the group he is working with? I wouldn't be surprised if a middle-aged businessman was clueless about Captain Underpants, but an administrator in the primary education field?
Something about those Underpants that people don't like. It's frequently shows up on the "most challenged books" list.
If that doesn't work, here's the page.
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/topten2000to2005.htm
No pictures, but the news story does say the girls claim the teachers who saw the costumes 'thought they were cute'. Which suggests they either have teachers with a poor sense of decorum, the costumes really did cover up everything they needed to cover up, or the girls are lying.
Maybe its because I'm brazilian, but, man, sometimes I wonder what's the problem with some people in the US. Firing an art teacher because in Museum there's nude statues and the kids wasn't supposed to see that? Well, what happens when they look themselves in the mirror after a shower? They get suspended?
Now, this thing with the a hero uniform. Where's the imagination of these people? Being prude is one thing, but forcing people to as prude as they is wrong. The worst thing is that the american kids got it easy... They have schools to go in and learn and still they get suffocated by this kind of policy. Here, only a fraction of brazilian kids can go to school and so much is lost when a lot of teenagers and kids get no education and can't grow as people, so, when something like that appears in the news, I think, "These people must have issues with clothing or lack of..."
Sorry about the bad english. And, PAD, love your books and I always pleased to read your commentaries here.
"On the other hand, tights (flesh-colored or otherwise) don't leave much to the imagination, so I can't say without seeing pictures (no, this is NOT a subliminal request for a link) if he was off-base or not."
If they didn't want students to show up wearing tights, they probably should've avoided having a Superhero Day altogether.
Well, it's on the main page of Newsday (dot) com, along with pictures.
For one of the girls, you can see the outline of her bra beneath the suit... heaven forbid!
And yes, Mauricio, this country is full of prudes. I think the ol' Puritanical influences of this country's past still haunt us to this day. Cases like this merely prove it.
It was brought up on NBC Nightly News last night on the fact that the Feds are laxing rules regarding whether schools can segregate kids by sex, as if keeping girls and boys apart will suddenly solve everything.
If there's one thing I've learned about the US school systems, it's that they're certainly not trying to prepare you for being an adult.
If they didn't want students to show up wearing tights, they probably should've avoided having a Superhero Day altogether.
HA! Ain't THAT the truth!
No it isn't a joke. We just wish it were.
People such as Restivo get to be in charge of schools? That explains a great deal. None of it good.
Ok, Newsarama has s pic up. From the waist up, I don't see any problem. Skin colored or not, it's nothing you wouldn't see any other day at school.
But from the waist down, I do think that's not appropriate for going out in public. I'd not let my daughter go out dressed like that, superhero day or not. There's a good reason why Smallville's Green Arrow has a significant cod piece, and it's not just for functional protection. Probably wouldn't have been a problem were they actual boys' tidy whities, but they aren't.
I'm reserving judgment until I can see a picture of the girls in costume. We don't know how tight the flesh colored tights were, how they were cut, how form fitting they were, what was under them or how short the cape was or without some sort of visual reference.
It does matter. My school (Prince George High School) had a Halloween dress up day as well. We could dress up as whatever we wanted to so long as it didn't clash with the normal dress codes too badly. The old school Aquaman would get a pass. Namor would be out. The older, skirted Wonder Woman might fly while a newer, almost thonged WW or even a Zatana would get sent home. Adam and Eve in fig leaves could fly if the flesh colored suits were sweatpants rather then tights. I'm not pulling random examples out of a hat. These costumes were done at my school.
Most people would dress up and have fun with it. Some people (mostly girls at the time) would see how much they could get away with. Without a visual reference or two, we don't know if Principal Nicholas Restivo is an overreacting clod or if he acted in accord with both the school dress codes and common decency.
To condemn him with no evidence one way or another is no better then the dolts who got Harry Potter to the top of the banned books week list without ever reading it (or at least seeing the movie) so much as once.
Not one damn bit of this surprises me.
Forty years ago, when I was still in grade school, we had teachers and administrators like this. My grade school principal, Imelda Stanton, was a bit of a prude about some things but in most areas she was remarkably ahead of her time, and had common sense by the truckload. A shame that couldn't be inherited. This hwoon-dahn Restivo obviously can't find his ass with both hands and a roadmap.
When Teachers came out 22 years ago, a lot of people squawked about how unrealistic it was, that Nick Nolte's character and the school in general couldn't possibly have any basis in reality. I knew better. That school, and the people in it, seems to me now to be a case of life imitating art. Actually makes me glad I don't have kids, not if people like Restivo are gonna be teaching them. I'd have to do what Fred Pohl's mother did, and just home school my kids. They'd almost certainly get a better education.
Miles
"Probably wouldn't have been a problem were they actual boys' tidy whities, but they aren't."
Ah, except the principal specifically stated he had no problem with the outer display of underwear. Only the "appearance" of nudity.
PAD
"If they didn't want students to show up wearing tights, they probably should've avoided having a Superhero Day altogether."
Depends on how tight the tights are and what they're made of. Helen Slater wore tights as Supergirl and showed very little. I know a girl who once did Supergirl in tights so tight and material so thin that you could see the outline of her birthmark.
Trust me, I checked several times.
:)
without some sort of visual reference.
We have such a reference, because there are such pictures.
Knowing how I thought in high school, if I'd overheard the moron Principal saying such a thing, I would've taken off whatever costume I was wearing, gotten flesh-colored tights and a couple of small round pillows for breasts underneath and walked around as a female version of Captain Underpants with a big cape that said "Capt. Stop Taking Life Seriously."
So it gave them the "appearance" of nudity. So do the girls who dress up as "catholic school girls" with their bras showing or the ones who simply dress trampy on a daily basis with shorts that look like they were painted on. This was supposed to be a day of fun. Unless someone's actually topless or has fake genitalia depicted on them, chill out.
As soon as one of the girls showed a book displaying the appearance of Captain Underpants, the matter should have been left alone. It's ONE DAY of silliness, it's not like they're doing drugs in the bathroom or walking around drunk. And then we get upset when kids act like we're the enemy. :-P
Yeah, I saw the pictures while you were posting. I'm siding with the Principal here. The tights are thin enough that you can see through them to an almost unacceptable degree. That does tend to violate most school dress codes that I know of.
I ran the pictures past my wife, a former teacher and even less of a prude then I am (and that is saying something), and got the same answer. Might let it fly as a parent for a party at the house or a friend's house but can see where a school official might find the tights a bit too much. Fun is fun, but common sense does need to play a part here as well.
Well, yeah, regardless of whatever reason the principal gives (I doubt you'll find "appearance of nudity" in the dress codes), the fact that you can see the bra through the outfit is pretty inappropriate, and I do imagine that's against the dress code, if there is one. Our school eventually ended dressing up for Halloween, partly because the kids were actually TRYING to do their best to get away with things. And being kids, they'd plot about it on their MySpace pages, so their intent was pretty well documented.
Anyway, I'm supposing most of you don't realize just how easy it is to distract a thousand teenage boys at a school, but I guarantee you that having a girl show up in her bra would be one way to do it.
And don't blame the principal for covering his bases until your school gets sued because after a big rain storm, a student walked across the blocked off construction area at the school and his parents demanded we pay for his shoes since they got all muddy, and although the area was cordoned off, there weren't specific signs to warn people that there was mud.
Or when a student gives another one an aspirin, neither student realizing an allergy to aspirin will put him in the hospital. Think about that when you see another story about a kid being in trouble for having (gasp!) aspirin on campus, even though it's against the rules and schools have gotten in trouble when that kid ignorantly gives them to another. Doesn't stop the parents from suing the schools.
Yeah, it's not a joke.
Meh. I had my fill of humorless administrators when I was a public school teacher in Minnesota.
Besides, it could've been a lot worse. It could have been Kekko Kamen.
the fact that you can see the bra through the outfit is pretty inappropriate
Then girls should be banned from wearing white shirts then?
Because that's what you're going based on your opinion of this outfit.
but I guarantee you that having a girl show up in her bra would be one way to do it.
She did NOT show up 'in her bra'. She is wearing a bra. Just like I'd think most other girls of high school age do.
""Probably wouldn't have been a problem were they actual boys' tidy whities, but they aren't."
Ah, except the principal specifically stated he had no problem with the outer display of underwear. Only the "appearance" of nudity.
PAD"
As to the stated reason, I agree. The appearance of nudity is silly, and far too subjective. But I doubt the Princ. felt very comfortable saying "their tights were so tight you could see their...you know...areas."
"Then girls should be banned from wearing white shirts then?
Because that's what you're going based on your opinion of this outfit."
Ok, that's funny. Really stretching it a bit there.
I work around women who wear white tops as part of their uniforms. Can't see what's underneath. White, yellow, pink or any other lighter color can be fine when the fabric isn't light to the point of being sheer and/or it's not pulled skin tight.
"I doubt you'll find "appearance of nudity" in the dress codes"
Because of the cloths around in the late 80's (I'm part of the MTV generation), we actually did have something about that in our dress code. Sheer and see through was also covered quite well.
"So it gave them the "appearance" of nudity. So do the girls who dress up as "catholic school girls" with their bras showing or the ones who simply dress trampy on a daily basis with shorts that look like they were painted on."
