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.
Simulated toplessness then, as I said. Move on.
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.
This once again presupposes everyone seeing the person wearing the outfit is familiar with the source material. If they aren't, then all they see are three teenage girls attempting to look topless during school hours.
Still waiting on your answer to the Janet Jackson scenario....
It seems to me reasonable for schools to have dress codes, to maintain discipline or to counteract to a degree the need of teenagers to look different. Although it seems that by definition the regular dress code was suspended on this day.
But I have a problem with the idea that high school seniors need to be protected from simulated nudity, or the visibilty of bras or whatever, and that these things will somehow distract them or prevent them from functioning or cause them to loose control of themselves. High school seniors should be taught to retain their calm even in the face of possible visible bras.
Posted by: Peter David at October 27, 2006 06:46 AM
The outfits were not see-through.
They appear see-through in the Newsday.com photos.
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.
If they were wearing tank-tops underneath the leotards, then I would agree with you that the principal overreacted. In the photos shown at Newsday.com, however, it does not appear as though they are wearing anything but bras under their leotards. I guess it depends on when the photos were taken.
Posted by: Peter David at October 27, 2006 06:46 AM
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?
Yes, I do indeed "get that." But one mark on one's high school attendance record is really no big deal, even if it was the result of an unfair decision on the principal's part. I was late for homeroom once during my senior year in high school. It was because the five-minute warning bell malfunctioned and didn't ring. So the first bell I heard was the "your ass should be in your seat already" bell. My homeroom teacher acknowledged this, and also acknowledged I was only 30 seconds late. Nevertheless, she was a slave to the letter of the law and she gave me detention. Was it fair? Hell, no. Was it worth crying about? Absolutely not.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 03:01 PM
Presupposing something and knowing something aren't the same thing, and I'm relying on less presupposing than anyone saying otherwise:
No, that's false. You are relying on a presupposition to support your conclusion.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 03:01 PM
The character isn't nude.
Agreed.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 03:01 PM
The girls weren't nude.
Agreed.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 03:01 PM
The principal didn't send them home because their bras were showing.
Unless the principal said explicitly that he did not send them home for this reason, you don't know that.
I used to work in journalism. In a perfect world, journalists would never get anything out of context, would never leave anything important out of an article in their haste, would never let a bias cloud their reporting. But this isn't a perfect world and those things happen all the time. And they can be subtle enough to not be readily apparent.
So, just because the principal was quoted as saying that the girls were sent home to change because of "the appearance of" nudity doesn't mean partially visible bras weren't part of the issue.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 03:01 PM
What's your problem?
That's a bit like asking me when I stopped beating my wife.
I don't have a problem. I'm simply debating with you. Why does that constitute a problem?
I have a problem with the idea that high school seniors need to be protected from simulated nudity, or the visibility of bras or whatever, and that these things will somehow distract them or prevent them from functioning or cause them to loose control of themselves.
All I can say to this that you've never taught, have you? My God, a kid breaks wind, and you've lost the class for five minutes.
Jerry C, Bill Mulligan, Luigi: thanks for your kind words, by the way. It wasn't like I was on a ledge or anything! But it's nice to know someone besides me is finding value in my ramblings here. I guess I won't take "a break" after all.
Great, now I can't get out of my head that scene from "Friends" where Rachel finds out that Ross slept with someone while they were "on a break," and Ross screams, "We were on a breeeeaaaaak!!!!!" :)
Peter David: The outfits were not see-through.
Luigi Novi: The garment Ashley Imhoff is wearing in that photo Jerry linked to does not look like a tank top at all.
Peter David: 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.
Luigi Novi: Where are such students allowed to wear those things?
Peter David: All on a day in which many seniors were also wearing leotards or tight fitting clothes.
Luigi Novi: Vis a vis Restivo’s claim about “perceived nudity”, leotards and tight-fitting clothes are usually not flesh-colored, and probably do not cause such a perception, in his view.
rrlane: 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.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, the widely held belief that laws criminalizing a certain things are wrong. How DARE such a child form an opinion!