And people complain about that, kids get sent home and schools get into arguments over dress codes and uniforms because of it. I don't think that girls or guys should get away with do/dress as they please at school. I'm not going to change that stance because I'm a bit of a geek and they were doing a comic book thing.
It's a school. They have rules. You can still have fun and play inside the rules. Lots of us did it for years. They either didn't think their costumes through or they tried to push the limits. Either way, they change, cover up or go home.
*snort*
::just saw the picture::
More power to them. (I bet no one "got" their outfits anyway ... which was probably the point.)
I remember Mom talking about the days when principals and teachers used to make girls kneel on the the floor to make sure the required skirts (no jeans or shorts back then) touched the floor for proper length.
I for one was glad those days were gone by the time I went to HS.
But I will say Mom would have never let me go to school in that. Superhero day or no. Oh God, I can hear the screeching from here! heh.
Ok, that's funny. Really stretching it a bit there.
No, it isn't.
Tell me you've never seen a girl walking around in a white shirt and never seen the bra underneath.
Go ahead, I dare you to even try.
Counterpoint: I worked at a banquet place for about a year and a half, and, yeah, we wore fancy white shirts. They were fairly thin, and it was *gasp* common to see the bras underneath.
Yet, that is what we wore for work.
What I find funny is that, in all of this, you're complaining about being able to see the outline of the bra.
I can atleast understand where the principal is coming from, even if I disagree with him.
But your comments? THAT is comedy.
It's good for a laugh at the principal's expense, but so long as the girls aren't facing any punishment, I'd cut him some slack. Without his knowing of the character's context, I understand his cautious stance.
"Girls show up as a topless superhero," is something that could be a "fired for cause" situation if he didn't send them home to change. Not everyone knows about Capt. Underpants, making out-of-context interpretations inevitable.
Again, knowing the character, I'm sure the girls' intent was entirely innocent. That's why I hope they faced no punishment other than the inconvenience of having to go home to change.
With the way many superheroes are clad these days in comics, I'm sure that the possibility of something crossing the line was a concern.
Craig said:
"Then girls should be banned from wearing white shirts then?
Because that's what you're going based on your opinion of this outfit."
Craig, I know you saw the pictures because you linked them. It's not just the outline of the bra. You can see the flippin' bra. If that's the norm for girls wearing white shirts where you work, they wear some pretty flimsy see-through material.
"She did NOT show up 'in her bra'. She is wearing a bra. Just like I'd think most other girls of high school age do."
Oh, it was covered in a see-through flesh covered sheer material, so I'll go ahead and explain to the freshmen boys that it's really covered, they're just imagining things.
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, but this high school English teachers of fifteen years agrees with the principal. This falls into the category of "give'em an inch and they'll take a mile." Most schools these days, mine included, have had to have rules set to paper specifically stating that underwear cannot be shown thanks to the boys purposely dropping their pants down to the bottom of their butt cheeks, and the girls who wear hip huggers specifically to show off the tops of their thongs.
We had to institute a rule two years ago that banned students wearing their pajamas to school because it became very popular to wear pj bottoms to school. The final straw was when they started "pantsing" each other because pj bottoms come down so easily, and those thongs became apparent again.
So what, right? That's not the case here. The problem is that the NEXT time a kid comes in with his or her underwear showing indecently, they can say "but you let those three girls wear their underwearing showing all day last month, and you didn't do anything about it!" and then the parents get involved, and it becomes that much more difficult to maintain an atmosphere conducive to learning.
The girls probably won't attempting to do anything subversive. I will grant you that. But it just isn't worth the future hassle that would probably come.
Please try to keep in mind that not every rule that a school is instituted because we're worried that the kids are just having too much fun.
On further reading:
"Tell me you've never seen a girl walking around in a white shirt and never seen the bra underneath.
Go ahead, I dare you to even try."
At a school? Where part of the dress code is no visible underwear? Uh, sure. I'll take that bet. They get asked to change outfits, just like what happened here. I still can't understand who you're arguing that it's just the outline of the bra.
For those of you saying "if they were really wearing boys tightie whities it might be okay" - go look at the Newsday gallery (not just the photo linked here). They're wearing boys underpants, not girls.
As for the seeing bra issue - I'm sitting in a major convention hall in a metropolitan city (that's snowing on me, goddamnit - there was no forecast of snow when I left my city this morning!), and just glancing around at the professional business women in the hall, I can see the outlines of more than one bra.
We see bras daily. My guess is: most of y'all men don't notice it unless it's a very attractive woman, or there's something in the outfit offending you (or otherwise catching your eye).
After seeing the pictures, I think there's ample room to show some sympathy to the administrators. Unlike (probably) most of the world, I've read those books and I know who Captain Underpants is. Even so, the first thing I thought wasn't "Oh, it's a 'Captain Underpants' costume" but 'Why are those girls pretending to be walking around topless?'"
I'd like to think that if I were in the principal's position, I'd have let it pass. But the fact of the matter is that my job doesn't include managing a community of 1000-2000 people who are at that stage of life when they're meant to be challenging rules and authority.
A friend of mine recently began a new career as a teacher and he decided to start in the deep end: he took a two-year assignment in a tough school in Philadelphia. In his more cheerful missives, he says that part of his job is like being the camp commandant in "The Great Escape." You like and respect the kids, you're on their side and you want to help them to succeed and graduate...but if they sense that you can't maintain order and control over the class, you're done.
Example: the rule is that if you bring a cellphone into the school, you have to keep it in your locker. Monday: what, you brought one in? Well, OK, but leave it turned off. Tuesday: All right, I suppose it wouldn't disrupt the class if you have it on vibrate, just so you'll know to check your voice mail when you're in the halls. Wednesday: Well, I can't get upset that you took it out of your pocket to check the callerID. Thursday: You can READ a text-message, but you CAN'T send any, all right? Please?
So if a teacher decides to simply confiscate the phone on Day One and keep it until the kid's mom or dad comes to pick it up in person, it's not because they're overreacting to the accidental presence of a cellphone in a backpack. Maybe it's just the simplest way to make sure that a problem with getting one kid to follow a sensible and clearly-stated rule doesn't turn into a problem with thirty kids.
Believe that the principal has no sense of humor, believe that he made a big fuss over nothing, say whatever you want because for all we know, that could be very true. But it's also very possible that the sergeants have a more realistic understanding of the operational theater than we civilians.
I mean, it's not like these girls were punished. These girls aren't exactly the Hollywood Ten, viciously persecuted for standing up to defend a vital principle of Democracy, you know?
"Tell me you've never seen a girl walking around in a white shirt and never seen the bra underneath.
Go ahead, I dare you to even try."
Seen lots of them. Back when I went to school, they got sent home or told to put their jackets on and cover up. I just found your blanket statement of white shirts to be stupid and pointed out that merely being white wasn't an issue. Most professional and school dress codes I have read don't cover colors (unless it's dealing with uniforms or color coded). They do make reference to ones ability to see through the material enough to see what's underneath.
"Counterpoint: I worked at a banquet place for about a year and a half, and, yeah, we wore fancy white shirts. They were fairly thin, and it was *gasp* common to see the bras underneath. Yet, that is what we wore for work."
Well, that's were YOU worked. In and around my work place and in many schools I went to it would get you sent home. Different places with different rules.
"What I find funny is that, in all of this, you're complaining about being able to see the outline of the bra. I can at least understand where the principal is coming from, even if I disagree with him. But your comments? THAT is comedy."
I'm not complaining about an outline. There is one shot where you can see the outline and, maybe, the bra itself. Hard to tell from the photo itself without looking a lot harder then I want to at a high school girl. But that does say something of the see through nature of the tights in different lighting conditions. The photo PAD has now posted shows the girls with the sunlight hitting them full on and that caused the surface of the material to be highlighted. Then there are also other photos where the sun doesn't hit them head on and the tights look a wee bit less appropriate for school. Inside lighting could have made the situation better or it could have made it worse.
But guess what. Neither you nor I know the dress code for the school. It may have a bit in it that covers clothing that allows undergarments to be actually seen or outlined. Again, MTV generation here. Grew up with lots of girls dressing to do just that and lots of schools nixing that kind of thing in their dress codes. And, as I said before, my school let us dress up around Halloween but made it clear that the spirit, if not all the actually rules, of the dress code would be in play. We played by the rules and had fun. Some didn't and got sent home.
I would, if I had kids, let my girls do that outfit for a party at the house or at the house of a friend who's parents I knew and trusted. I would not let them go to school like that and I would send them home if I was the principal and I felt that they crossed over the lines set by our dress codes. It has nothing to do with being a prude. It has to do with what is or isn't allowed in a public school.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 26, 2006 01:54 PM
But your comments? THAT is comedy.
Craig, pull back on the reins. You're one person amongst billions and you are not omniscient. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them stupid.
In fact, I happen to agree with you and not with Jerry C, but his point-of-view is nevertheless well-reasoned. He's just come to a different conclusion than you and I.
Jerry C: I can't tell from these photos whether the girls were wearing bras or not (and if anyone reading this believes they can, don't mention it too loudly -- you'll betray the fact that your heritage is Kryptonian). If you could actually see the girls' breasts to any real extent (like you could if they were wearing wet white t-shirts, for example), then, yeah, that would be wholly inappropriate. And downright unsafe what with the number of horny teenaged boys running around. If not: well, the skin-tight nature of the costumes just isn't enough to justify this kind of reaction. If what needs to be covered is covered, I don't see a problem. Look at it this way: would you ban people from seeing the girls' swim team? They show a lot more in those one-piece bathing suits.
Kelly,
No argument. I see it all the time as well. But some work places make it clear that it's a major no-no and so do some schools.
The strange tact being taken by some seems to be that it's ok to do here because it's ok do do in other places/work places. "Where I worked".... Fine. I once worked in a strip club. Shall we start allowing the dress codes from there in schools as well?
Does that seem extreme and nuts? Yeah. But that's the argument some of you are using. It's ok here so it should have been ok there. The only thing that matters is the chool dress codes and nothing else.
I haven't seen it and neither have you. Until then I'm standing on the side of principal of the school and the several teachers on this blog that have spoken up on it.
Bill,
www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lidres1026-pg,0,5767405.photogallery?coll=ny-main-bigpix&index=3
You don't need to be Kryptonian. And I didn't look anywhere near as much as the boys at the school would be.
Look at it this way: would you ban people from seeing the girls' swim team? They show a lot more in those one-piece bathing suits.
No, but I would ban people from wearing their swim suits during regular class time. We don't let students wear coats during the school day, and they cover up MORE than the suits. The reason is because there is a time and a place for appropriate clothing.
I'll have to take your word for it for now. I'm at work and don't want anyone to see me squinting at pictures of teenaged girls in tights. They would most certainly get the wrong idea.
Hell, Bill. I'm not at work and don't want to stare to closely at pictures of teenaged girls in tights.
Plus my wife could walk by at the wrong time and kill me.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them stupid.
Well, Bill, I don't know how things work in your universe, but in mine, 'comedy' does not spell 'stupid'.
I find this truly hilarious because this line of conversation started with my offhand comment that you could see the bra to begin with and my 'heaven forbid'.
Of course, I should've known better: some instantly seized upon the fact that you could see the outline of the bra as a reason to ban the outfits.
Hell, based on what the principal has said, that's not the reason he told them to wear something else, nor was it the underwear on the outside.
So, it's comedy to me that, regardless of the situation, somebody will find something else to grasp as a reason to complain about it.
If you interpret that as 'stupid', well, be my guest; I can't control the way your brain works.
Posted by: rrlane at October 26, 2006 02:40 PM
No, but I would ban people from wearing their swim suits during regular class time. We don't let students wear coats during the school day, and they cover up MORE than the suits. The reason is because there is a time and a place for appropriate clothing.
Point taken, but I'm betting that none of the costumes that were considered acceptable on this day would have been considered acceptable dress on any other day of the schoolyear (except perhaps Halloween). So the rules were already a bit more relaxed than usual.
I understand that the school may well have rules about bras being visible underneath outerwear, and that a lot of other organizations may have similar rules. Moreover, I agree that organizations have the authority to enforce dress codes. Just because there is the authority to do something, however, doesn't make that thing reasonable.
I think it would be useful to look at this situation from the opposite perspective. As far as I know, it would be perfectly legal for me to run my own comic-book store wearing nothing but my BVDs (at least in New York State). If everything "naughty" is covered up, as far as the law is concerned, it's all good. But does that make it a reasonable thing for me to do? I'd say... no, not so much.
By the same token, to get up in arms about a girl in tights that make her bra partially visible -- on a day where costumes are allowed and encouraged -- is equally unreasonable in my view. The school has the authority to prohibit it -- I'm not arguing that. I just don't think it's reasonable.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 26, 2006 02:48 PM
Well, Bill, I don't know how things work in your universe, but in mine, 'comedy' does not spell 'stupid'.
Craig, don't be disingenuous, and don't hide behind semantics. You were belittling Jerry C, just as you have at times belittled me and others here merely because they disagree with you.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 26, 2006 02:48 PM
Hell, based on what the principal has said, that's not the reason he told them to wear something else, nor was it the underwear on the outside.
So, it's comedy to me that, regardless of the situation, somebody will find something else to grasp as a reason to complain about it.
Jerry C already addressed this, and made a worthwhile point: the principle may have been phrasing his objections in the most "politically correct" way possible. People don't always speak their minds in the real world. Sometimes you can't. Sometimes you have to be political.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 26, 2006 02:48 PM
If you interpret that as 'stupid', well, be my guest; I can't control the way your brain works.
No, but you can control your own emotions. Whether you want to admit it or not, you are clearly feeling angry and hostile right now. Why you would feel that way is beyond me. This is merely a discussion and no animals were actually harmed in this production.
I don't know where "up in arms" is coming from. They were asked to change their clothes. They didn't have a change of clothes, so they were sent home. They weren't punished as far as I can tell, so "up in arms" seems a tad hyperbolic.
But does that make it a reasonable thing for me to do? I'd say... no, not so much.
That depends on the what the reason for the ban is. As I said, many of the rules that we enforce are there because to NOT enforce them invited problems in the future, even if the infraction of today is relatively harmless. Should police not worry about someone running a stop sign simply because there were no other cars around and there was no chance of a collision at THAT moment?
Posted by: Jerry C at October 26, 2006 02:46 PM
Hell, Bill. I'm not at work and don't want to stare to closely at pictures of teenaged girls in tights.
Plus my wife could walk by at the wrong time and kill me.
Dude, my girlfriend owns a handgun and is trained in its use. You don't think I know about having to keep in line?
Craig, don't be disingenuous, and don't hide behind semantics.
And don't take it upon yourself to be this site's resident psychic, because the only thing it's going to do is make you look like an ass.
PAD refers to the principal, who I'm sure millions of people agree with, as "Principal Poopypants".
I say Jerry's comments are comedy. Yet, I'm belittling people?
Here's a thought: quit letting your personal views of my past comments color your views of my current comments, because there's nothing different between what PAD and I said. Nothing at all.
Whether you want to admit it or not, you are clearly feeling angry and hostile right now.
You know, I was laughing. The whole way until you started belitting ME.
The only angry and hostility I'm feeling now is thanks to you. Congratulations. I hope it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, Bill, because I think it makes you pathetic.
To quote PAD, "talk about having your underpants in a bunch," Bill.
Posted by: rrlane at October 26, 2006 03:01 PM
Should police not worry about someone running a stop sign simply because there were no other cars around and there was no chance of a collision at THAT moment?
No, of course not. Because the consequences of running a "Stop" sign can potentially be fatal. But that's my point: can you point to even the potential for an equivalent tangible harm to be caused by those outfits? Or the potential for any tangible harm, for that matter?
People take posting around here to seriously... now there's a shocker.
Or do I need to also point out the sarcasm in that comment?
can you point to even the potential for an equivalent tangible harm to be caused by those outfits? Or the potential for any tangible harm, for that matter?
Nope, I can't. And they weren't arrested, ticketed, or fined either, so the response was measured to fit the offense.
Craig, you've belittled me on these boards, and also friends of mine, like Bill Mulligan. I've nevertheless tried to give you the benefit of the doubt time and again. I've tried to give you credit for having intelligence (because I believe you are intelligent). I've tried to overlook your hot-headedness because goodness knows I can be hot-headed, as everyone here has seen on multiple occasions.
But for God's sake, Craig, you are acting outraged because I've given you back a small fraction of what you've given me and others here. Given how combative you are, I would've thought you'd have thicker skin.
I'm honestly sorry I upset you, whether you choose to believe that or not. But I find it hard to fathom why you feel so comfortable dishing out to others what you can't take yourself.
Posted by: rrlane at October 26, 2006 03:11 PM
Nope, I can't. And they weren't arrested, ticketed, or fined either, so the response was measured to fit the offense.
I can't fault your logic. It's a good point. While I still disagree that the girls' attire should be considered an offense, asking them to go home and change isn't exactly a harsh response.
I still disagree that the girls' attire should be considered an offense
I'll grant you that. I use it simply for lack of a better term.
But for God's sake, Craig, you are acting outraged because I've given you back a small fraction of what you've given me and others here.
That's your argument? That two wrongs make a right? No wonder you think you can read minds.
I've misread peoples comments from time to time, but I would never intentionally return the favor as you have done just because it's supposedly deserved.
That's not comedy, that's just sad. And it's sad to think you place yourself on such a high pedestal to judge the rest of us in such a manner, especially when your judgments are outright wrong.
Maybe you haven't gotten rid of your trollish ways, as you think you have. Try thinking about that for awhile before you respond to my posts again.
Perhaps you are right, Craig. It seems as though over the last several weeks I have been increasingly drawn into conflicts here. Perhaps I am the problem.
I think I'll take some time off from posting here. That should give you and anyone else I may have offended some time to cool off. It will also give me some time to examine my own behavior and determine what, if anything, I should do differently should I choose to return.
Who's idea was of doing the Hero day anyway? If that was the principal idea, he should know that heroes use tights uniforms and use the underwear over their pants. ;)
If he didn't know, he shouldn't take the risk of creating a day for people to use that. Again, maybe because I'm brazilian, I didn't see anything offensive in the girls uniform. In my humble opinion, there's a limit of how controlled a school environment should be. I remember seeing something that happened in the US. Because the kid was breaking things, obviously trying to get attention (I'm sure she had problems at home) someone had the briliant idea of cuffing her to calm her down. She was what? Ten years old? That, anyone can agree with me is appealing. That's an example of overreacting.