R.J. Carter: 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.
Luigi Novi: A valid point. But why would Ashley Imhoff wear less during the photo shoot than she did during that day? Wouldn’t that only undercut her position? Moreover, the news story is dated October 25, the same day as the incident, which would indicate that the reporting and photo shooting took place the same day. How much time would she have had to change, and again, why would she take off her tanktop, and replace it with just a bra?
rrlane: 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?
Luigi Novi: LOL!
Robert Fuller: 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."
Luigi Novi: No one here that I can recall has indicated this. Who said this? Which post?
Mike: 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?
Luigi Novi: Perhaps some of us disagree with him on his stated point, but have found another reason to agree with him that at least one of the girls’ version of the outfit was inappropriate. Bill Myers also provided a possible explanation of this.
Mike: The merit in plain observations are not semantic: Captain Underpants is not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants.
Luigi Novi: I do see a bit of semantics here. Toplessness is a form of nudity. It is partial nudity. Rrlane was pointed out that the costumes exhibited simulated toplessness. Just because she said simulated “nudity” doesn’t mean her point wasn’t made. I don’t agree with her position, and I understood her.
Peter David: What color was it? If you can see the actual bra rather than simply an outline, that should be an easy question.
Luigi Novi: It appeared to be of the same color as the bodystocking, though lighter, so it may have been white. How is this relevant?
Peter David: 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.
Luigi Novi: See third exchange above this one.
Are you actually telling me that you cannot see the bra in this picture? Seriously?
"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."
Because the principal also cited the fact that their undergarments (underwear on the outside of pants or sweats was ok, but not this) were visible, it was a distraction, and the was causing a commotion.
Now, for a passing grade, please explain, with cited sources, why it's ok for students to cause distractions and commotions at a high school and why a principal shouldn't try to put an end to it.
Are you actually telling me that you cannot see the bra in this picture? Seriously?
Actually, what's too funny is that the girl in the front looks like she's, um, stuffed a sock in her underpants.
The irony is, she probably would have looked less risque if she had forgone the bra altogether.
Rrlane was pointed out that the costumes exhibited simulated toplessness. Just because she said simulated “nudity” doesn’t mean her point wasn’t made. I don’t agree with her position, and I understood her.
I'm going with more than my initials from now on since this is the second time on this board people have assumed I'm a female. Is there something inherently feminine about alliterative initials (rr)?
--Rich Lane
The Notoriously Manly Rich Lane wrote:
I'm going with more than my initials from now on since this is the second time on this board people have assumed I'm a female. Is there something inherently feminine about alliterative initials (rr)?
Nah, Rich, but on a comic-related site, there's something inherently feminine about "Lane".
"All I can say to this that you've never taught, have you? My God, a kid breaks wind, and you've lost the class for five minutes."
If that's the situation, is the problem the fact that someone broke wind, or that high schools seniors react in such infantile and undisciplined way?
Nah, Rich, but on a comic-related site, there's something inherently feminine about "Lane".
Good point. :)
If that's the situation, is the problem the fact that someone broke wind, or that high schools seniors react in such infantile and undisciplined way?
The latter, certainly. And you would get equally infantile and undisciplined reactions when simulated nude, partially nude, or topless girls sit in the classroom.
I just want to say, if anyone sees a headline about a North Carolina teacher busted for downloading pictures of underaged girls so he can determine their bra colors...well, I hope you'll all feel very happy with yourselves.
The answer is--probably white or off white, judging from my own experiments with trying to make a full body costume. She should have gone with a flesh color.
Also--a safety tip from Uncle Bill to ambitious Halloweeners--don't try to make a full body suit by painting latex and gelatine onto flesh colored body suits. It looks great but after an hour or so you will be sweating buckets of bodily fluids, followed by coma and death.
Also, never simulate a blind man effect by peeling off the inside membrane of a hard boiled egg and placing it over your eyes like a contact lens. Or am I the only one stupid enough to have tried that idea? (I blame Lon Chaney).