That's what happened with this situation. The Principal got scared with that... He probably imagined parents calling him on the phone, law suits being prepared and he reacted like anyone who wants to keep his job. Because, at the end, that's what he was doing. In my opinion, when you put hundred of teenagers together, there's a good chance someone will overreact. That happens in any country. But... Look at that picture. How that can be wrong? The only ones looking ridiculous are the girls...
Funny that a foreigner like get involved on something like that. But, let's face it: "Principal Poppypants" its pretty funny.
This is my first posting, so I apologize if it isn't up to standards:
All of you are talking about the top half. As far as I could see the underwear covered a lot less than a pair of Daisy Dukes, and those are against the dress code of every school I know (with or without tights). I graduated in 95' from a school with a really loose dress code and I got "rulered" on my short length, and sent home because they were too short and by no means as short as Daisy Dukes.
Also, at all schools I know of (NJ, VA, Ga, Al), wearing lycra pants is against dress code because they don't adequately cover the "rear end". The are treated as tights and therefore must have a dress, or pants covering them.
I'm all for dressing up as a hero, but with everything available to them, they could have done it without getting sent home. My bet is that they KNEW it would get them sent home. The kids at my first high school loved "pushing the line" to see how far they could go before getting sent home.
All in all, it comes down to the dress code, and what that school finds appropriate. I had a rude awakening when I moved from NJ to Va for my senior year in high school. The codes were the same, but the way the schools interpreted them was completely different. In NJ a confederate flag would get you sent home, and in Va my high heel boots were not accepted. (I still have yet to learn the way people abbreviate states, my husband writes VA, I write Va.) Each community is different and what is acceptable varies from one to another (like the posts here).
"Plus my wife could walk by at the wrong time and kill me."
And yes, I would have :)
Between this and the art teacher whose contract wasn't renewed because she took her kids to an art museum where there were nude statues,
Well, since you brought it up, it's time to bring everyone up to date and shoot down that story once and for all.
It turns out that the teacher in question had been let go from a neighboring school district as well (McKinney). Once her record from that school district was made public (under a request from the Dallas Morning News under Public Records Act), it was found that the same complaints Frisco had been making about her classroom performance (not related to the Art Museum) had been cause for her to "resign" from McKinney. McKinney had covered it up, though, under an agreement with the teacher to go quietly.
As of this past Monday, she settled with the Frisco district. Basically, it's what Frisco had already done before she went on her national media "I was screwed" tour. She got pay through the end of the year, and won't be renewed.
I think the old record showed her up for what she was - an opportunist who tried to get some money from the school district on trumped up charges.
ArizonaTeach,let me tell you, you used to be able to see through all KINDS of girls' shirts when I was in high school. (Actually, my ex-girlfriend and I had a whole big discussion as to whether or not she should get some of those shirts.) The field hockey team's uniforms were famous for it. For the kid whose shoes got muddy? Tell his parents to teach him NOT TO WALK IN THE MUD. Same thing with the aspirin. If a kid is old enough, they'll know whether or not they can take aspirin. My son's five, and he knows. The problems you've pointed out aren't problems with administrators, they're with sue-happy parents and judges that are just too happy to slam it to the schools.
Kelly, first off, you've got my sympathy. I got stuck in Denver a few years ago in the same situation. Then the fire alarms went off and nobody could find the fire stairs. But these women you're seeing where you can see the outlines of more than one bra? How many are they wearing>
We don't let students wear coats during the school day, and they cover up MORE than the suits.
You're kidding us, right?
So, if a student were to find a classroom to be too cold for their comfort level, they're not afforded the perfectly logical, reasonable and sensible alternative of wearing a coat?
I suppose there's an alternative: dress for the coldest classroom they have, then begin to disrobe in the warmer classrooms.
********************
I don't know where "up in arms" is coming from. They were asked to change their clothes. They didn't have a change of clothes, so they were sent home. They weren't punished as far as I can tell, so "up in arms" seems a tad hyperbolic.
Suspension - "being sent home" - is no longer considered a punishment?
Principal Poopypants is right. The costumes look just like what they are...costumes. I can't help but think that a Wonder Woman outfit would be far more racy and revealing than what those kids are wearing.
Jennifer, first off, hi, how ya doing? Anyway, while the underwear might be less than a pair of Daisy Dukes, the tights were underneath them, so everything was still covered. I could still see where the rule you talked about might be tired to be used, but technically, there still wasn't anything uncovered. And the capes in the back kinda cover the back, in the habit of capes everywhere.
It will also give me some time to examine my own behavior and determine what, if anything, I should do differently should I choose to return.
Text is a medium where it can be hard to 'read' what people say, which is where emoticons and things like throwing in a "(sarcasm)" really come in handy. It's easy to misinterpret and make assumptions. And so, I think that tends to make conflict easier: we are not only NOT speaking face to face, but it's easier to screw up what somebody else is saying.
I think, in this case, it was more the fact that iirc the whole 'mind reading' has come up before. I can't read your mind, you can't read mine; we don't really know each other, and that's really all there is to it.
So, it was by no means an attempt to chase you off, Bill. God knows there are forums where people can set me off, but this site *usually* isn't one of them, regardless of how my posts come across. :)
ME:We don't let students wear coats during the school day, and they cover up MORE than the suits.
Nytwyng: You're kidding us, right?
So, if a student were to find a classroom to be too cold for their comfort level, they're not afforded the perfectly logical, reasonable and sensible alternative of wearing a coat?
Well, they could wear a long sleeve shirt. That's what I do, and I'm generally quite comfortable.
We don't allow coats because a) it's unhealthy. Kids sweat and stink because (contrary to the schools in your area apparently) our schools don't have frost on the desks, nor can kids see their breath in the classrooms, and b) coats afford students the ability to carry contraband in all the pockets. Hell, I'd ban hoodies if I could because of the crap kids hide in there.
Students are in school to learn. It's not a freakin' fashion show.
"Jennifer, first off, hi, how ya doing? Anyway, while the underwear might be less than a pair of Daisy Dukes, the tights were underneath them, so everything was still covered. I could still see where the rule you talked about might be tired to be used, but technically, there still wasn't anything uncovered. And the capes in the back kinda cover the back, in the habit of capes everywhere."
Technically speaking, professionally applied body paint covers all the "naughty bits" just as effectively as tights. But I guarantee you that body paint isn't going to cover the "no shirt, no service" policy of any restuarant.
Having the tights cover them is only part of the issue. What good does it do to cover the bits if you can still see them? The thread's avoided getting too crude, so I'll do my best to keep it that way, but those undies over the tights are just too tight. You can see too much. I'm far from a prude, but I also think people's privates should be kept private, especially in school.
Sean Sculion said:
"ArizonaTeach,let me tell you, you used to be able to see through all KINDS of girls' shirts when I was in high school. (Actually, my ex-girlfriend and I had a whole big discussion as to whether or not she should get some of those shirts.) The field hockey team's uniforms were famous for it."
Well, all I can tell you is that in my school and district, it's not allowed, and I'm surprised if it's not against the rules at most schools. But, even that's irrelevant to the school we're talking about. What is relevant he principal for that particular school did say that any visible underwear was against the rules...so even if we're ignoring the see-through tops, we really can't ignore the whole underpants thing!
"For the kid whose shoes got muddy? Tell his parents to teach him NOT TO WALK IN THE MUD. Same thing with the aspirin. If a kid is old enough, they'll know whether or not they can take aspirin. My son's five, and he knows. The problems you've pointed out aren't problems with administrators, they're with sue-happy parents and judges that are just too happy to slam it to the schools."
If only it were that easy, but the fact is you're right, parents are just happy to sue, and schools simply don't have the ability or funds to fight. Not too long ago, we hired a woman in a wheelchair as a computer lab assistant. Problem was, in her chair, the kids couldn't see where she was to get help or even if she was in the room (which caused its own problems when kids started acting up). The administration offered to put a pole or flag on her chair when she was on duty, so kids would know where she was. She quit citing harrassing humiliation, and the district insurance company forced a settlement, because they felt it would be cheaper than an EEO lawsuit, which of course raised the rates for the school.
Part of the job of a principal is to make damn sure that everything follows the very letter of the law. EVERYTHING. It has to, or the school has a giant target on it. That's why there are so many permission slips, affidavits, forms and papers to sign...I have to make my AP kids sign an anti-plaigarism form, because my first year I didn't, and since it wasn't in my classroom policies I couldn't do anything about it (yes, the parents threatened to sue if I didn't let little precious graduate). We live in a country that forces food companies to put "don't eat this" on the silicate packages in my beef jerky, and "don't fall off" on damn ladders. I wish people were smart enough to not do stupid things, but all it takes is one lawsuit, one child injured, one hurt feeling (I got the whole Huckleberry Finn is racist lawsuit threat thrown at me several years ago by a grandmother -- not even the parent -- of a black student) and not only are entire careers over, but hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, are lost. In a school, you ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. Always.
rrlane--must be nice where you live, because the high school I went to, a few of the classes were so cold that even the TEACHERS were wearing coats. And your contraband line also rings hollow to me, because if taken to extreme, the arguement could be applied to pockets in pants as well. I could be wrong, I may have missed something becuase I'm typing and trying to take care of my little guy, got his tonsils and adenoids out this morning, not happy, but I don't think anyone else brought up a fashion show. And if it's cold enough for coats to be needed, generally in my experience at least, people aren't likely to sweat.
Bobb, body paint isn't clothing. Tights are. And trust me, hang out in the Goth scene occasionally, and you'll find places where body paint IS sufficient. But to go with your second point, if body parts are covered, then, unless the clothing is translucent or you're dealing with Sue Richards, you CAN'T see them.
Suspension - "being sent home" - is no longer considered a punishment?
Being sent home is not the same as suspension. The way I read it, it was the same as we would do (and have done) for students who violate dress code here. If they have a change of clothes at the school (from gym class or whatever) that are acceptable, they don't leave the building. If they don't have anything to wear, then they go home, change, and come back.
Honestly, there are really more important things in the world to get indignant about.
I wouldn't let my 13 (nearly 14) year old daughter out the door dressed like that. She wears a studio tracksuit over her dancewear to her dance classes.
"Students are in school to learn. It's not a freakin' fashion show."
We don't have this problem so much - schools here, bith State and Independent, insist on school uniforms. I hated it as a student, very happy with it as a parent.
rrlane--must be nice where you live, because the high school I went to, a few of the classes were so cold that even the TEACHERS were wearing coats.
Which is why I can only speak for my school and from my own experience. Please note my qualification in my previous post that I don't know what schools were like in your neck of the woods. If there is a situation in another school that is different than here (the place I was talking about in the first instance), then different rules are sure to apply.
And your contraband line also rings hollow to me, because if taken to extreme, the arguement could be applied to pockets in pants as well.
If taken to the extreme, I would agree with you. I'm trying to avoid the extremes here. If everyone would do the same it would be so much easier to find a happy medium, don't you think?
Sure, you could carry a stick of gum, an Ipod or a cell phone in pants pockets. Could you carry a can of spray paint? A pint of vodka? A pistol? You can in a coat. I know, because we've pulled kids for carrying some of them in their coats. Not the gun thankfully.
Yet.
So it can ring hollow to you if you choose. I'm sorry to hear it, but I live it.
I don't think anyone else brought up a fashion show.
So there's a practical reason to dress like Captain Underpants that I'm missing?
Geez, I go away to mow the lawn (last time this year :) ) and Bill contemplates a sabbatical while my wife drops by and threatens my life.
I must never mow the lawn again!!!!! ;p
Bill, you're fine. I'm sure must of us would say that you're not being overly combative or trollish in the least. I thought, at worst, that some of your posts showed a bit of the standard onset of the winter blahs. Hits lots of people this time of year. Hits me for a few weeks every year. Hell, a month ago I would have had a bit more fun with Mikey in the last thread then I did. Winter blahs kick in and I'm not in the mood to play as many of his games with him as I sometimes would.
"Dude, my girlfriend owns a handgun and is trained in its use."
Yeah, so what? She has a handgun. I have at my disposal:
A bullet proof vest
Four shotguns
Five rifles
Four semi-automatic handguns
Three revolvers
Seven swords
Dozens of knives
OC Spray
An ASP Baton
Several nightsticks
Riot gear
The occasional TAZER
What does my wife have? Only the most dangerous weapon a woman can have.
CAST IRON POTS AND PANS AND A WILLINGNESS TO USE THEM.
You, me, your girlfriend and Craig combined and backed by anything less then Godzilla wouldn't stand a chance.
"Bobb, body paint isn't clothing. Tights are."
Yeah, and in my old HS you had girls get sent home to change for doing the MTV fashion fad of skin tight tights and short shorts.
frankly, with the tights on yhe two girls on the "outside" of the group look more like Ken than Barbie. Nothing remotely sexual about it.
I'me with you Pete - Princpal P is a bit uptight.
Some good points have come up against my original reaction to this article. Upon reflection, I can see that yeah, some people might be uncomfortable with the girls dressed like that. My thing is this. If there were any girls at this school who were dressed in Wonder Woman outfits or the like with bare legs and low cut/form-fitting tops, I would expect them to be sent home too then because that's just as provocative to some as other girls wearing flesh-colored suits. If they weren't sent home, then this seems too arbitrary to me about what is believed to be distracting and what isn't. Girls are distracting to boys, period. It was only a few years ago I was in high school and frankly if a girl was pretty it didn't matter how conservative she was dressed, you'd look at her. :-P
Were I the principal and honestly believed these girls were too sexually overt, I would have the gym teacher give them some spare shirts to wear OVER the flesh-colored tops and let them continue to go to class. Or if the gym doesn't possess extra shirts and jersies, then take ten minutes to go to the nearest K-Mart, buy one of those "three plain t-shirts for 5 bucks" packages, and give those to the girls to wear over their tops. Sending them home for the day seems too much like singling them out and ruining their day for what could've been really just a bad but harmless judgment call made by three teenagers. Don't let them go completely buck wild, but rememner that Super-Hero Day should, by definition, be fun.
Just my two cents.
This was too funny, but sad at the same time.
But I'm almost positive if they had shown up dressed as Wonder Woman, it wouldn't have been an issue.
If they were sent home for the entire day, then I will agree that that was an over reaction. There is nothing in the article that states that that is what happened, though (if I somehow missed it in the article, I cheerfully rescind my arguments). If there was a cleavage showing, French-cut Wonder Woman costume that was NOT sent home, then the principal was hypocritical. But again, there is nothing in the article that says that that was the case, so that's really besides the point.
As for the notion of letting them use old gym clothes, the article might have then read "Young girls force to wear unsanitary clothing in local high school." The new shirts idea would work once, but then they would be "dirty" shirts too, requiring the school to buy new ones each time a student needed to be covered up.
Again, I know because we've gone through this here, and those suggestions (which I honestly consider good solutions from a practical point of view) were rejected precisely for the reasons I state. Blame our litigious society as others have already mentioned here.
I'm almost positive if they had shown up dressed as Wonder Woman, it wouldn't have been an issue.
I cannot speak for that school, so you may be right, but there's an equal chance you're wrong. In my school there have been numerous girls sent home to change out of cleavage exposing shirts.
And lest anyone start saying that the girls are singled out, we've also sent boys home to change out of pants that are hanging down around their groins.
Craig J. Ries: I didn't feel "chased off." But I have been involved in at least three major conflicts here in recent weeks. If I was the problem, then my absence seemed like a logical solution.
But things between you and I cooled off rapidly. Bygones, then?
Jerry C: Got your e-mail. Thanks, man. Truly. But I wasn't gonna take a "sabbatical." I mean, c'mon, it's just a blog! It's not like I was talking about quitting my job, leaving my girlfriend, and joining a commune!
By the way, Jerry C, I wouldn't underestimate my girlfriend if I were you. She can kick some serious ass. And what makes you think she'd team up with us against your wife? I think it would be more likely that she'd team up with your wife against us. And give you and I a serious hurtin'.
Finally, to everyone: I've changed my mind about the costumes. I used the link Jerry C provided to see the pictures, and you could see the girls' bras and panties through those tights. Those things were waaayyyy too sheer. I can't fault the principal for asking the girls to go home and change. Organizational dress codes are part of the real world.
PAD, normally, I agree with you, but this time, I gotta side with the Principal.
In the right lighting, these girls are wearing underwear, bras, glorified pantyhose, and nothing else. It's like letting them go around all day in bikinis. Not to mention that those body suits look terribly easy to damage and distracting for anyone around them... Yeah, he made the right call.
There are ways to tweak, poke, and prod at the system, but this was going a bit too far.
There is one shot where you can see the outline and, maybe, the bra itself. Hard to tell from the photo itself without looking a lot harder then I want to at a high school girl. But that does say something of the see through nature of the tights in different lighting conditions. The photo PAD has now posted shows the girls with the sunlight hitting them full on and that caused the surface of the material to be highlighted.
While in real life closer inspection of the subject improves your chances of seeing a bra, in the case of these images closer inspections only gives you large smudges of pixelated colors. Try zooming in on the files with an image-reader.
The story cites a student saying the costumes weren't see-through, and the principal "described the costume as 'tight-fitting, flesh-colored leotards and leggings.'" A group of girls at the end of their childhood want to dress up as Captain Underpants, and you, Jerry, have to tell us you see something sexually provacative in what are in large part a bunch of colored smudges. Seems kind of creepy to me.
Well, they're not as clear on a couple of the girls, but the bra on the skinny one is quite visible.
Also, does it seem a bit wrong to anybody else to take take the principal to task for not being familiar with every bit of pop culture fluff that comes down the pike? Particularly being the administrator of a high school, and the character in question is from a series of children's books?
-Rex Hondo-
The character in question is a school principal. (That's likely to be what all the brouhaha is really about.)
Seriously, Rex...I can understand why PAD mentioned they weren't see-through the first time he posted that, since he hadn't seen all the pictures, and the picture he put up doesn't show it. But the full range of photos at Newsday clearly show how see-through the outfit, at least on the first girl, is.