You are relying on a presupposition to support your conclusion.
unh, hunh.
The principal didn't send them home because their bras were showing.Unless the principal said explicitly that he did not send them home for this reason, you don't know that.
Well. let me rephrase then:
- The character isn't nude.
- The girls weren't nude.
- The principal sent them home for simulated nudity.
Thanks, Bill, for helping me drive my point home with less and less ambiguity.
I do see a bit of semantics here. Toplessness is a form of nudity. It is partial nudity. Rrlane was pointed out that the costumes exhibited simulated toplessness. Just because she said simulated "nudity" doesn’t mean her point wasn’t made. I don’t agree with her position, and I understood her.
If the principal says he objected to the "simulated nudity," he is trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue than if he said he objected to the "simulated toplessness." Everyone is against the display of nudity in high schools.
If he wants to object to the simulated toplessness, let him say so, and risk getting laughed at for it. Until then he shouldn't benefit from misrepresenting these kids. There's no defense against that kind of manipulative bs.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 04:26 PM
The principal sent them home for simulated nudity.
I read the Newsday.com article and did not find one quote where the principal used the word "simulated." Is there another article where he was quoted using that word? If so, would you mind citing it? If not, then you're putting words in the principal's mouth.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 04:26 PM
Thanks, Bill, for helping me drive my point home with less and less ambiguity.
You may be driving home your point with "less and less" ambiguity, but unless you can demonstrate that the principal used the word "simulated," you are also doing so with less and less accuracy.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 27, 2006 04:24 PM
(I blame Lon Chaney).
Not global warming?
"Peter David: 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.
Luigi Novi: Where are such students allowed to wear those things?"
Long Island. I've had three daughters go through LI schools and seen exactly the types of outfits I'm describing. How many daughters have YOU had in LI schools, Luigi?
"Peter David: What color was it? If you can see the actual bra rather than simply an outline, that should be an easy question.
Luigi Novi: It appeared to be of the same color as the bodystocking, though lighter, so it may have been white. How is this relevant?"
Because the assertion was that the bra itself--not the mere outline--was visible. I was pointing out that, were that the case, the color would be definitively evident. Except it's not. Several people, including yourself, speculate that it's white, maybe, it appears to be, may have been. Except that's not necessarily the case at all, particularly if--as the girl asserted on the news (I'm assuming you didn't see the news item) she was wearing a tanktop (which she held up) under the garment (which she also held up.) As I said, two layers of clothing. They were punted not for what was actually there, but what was suggested. Which is ridiculous.
"Are you actually telling me that you cannot see the bra in this picture? Seriously?"
I see the outline of something that might be a bra. On the other hand, it could just as easily be a bathing suit top. Or a cut-off tank top, which is what she showed the TV news reporter. You don't know, nor do I. You did, however, conspicuously dodge the question. You claimed you could see the bra, not merely the outline. To which I said, if that were the case, you should easily determine the color. Your response? You dodged the question.
"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."
Because the principal also cited the fact that their undergarments (underwear on the outside of pants or sweats was ok, but not this) were visible, it was a distraction, and the was causing a commotion."
Nice try, except...no. Other students were wearing underwear on the outside as well. Principal Poopypants claimed that, because they wer wearing them on top of pants or shorts, that was "acceptable." Furthermore, you just blew your own argument. On the one hand you're stating that it was the (non)visible bra that was the tipping point...yet now you're claiming that, had they put on pants or sweats, everything would have been okay. Meaning...what? They would have worn sweats over their heads? If pulling on shorts or sweats ostensibly would have solved the problem, then you've just proven that the outline of the bra is what I was saying from the start: Completely irrelevant.
"Now, for a passing grade, please explain, with cited sources, why it's ok for students to cause distractions and commotions at a high school and why a principal shouldn't try to put an end to it."