And I agree with you on your second point, too. I didn't know what the hell a Wiggle was until my brother had a kid, for example, and if someone had expected me to know what Captain Feathersword was, and then mocked me because I didn't know, he would be way out of line. I'm a high school teacher, and the only reason I know anything about Captain Underpants is that he's got ads in some of the comics I read! Which makes me wonder about the target audience of what I read, I suppose....!
"Mike at October 26, 2006 11:28 PM"
I still can't understand why their mothers let them leave the house dressed like that.
Hmm. I went to a strict all-male Catholic high school with a strict dress code, so I have very little experience with how much flexibility students get with dress codes.
This reminds me of the flap a few years ago, when Britney Spears did her pseudo-strip tease at the MTV Video Music Awards to "reveal" a skin-colored bodysuit. It didn't reveal anything "unacceptable" by television standards (especially those on MTV), but people seemed shocked because she, well, seemed nude. This is the same situation: These girls weren't naked, but they sorta looked naked. (I shudder to think about the reaction of anyone whos aw these girls from a distance.)
I think the school handled it perfectly, by sending the students home without enforcing any further punishment. This may have been pushing the limits of what's appropriate, but it's hard to punish someone for sorta looking sorta nekkid.
I'm not taking any side to the discussion, I'd just like to point out (matter of factually) that I'm pretty sure these girls' normal school attire is more flattering (read: inappropriately appealing) than their costumes.
Seriously, there is just something gross looking about those costumes.
I'm not taking any side to the discussion, I'd just like to point out (matter of factually) that I'm pretty sure these girls' normal school attire is more flattering (read: inappropriately appealing) than their costumes.
Seriously, there is just something gross looking about those costumes.
I'm not taking any side to the discussion, I'd just like to point out (matter of factually) that I'm pretty sure these girls' normal school attire is more flattering (read: inappropriately appealing) than their costumes.
Seriously, there is just something gross looking about those costumes.
I'm not taking any side to the discussion, I'd just like to point out (matter of factually) that I'm pretty sure these girls' normal school attire is more flattering (read: inappropriately appealing) than their costumes.
Seriously, there is just something gross looking about those costumes.
Posted by El Hombre Malo
When I was a kid, my highschool used to celebrate a "verbena" (sort of a night fair) with a costume contest included. They ended up issuing a veto to prevent any boy dressing as a girl/woman. Seems a kid did that so succesfuly and genuine-like he got even to flirt with a teacher, or so the legend say.
Peter - you wanna give us a summary of the story of DC's reps' problems with "Catwoman" at some con that i remember from a "But I Digress..." some years ago?
Posted by El Hombre Malo
When I was a kid, my highschool used to celebrate a "verbena" (sort of a night fair) with a costume contest included. They ended up issuing a veto to prevent any boy dressing as a girl/woman. Seems a kid did that so succesfuly and genuine-like he got even to flirt with a teacher, or so the legend say.
Peter - you wanna give us a summary of the story of DC's reps' problems with "Catwoman" at some con that i remember from a "But I Digress..." some years ago?
Posted by El Hombre Malo
When I was a kid, my highschool used to celebrate a "verbena" (sort of a night fair) with a costume contest included. They ended up issuing a veto to prevent any boy dressing as a girl/woman. Seems a kid did that so succesfuly and genuine-like he got even to flirt with a teacher, or so the legend say.
Peter - you wanna give us a summary of the story of DC's reps' problems with "Catwoman" at some con that i remember from a "But I Digress..." some years ago?
I can understand doing a double-take at first, but at second glance, you see they’re wearing opaque bodystockings, and they do not look nude, nor can I see any bras on them. Where anyone gets the idea that the outfits are see-through, I don’t know.
ArizonaTeach: the fact that you can see the bra through the outfit is pretty inappropriate..
Craig J. Ries: Then girls should be banned from wearing white shirts then? Because that's what you're going based on your opinion of this outfit.
Luigi Novi: White fabric varies in thickness and texture, and is not all of it is necessarily transparent.
Craig J. Ries: Tell me you've never seen a girl walking around in a white shirt and never seen the bra underneath. Go ahead, I dare you to even try.
Luigi Novi: Whether one has “ever” seen such a thing wasn’t the issue. The issue that not all white shirts are transparent. You asked, in response to ArizonaTeach’s comment that transparent clothing was inappropriate, whether wearing white shirts should be banned. Not all white shirts are transparent. No one said that none of them are.
Bill Myers: Look at it this way: would you ban people from seeing the girls' swim team? They show a lot more in those one-piece bathing suits.
Luigi Novi: I’ve never seen a school swimsuit that looked like that. The ones I’ve seen are opaque, and generally a bright color like red.
Jerry C: Bill, www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lidres1026-pg,0,5767405.photogallery?coll=ny-main-bigpix&index=3
Luigi Novi: I saw that photo before, but I looked a second time, and only now did I see Ashley Imhof’s bra, and only looking really hard. Maybe you’re right about different lighting conditions, so maybe hers was too transparent. The others do not look transparents, and in the first photo, Eliana Levin’s outfit looks more brown than the others. I wonder if Imhof’s bra was mostly visible to others, because as Peter pointed out, Restiva complained not about any transparency, but the “appearance of nudity”.
Bill, stick around. Examine yourself if you must, but you’re not one who should worry about his behavior here.
The outfits were not see-through.
The girls were interviewed on the news last night. They were wearing leotards, and beneath that, tank tops. So basically they were sporting two layers of clothing. The principal made it quite clear: The girls were singled out, not for any actual nudity or inappropriate display of undergarments. They were singled out for *perception* of nudity which--considering the micro-miniskirts and belly-baring outfits girls ARE allowed to wear on a DAILY basis, is completely ridiculous.
Furthermore, they were informed that if they did not cover up, they would receive a week's suspension. The alternative was to leave...for which they received a cut, which is a mark on their attendance record. Get that? The principal put them in a situation where perceived, not actual, indecency compelled them to leave school for which they were then penalized. All on a day in which many seniors were also wearing leotards or tight fitting clothes.
Guaranteed that you've seen the last of superhero day at Long Beach HS.
PAD
Oh, grife!
>"Students are in school to learn. It's not a freakin' fashion show."
We had one in high school. Girls dressed in male fashions and guys in female ones. I know. I wore a ballgown down the improvised 'runway'. It was a one-day thing, all in fun, and no one got their knickers in a knot.
Too, this was in the days of increasingly short (read: practically non-existent micro-mini) skirts and where flashes of underwear were not all that rare. Not to mention that glimpses of bras under clothing wasn't really a problem, not considering how many girls did without back then. Remember 'pencil tests'?
Yet, I don't recall an epidemic of traumatized kids needing therapy, or skyrocketing rape rates or teenage pregnancies going through the roof (no worse than figures I'd seen bandied about in the past twenty years.) We certainly didn't need metal detectors or 'lockdowns' in schools back then.
Maybe kids are more delicate/stupider nowadays?
Jeeze, I missed all this--our zombie movie had a premiere tonight in Raleigh.
My first reaction is, as always, that the principal is a jerk. Mt second is that, well, maybe, I can sort of see where he's coming from. Depending on how see through the costumes were, you could make a case.
One problem is that High School kids are the original slippery slope. If you allow something questionable there will be some kid who will take it to the next level (and a parent who will threaten a lawsuit because you're "picking" on their kid.). Now at some point you, the adult, must step in and say "Here's the line, don't cross it."
The cold weather here (i.e. anything under 80 freaking degrees...Southerners!) has helped put a damper on the dress code violations but you'd be amazed/appalled at what some girls show up in. And it can cause a disruption, hell, it doesn't take much to get a crowd going with these kids. I could cause a riot just by tossing a quarter in their midst. Having 3 girls who, at first glance, look naked, could certainly cause a stir. But I probably would have let it slide.
I want to give the guy props for having a Superhero day period. Too bad this will probably put the kibosh on it.
Bill Myers, yeah, you've been involved in some discord but it seems to me that a lot of it comes from attempts to be fair and balanced, always a dangerous tactic as an election approaches! I think Craig overreacted but he also cooled things down later on (so props to you, Craig). The only reason I'd ever want to hear of you taking time off from here would be to work like a hermit on your comics projects and/or take your young lady on a cruise to Bermuda.
(And if anyone lives near Sanford North Carolina and wants to witness the spectacle of a teacher being mercilessly razzed by his students, go see The Forever Dead Friday and Saturday at midnight in the Springlane Movie Theatre. I may need to move to Bermuda myself when this is over.)
PAD: The outfits were not see-through.
Well, the pictures don't really bear that out, Peter.
PAD:They were singled out for *perception* of nudity
Not disputing that. Kids with marijuana leaves on their shirts are told to change because of the *perception* of drug use for the same reasons. A kid brandishing a toy gun in school will have it confiscated because of the *perception* as well.
which--considering the micro-miniskirts and belly-baring outfits girls ARE allowed to wear on a DAILY basis, is completely ridiculous.
You know for a FACT micro-minis and belly shirts are allowed at this particular school? They aren't at my school. If they are indeed allowed at that school, then you are correct in citing hypocrisy.
Furthermore, they were informed that if they did not cover up, they would receive a week's suspension.
Standard practice for insubordination. And if they didn't do what they were told, that's what they would be guilty of.