It isn't and he should. And had the girls walked in on a normal school day dressed in that manner, not only would he have been within his rights to punt them from the school, but I doubt it would have made the news. However if, as the principal, you are encouraging the students to show up in ensembles that are little more than tights and undergarments in the best of circumstances, then it's completely ridiculous to throw out three girls who are wearing tights and undergarments, especially when their flesh is covered from throat to foot. In this case, it was the principal who created the commotion. Could the girls cause students to do double takes? Sure. I've no doubt. At which point the students then realize, no, they're not nude because, hey...no breasts...and we're done.
They were funny costumes on a day when funny costumes were in order, and they weren't indecent by any stretch of the law, school code or the imagination. Everything else is just nonsense.
PAD
PAD: Everything else is just nonsense.
No new information is being added now, nor are there any new insights. Time to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
You may be driving home your point with "less and less" ambiguity, but unless you can demonstrate that the principal used the word "simulated," you are also doing so with less and less accuracy.
When I quoted "simulated nudity" I wasn't quoting the principal. I merely continue to use the term because it still seems to apply.
From the first google search:
Principal Nicholas Restivo says he knows they weren't naked, but it appeared that way, so he sent them home to change.
I can't read your mind, Bill Myers. If you know a more apt word, lay it on us. Otherwise, what's your problem?
They were funny costumes on a day when funny costumes were in order, and they weren't indecent by any stretch of the law, school code or the imagination. -- Peter David
I never thought this would be true of a writer, but apparently there are a lot of people out there with more imagination than you. And, possibly, better vision (or acquaintance with the shape of a bra.)
It's a flesh colored top worn with the intent of communicating "I'm not wearing a top", lie or no. Full length flesh-colored body stocking costumes of Eve, Lady Godiva, or Botticelli's Venus would have been equally distracting, and equally inappropriate for a school setting. I'm supporting the principal... on principle.
"The latter, certainly. And you would get equally infantile and undisciplined reactions when simulated nude, partially nude, or topless girls sit in the classroom."
Shouldn't we discuss the need to improve the education of highschool seniors who are expected to react with equal commotion to a a flesh colored full body suit (with a bra of different color apprently visible under it) and actual toplessness, instead of this medieval theological discussion on the degree of visibility of a bra? Shouldn't we expect high school seniors to be taught at this stage not to react in this way.
Or maybe Peter is right, and the students would have reacted quite calmly to this pretty innocent outfit? Maybe we should give them more credit?
When I went to high school back in 1990-1993 the fashion among (secular Jewish Israeli) girls was to wear t-shirts that reveal the strap of the bra. Sometimes an outline of a braw was also visible underneath a t-shirt. The students seemed to have remained relatively calm. In this case it was not that Israeli male high school student were more disciplined or better educated (hardly), but they were not accustomed to consider the visibility of a bra as something that would cause them to go into commotion. We also reacted with relative calm to seeing films, and one ballet, that had toplessness, as well as to a visit to an area of France where toplessness was accepted (which is not to say that we were indifferent to it, only that no actual commotion occured).
I saw a Saudi commercial explaining why women should not drive. It shows the male drivers going into commotion because of the presence of a woman on the road. I think that, whatever their own convictions on the subject, they should learn how to handle the fact that women may be driving.
"No new information is being added now, nor are there any new insights. Time to agree to disagree and leave it at that."
Good thing it's your blog and you get to make that determination...
PAD
>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
Unfortunately, for some addled sorts, undergarments do equal "nudity". I don't agree with them. Nor do I agree with the principal's stand here. It doesn't change that sad reality, however.
>All I can say to this that you've never taught, have you? My God, a kid breaks wind, and you've lost the class for five minutes.
What does this say about the teacher? I'ver known some who were of such caliber that you could set off a bomb in the next room and the class would scarcely notice, so enraptured by the teacher were they.
>Peter David: 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.
Luigi Novi: Where are such students allowed to wear those things?
Most schools gave up trying to prevent it back in the late 60s through about mid-seventies. Micro-minis, second-skin minidresses, hot pants scarcely covering more than bikini briefs, zippered sweaters open almost down to there ... all very much in evidence in many schools back then. Yet I don't recall society doing a crash-and-burn as a result. The interesting thing being, many of the very same people who dressed that way have now become the parents pushing schoolboards for stricter rules. Obelix was right: they ARE crazy these humans.