The alternative was to leave...for which they received a cut, which is a mark on their attendance record. Get that?
Actually, I don't. What's a cut? We don't have anything like that here. We have tardies and skips and legal and illegal absences. A tardy doesn't amount to much until a student gets several and then the get assigned detention. A skip is an illegal absence from a class. The very most I think he could do is give them an excused (legal) absence. In which case, the only thing that it effects is none of them will get a perfect attendance award at the end of the year.
Yeah, he dropped the hammer on them. I'm getting Cool Hand Luke flashbacks. :)
The principal put them in a situation where perceived, not actual, indecency compelled them to leave school for which they were then penalized. All on a day in which many seniors were also wearing leotards or tight fitting clothes.
Again, if a kid is wearing a T-shirt with a guy blazing up a joint displayed on it, he's not being sent home for wearing a T-shirt. He's being sent home for what the T-shirt represents.
Guaranteed that you've seen the last of superhero day at Long Beach HS.
More than likely you are correct, but it's not because of the incident, but rather because of the heat brought on from those who will condemn an administrator for simply doing his job.
If there is any fault to be found with this principal it may be (and again, I don't know. Neither do most people reading this, I would imagine) in that the rules on what was acceptable and what wasn't weren't clearly delineated prior to the event.
But then again maybe they were. I won't make a snap judgment about man's personality and his ability do his job based on one flimsy hyperbolic article. That would be just silly, wouldn't it?
"Students are in school to learn. It's not a freakin' fashion show."
We had one in high school. Girls dressed in male fashions and guys in female ones. I know. I wore a ballgown down the improvised 'runway'. It was a one-day thing, all in fun, and no one got their knickers in a knot.
I should qualify. I'm not saying you can't have these sorts of things. They can be fun and a bit of a break from the mundane. But it's all secondary to the primary purpose of education, and when it crosses the line in that it interferes with the primary, it needs to be modified or eliminated.
> and when it crosses the line in that it interferes with the primary, it needs to be modified or eliminated.
OK. But did it? We know the principal got bent out of shape over it. What about the other students? Was there a riot over it? Did the girls' classes get flooded with would-be gawkers? If not, where's the problem?
What do you mean by "bent out of shape"? To me that phrase entails him getting red in the face, yelling and generally losing his cool. There's no indication any of those things happened. Do you consider any time a school administrator enforces policy to be getting bent out of shape?
And I doubt there was a riot (Must it get to that before the administration acts? Imagine the story THAT would garner.) It's more like the death by a thousand cuts. Typically you only have 40-45 minutes to complete a lesson, and there is a world of distractions anyways. You have to take attendance, you have to get the stagglers in their seats, you get two or three kids coming in with late passes from other classes, etc. This is one of the distractions the administration has control over, so the principal used his discretion and opted to remove it.
Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't...
Just wanted to ask - does anyone know if there was a dress code or even guidelines for Superhero Day? If not, it's hard to blame the girls for their costumes if no guidelines were provided or even suggested. Also, what other kinds of costumes were kids wearing?
The problem is we've let lawyers take over the world. It has gotten so bad that people forbid things just because they guess some lawyer will sue.
Anyone that could look at those pictures and see something wrong is pretty soon going to say that there is something wrong with allowing girls to go to school at all. I mean no matter how they dress girls are going to distract boys.
It's more like the death by a thousand cuts. Typically you only have 40-45 minutes to complete a lesson, and there is a world of distractions anyways. You have to take attendance, you have to get the stagglers in their seats, you get two or three kids coming in with late passes from other classes, etc. This is one of the distractions the administration has control over, so the principal used his discretion and opted to remove it.
Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't...
It was Senior Superhero Day. Three kids went as Captain Underpants, they wore 2 layers of clothing, and a bunch of you insist on making something dirty out of it.
When I was 10, my immigrant mother made me a Moon Knight costume. I thank god no one took the opportunity to tell me what a klansman was.
Captain Underpants?? I'm sorry, that's just lazy. If you have 3 girls who want to come to Superhero Day at high school dressed as the same character, at least show a little creativity -- like come as Triplicate Girl!
It was Senior Superhero Day.
During a day of school in which the educational process is still expected to take place.
a bunch of you insist on making something dirty out of it.
I don't recall saying it was dirty. I said it was disruptive and a target for the litigious. If I'm one of the ones you are speaking of, please don't put words in my mouth.
I mean no matter how they dress girls are going to distract boys.
So the principal should just throw his hands up in the air and say "do as thou wilt?"
I don't recall saying it was dirty. I said it was disruptive and a target for the litigious.
Litigious on what basis? They wore 2 layers of clothing -- where you insist you see a bra in the pixelated photos, and hold against them. What defense is there against that?
Litigious in the sense that some parent is going to sue because their children were exposed to indecency in school. Would they win? I dunno--I'd like to think they wouldn't, but I wouldn't bet the farm against it either. But even if they didn't it would cost the district time and money to create a defense against it.
In our district, a student was harassed by students because he was openly gay. His family sued. They didn't sue the families of the students who harassed him-they didn't have the perceived deep pockets. They sued the school district for not doing enough to protect him. It cost the district $250,000.
Guess what? If we hear any student call another student "gay" for any reason, it gets reported to the office now, and the students are called down for conflict management counseling.
Don't underestimate the public's ability to be offended or the legal profession's ability to cash in on it.
While I personally had no problem with what they had on, schools have rules that say that undergarments cannot be worn as outer garments. He was within his legal right to send them home, even though I totally disagree with it.
Litigious in the sense that some parent is going to sue because their children were exposed to indecency in school. Would they win? I dunno--I'd like to think they wouldn't, but I wouldn't bet the farm against it either. But even if they didn't it would cost the district time and money to create a defense against it.In our district, a student was harassed by students because he was openly gay. His family sued. They didn't sue the families of the students who harassed him-they didn't have the perceived deep pockets. They sued the school district for not doing enough to protect him. It cost the district $250,000.
So the principal was protecting the other high school students from the indecent Captain Underpants? Should a ban on the Captain Underpants books now be issued to the high shool library? To avoid lawsuits?
While I personally had no problem with what they had on, schools have rules that say that undergarments cannot be worn as outer garments. He was within his legal right to send them home, even though I totally disagree with it.
Is that what the principal said? Did the report establish those kids were trying to get away with wearing undergarments publicly, or did they have the sense to wear shorts on the outside of their clothing, like all the other kids on Senior Superhero day?
Not to distract too much, but just because you can see a bra outline in this picture doesn't necessarily mean they wore one the day of the actual event. I doubt that the reporters were lined up outside the school waiting for someone to be sent home for dress code violations.
Meanwhile, I absolutely had to make today's Dilbert comic strip my new desktop background. :)
So I teach a class for seniors and juniors who want to be teachers, and every Friday is News Article day, where the kids research and report on the educational issues of the week. One girl had the story of a principal who, for some reason, gave a kid on the soccer team a wedgie and was suspended. Weird story. Another girl talked about a teacher who was openly talking about her weekend's sexcapades with students (which led into a little offshoot about last week's South Park). Talked a little about a couple of Arizona propositions and how they might affect education, and as things petered down I brought this story out.
First of all, those of you who are still insisting the outfits weren't see-through and bras weren't visible, try looking at the picture on a three foot tall smart board. There is none, zero, absolutely no doubt. Couple of the boys giggled, couple of the girls gasped, and all but three students said it was inappropriate (granted, this was a group of kids who will have a biased perspective because we've discussed education issues and appropriateness repeatedly). The first question that was asked was, "What does the student dress code say?" I replied the only mention I've seen of it is when the principal states there can be no visible underwear. At that point, nobody disagreed with the decision. When I asked if this outfit would be distracting, all the girls, and all but two of the boys said it would be. For context, the two boys said it wasn't distracting enough. One girl, however, did ask what other costumes were allowed, and the general consensus was that if other costumes showed cleavage or skin, they should have been sent home too, so they'd need to know more about the other costumes.
Anyway, just thought I'd share that.
To address some comments:
Peter David:
"The outfits were not see-through. The girls were interviewed on the news last night. They were wearing leotards, and beneath that, tank tops. So basically they were sporting two layers of clothing"
That is absolutely, positively NOT what the pictures show.
"They were singled out for *perception* of nudity which--considering the micro-miniskirts and belly-baring outfits girls ARE allowed to wear on a DAILY basis, is completely ridiculous."
This is absolutely, positively incorrect for the majority of schools in America that are not a product of Hollywood.
"Furthermore, they were informed that if they did not cover up, they would receive a week's suspension. The alternative was to leave...for which they received a cut, which is a mark on their attendance record. Get that? The principal put them in a situation where perceived, not actual, indecency compelled them to leave school for which they were then penalized."
Standard procedure. The kids knew the rule, they knowingly violated the rule, and they must accept the consequences for breaking that rule. Calling it perceived indecency does not change the fact they intentionally violated the no undergarments policy.
"Guaranteed that you've seen the last of superhero day at Long Beach HS."
Probably true, but more because of the publicity of the "outrage" than anything else. If this hadn't gone out nationally, they'd still have dress up days.
Tom Dakers:
"Anyone that could look at those pictures and see something wrong is pretty soon going to say that there is something wrong with allowing girls to go to school at all. I mean no matter how they dress girls are going to distract boys."