"I see the outline of something that might be a bra. On the other hand, it could just as easily be a bathing suit top. Or a cut-off tank top, which is what she showed the TV news reporter. You don't know, nor do I."
No, you just insisted over and over again it's not see-through, which you've finally backed off on. Thank you for that, at least.
"You did, however, conspicuously dodge the question. You claimed you could see the bra, not merely the outline. To which I said, if that were the case, you should easily determine the color. Your response? You dodged the question."
Because I figured you hadn't seen the picture, based on your staggering repeated assertions that is wasn't see-through. Now that you've finally agreed that it IS, my response is that it's entirely irrelevant. Might be white, might not be. I don't need to see the color to know it's a bra, no? I'll stand with Luigi on this.
"Nice try, except...no. Other students were wearing underwear on the outside as well. Principal Poopypants claimed that, because they wer wearing them on top of pants or shorts, that was "acceptable.""
Which is why, in the section you quoted, I said "underwear on the outside of pants or sweats was ok, but not this". Why you chose to ignore this is odd.
"On the one hand you're stating that it was the (non)visible bra that was the tipping point"
No, I said it was pretty inappropriate and probably against the school dress code. I believe the tipping point is exactly what the principal said it was, that the outfits were distracting and causing a commotion.
"If pulling on shorts or sweats ostensibly would have solved the problem, then you've just proven that the outline of the bra is what I was saying from the start: Completely irrelevant."
Yes, thank you! If they had covered up the bra with a shirt, the bra would not be seen and it would be irrelevant. But...wait...they didn't, so it is relevant. Thank you for understanding.
"At which point the students then realize, no, they're not nude because, hey...no breasts...and we're done."
Pretty obvious you have three girls and not boys, because you're professing the same type of ignorance you attribute to Luigi for not having three girls.
"They were funny costumes on a day when funny costumes were in order, and they weren't indecent by any stretch of the law, school code or the imagination"
To quote Peter David, "You don't know, nor do I." My experience is that it would be against the school code. To paraphrase Peter David, "How many schools have you taught at?"
rrlane, the simulated nudity arguement would work for a lot of people, meself included therein, if the girls were dressed as exotic dancers or Amazon warrior women. The fact that they were dressed as a male underwear-sporting superhero(don't know much more than that about him, Brian's not there in his books yet) changes the issue. Now, at this school, for basketball games, do they do shirts and skins? If they do, (and I KNOW that's a big if) then the principalarguement deflates like a big deflating thing. And as far as breaking wind, if you've lost them for five minutes you're lucky. Hey, I just taught a TV class to people ranging in age from late twenties to late forties and it happened, so it's not just a high school thing. At the end of the four hours, people were still cracking up.
Baloney.
There was no reason to try to make the girls change clothes. The costumes were just fine.
Has anybody noticed a severe shortage of sticks lately? I figure it must be because the principal ( and a few of the posters here) must have them stuck up their butts.
"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."
No, Mike, I said that I can see a bra. That's not the same as claiming something is sexually provocative. It is pointing out one fact about the outfits and one reason I have for siding with the Principal.
"Well. let me rephrase then:
The character isn't nude.
The girls weren't nude.
The principal sent them home for simulated nudity."
Why, yes, the MALE character is only topless. However, I tend to see a wee bit of a difference in topless males and topless females. Males without shirts don't get service in fine dining establishments. Topless females create car wrecks.
You're also legally wrong, or at least dodgy, on what is or is not considered nude. We've had convictions in these parts for public nudity for topless women wearing jeans and for drunken men walking down the street with a shirt, a smile and nothing else. Most localities have changed the charge to public indecency due to people picking nits about what is or isn't meant by the word "nude" but many people say "nude" when seeing a topless woman or pantsless man.
"Peter David: What color was it? If you can see the actual bra rather than simply an outline, that should be an easy question.