Now THAT's a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one!
I don't know if anyone's posted it yet, but if someone would like to send the principle an e-mail the website for Long Beach is www.lbeach.org and the Address for snail mail is
Long Beach High School
322 Lagoon Dr
W Lido Beach, NY 11561-4908
-jason
Should a ban on the Captain Underpants books now be issued to the high school library?
I dunno; I've never read Captain Underpants as my own kids were too old when the books came out. Do they feature topless teenage girls?
And as long as we're going to ridiculous, back-bending extremes to make our points, I guess I'll join in. Many folks here are saying, "But it's only simulated nudity, so it's okay." At what point do you draw the line? Could they draw simulated nipples on the body suits? If not, why not? It's just simulated, isn't it? How about putting plastic nipples on? It'd still be simulated wouldn't it?
What if it was "rock star" day instead of superhero day? Could someone come dressed as Janet Jackson on superbowl Sunday with nude colored body stocking showing over the right breast? Heck, the girls would be in a less simulated nude state than Captain Underpants. Just slap a simulated nipple ring on there, and we've got next year's theme.
Could a kid come as Mr. Hanky from South Park if he wore a brown body stocking? It's just simulated shit, isn't it?
Why is this such a big issue? Why is this even news-worthy? Students (and employees) are routinely sent home for more innocent apparel offenses than this one. I could see it being a big deal if they were suspended, but all they got was a blemish on their attendance record... which means exactly nothing, especially if you're a senior. It just seems like a knee-jerk liberal reaction to, er, get your underpants in a twist over this (and no one's more liberal than I am).
I also find it odd that some people not only expect the principal to be familiar with Captain Underpants (never heard of the character, myself), but seem to think that it has some sort of bearing on the issue, as though he would simply say, "Oh, sure, Captain Underpants. As long as you're dressed as an established character, THAT'S okay."
While I personally had no problem with what they had on, schools have rules that say that undergarments cannot be worn as outer garments.
Except, that's really not the issue here: the principal said that wearing undergarments on the outside for this event was ok.
The issue, according to the principal, was "the appearance was that they were naked."
And, based on the quotes and comments, it's the appearance of nudity from the waist down, not waist up, that seems to be the issue.
The principal says they could've worn gym shorts, or had a change of clothes brought to them, but no mention specifically that they should've worn shirts.
I'd really love to see a follow up article on this.
I dunno; I've never read Captain Underpants as my own kids were too old when the books came out. Do they feature topless teenage girls?And as long as we're going to ridiculous back-bending extremes...
You mean like introducing "topless teenage girls" into the discussion? First their bras are showing, now they're topless. You can't have both, which one is it?
... to make our points, I guess I'll join in. Many folks here are saying, "But it's only simulated nudity, so it's okay."
Like your "topless teenage girls" comment, you're the only one saying "it's only simulated nudity, so it's okay."
Captain Underpants is simply not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants. Ergo, there is no simulated nudity.
Considering that, the principal citing "simulated nudity" is really f-cked up.
Could a kid come as Mr. Hanky from South Park if he wore a brown body stocking? It's just simulated shit, isn't it?
Mr. Hanky isn't marketed to 3rd graders. Protesting a kid showing up to school as Mr. Hanky seems reasonable. Protesting a kid from dressing up in 2 layers of clothing as Captain Underpants is goofy.
ArizonaTeach, if there was "none, zero, absolutely no doubt" their bras were showing, on the 3 foot board printed from the original image files the Newsday photographer sent you, why did the principal, who was there, cite simulated nudity and not the display of undergarments?
And as long as we're going to ridiculous back-bending extremes...
You mean like introducing "topless teenage girls" into the discussion? First their bras are showing, now they're topless. You can't have both, which one is it?
The girls are simulating being topless in school. Hence the "topless teenage girls" comment. I didn't really think it was a stretch to figure out that out. Captain Underpants, from what I've gathered, is about a pre-pubescent boy, no? Two completely different things. The post I was responding to was making the statement that enforcing a dress code should lead to book banning, which leaps a far greater chasm in my opinion, YMMV.
Captain Underpants is simply not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants. Ergo, there is no simulated nudity.
I've always considered resorting to semantic exactitude a last resort of a losing argument, but so be it...copy each post into your favorite spell checker and replace "nudity" with "toplessness" and it changes the argument not a whit.
ArizonaTeach, if there was "none, zero, absolutely no doubt" their bras were showing, on the 3 foot board printed from the original image files the Newsday photographer sent you, why did the principal, who was there, cite simulated nudity and not the display of undergarments?
You're asking ArizonaTeach to read minds now?
BTW, what about the Janet Jackson scenario? What about the fake nipples? Please don't cherry pick, if you are going to get indignant with those whom you disagree with.
> To avoid lawsuits?
To avoid lawsuits.
Our society doesn't need terrorists to bring it to its knees. Not when it has lawyers to to it for them.
Remember the wise words of Judge Wapner (Ret.) "You're talking about common sense. But the law has nothing to do with common sense." Then weep for us all.
copy each post into your favorite spell checker and replace "nudity"...
No. Make your own point.
The merit in plain observations are not semantic: Captain Underpants is not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants.
Ergo, there is no simulated nudity.
You're asking ArizonaTeach to read minds now?
Well then I'll just have to ask ArizonaTeach to speculate now, won't I?
ArizonaTeach, for the sake of explaining 2 inconsistent points: if there was "none, zero, absolutely no doubt" their bras were showing, on the 3 foot board printed from the original image files the Newsday photographer sent you, why would the principal, who was there, cite simulated nudity and not the display of undergarments?
Why would he go so far as to described their costumes as "tight-fitting, flesh-colored leotards and leggings" and not simply cite the display of a bra if it was as obvious as you claim?
Mike said:
"ArizonaTeach, if there was "none, zero, absolutely no doubt" their bras were showing, on the 3 foot board printed from the original image files the Newsday photographer sent you, why did the principal, who was there, cite simulated nudity and not the display of undergarments?"
Well, maybe I should explain what a Smartboard is...it's essentially a giant computer monitor that acts as chalkboard. It connects directly to my computer, but I can do things like draw on the board and it also appears on my computer monitor, I can touch certain parts of the board to increase size, decrease, open files (I guess the best explanation is that it acts as a mouse/keyboard/monitor). The bottom line is, all I did was go to the Newsday website and the picture appeared on the screen in front of the class -- it wasn't a copy or a blow-up, it was the actual picture on a screen much larger than the typical computer monitor we're all looking at.
To answer your question, though, my very first post on this subject far, far up there said "...regardless of whatever reason the principal gives (I doubt you'll find "appearance of nudity" in the dress codes), the fact that you can see the bra through the outfit is pretty inappropriate, and I do imagine that's against the dress code, if there is one." So I indicated early on I wasn't sure what was going on in the principal's mind, but the simple fact that the outfit was see-through to the point you could see her bra (not the outline -- the BRA) is a huge problem.
What I can't understand is why these girls didn't look at each other and say, "Geez, we look bad!" and just stay home.
"but the simple fact that the outfit was see-through to the point you could see her bra (not the outline -- the BRA) is a huge problem."
Oh, you could? Interesting.
What color was it?
If you can see the actual bra rather than simply an outline, that should be an easy question.
Color, please.
For extra credit, feel free to explain how that's remotely relevant considering the principal repeatedly cited "apparent nudity" rather than visible undergarments as the problem.
PAD
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 02:23 PM
ArizonaTeach, for the sake of explaining 2 inconsistent points: if there was "none, zero, absolutely no doubt" their bras were showing, on the 3 foot board printed from the original image files the Newsday photographer sent you, why would the principal, who was there, cite simulated nudity and not the display of undergarments?
Mike, you are engaging in a logical fallacy known as "begging the question." Such an argument is fallacious because it relies on its own presupposition in order to support its conclusion.
In this case, you are presupposing that if the girls' bras were showing, the principal would have said that in so many words. You do not, and cannot, know that. For all we know, the principal could have been referring to the partial visibility of the girls' bras when he spoke of "the appearance of" nudity. Communication is tricky, and even some highly educated people don't always express themselves clearly.
That's why your argument falls apart. You are asserting that the principal referring only to "the appearance of nudity" precludes the possibility that the girls were asked to go home because of partially exposed bras. But that begs the question: how do you know that the principal would have said "partially visible bras" if that's what he meant? The answer is: you don't know.
If you can see the actual bra rather than simply an outline, that should be an easy question.
Color, please.
I would say they are light colored since they are lighter than the skin color that shows through, at least as indicated by this photo (if the link shows up).
www.newsday.com/media/photo/2006-10/26086790.jpg
If you CAN'T see it, then I suggest you see an optometrist at your earliest possible convenience.
In this case, you are presupposing that if the girls' bras were showing, the principal would have said that in so many words. You do not, and cannot, know that.
Presupposing something and knowing something aren't the same thing, and I'm relying on less presupposing than anyone saying otherwise:
- The character isn't nude.
- The girls weren't nude.
- The principal didn't send them home because their bras were showing.
What's your problem?
The merit in plain observations are not semantic: Captain Underpants is not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants.
Ergo, there is no simulated nudity.
Simula