Luigi Novi: It appeared to be of the same color as the bodystocking, though lighter, so it may have been white. How is this relevant?"
Because the assertion was that the bra itself--not the mere outline--was visible. I was pointing out that, were that the case, the color would be definitively evident. Except it's not. Several people, including yourself, speculate that it's white, maybe, it appears to be, may have been."
"You claimed you could see the bra, not merely the outline. To which I said, if that were the case, you should easily determine the color. Your response? You dodged the question."
PAD, I'm going to have to throw a flag on the field for the disingenuous nature of that question and your responses to the answers. First, you can see a color shift to a degree that a mere outline would not create. Second, translucent does not mean transparent. Being able to see something through an object or substance does not mean being able to see a color with 100% accuracy. I could hold up a bra behind a pane of glass and have you guess the wrong color if I tinted the glass blue, red, yellow, or peach. The tights are flesh colored and that would affect the perceived color of the garments underneath. The fact that one cannot say with 100% certainty that the bra is white, pink, peach or flesh colored does not mean that one cannot actually see the bra.
"It isn't and he should. And had the girls walked in on a normal school day dressed in that manner, not only would he have been within his rights to punt them from the school, but I doubt it would have made the news. However if, as the principal, you are encouraging the students to show up in ensembles that are little more than tights and undergarments in the best of circumstances, then it's completely ridiculous to throw out three girls who are wearing tights and undergarments, especially when their flesh is covered from throat to foot."
Not really. Again, the invitation to come to school dressed up as a superhero or for Halloween does not mean do as you please or to throw out common sense. Putting on a Superman or Supergirl outfit is one thing. Being a female and putting on an outfit that is designed to make you look topless (nude, for Mike, from the waste up) isn't the brightest idea for school.
Look, it WAS a really cute idea. It was kind of clever. I just don't think it was the best costume idea for a school and I don't see it as a reason to vilify or slag on the guy running the school.
Bill,
Glad you're sticking around.
Oh, my wife's pretty much fine with starting an army with your girlfriend. God help us all.
"I see the outline of something that might be a bra. On the other hand, it could just as easily be a bathing suit top. Or a cut-off tank top, which is what she showed the TV news reporter. You don't know, nor do I."No, you just insisted over and over again it's not see-through, which you've finally backed off on. Thank you for that, at least.
"You did, however, conspicuously dodge the question. You claimed you could see the bra, not merely the outline. To which I said, if that were the case, you should easily determine the color. Your response? You dodged the question."Because I figured you hadn't seen the picture, based on your staggering repeated assertions that is wasn't see-through. Now that you've finally agreed that it IS, my response is that it's entirely irrelevant. Might be white, might not be. I don't need to see the color to know it's a bra, no?
AT, you respond as if Peter capitulated it's a bra. You say "[Peter] just insisted over and over again it's not see-through, which [he] finally backed off on" as if he hadn't just cited the costumes' dual layering. If the outer layer is sheer, no, there is no amount of padding that will make it unsheer.
I don't see anything Peter said saying he didn't take the girls' word they wore tank tops. He has yet to grant your point.
If you are color-blind, then you are merely not qualified to answer the question of the bra's color. Regardless, where your point is not granted, Peter's color question remains relevant.
"If pulling on shorts or sweats ostensibly would have solved the problem, then you've just proven that the outline of the bra is what I was saying from the start: Completely irrelevant."Yes, thank you! If they had covered up the bra with a shirt, the bra would not be seen and it would be irrelevant. But...wait...they didn't, so it is relevant. Thank you for understanding.
Asking in a manner to drive the point home: AT, in your reply are you referring to the bras underneath their tank tops?
No, Mike, I said that I can see a bra. ...
Topless females create car wrecks.
You contradicted yourself in the same post, Jerry. Are they wearing bras or are they topless? Fucking pick one and give it another try.
As a mum who buys dancewear, a body stocking is underwear to go under costumes to give the illusion on bare skin (even if made of "flesh coloured" heavy cotton lycra). So if these silly little girls are wearing body stockings, they're wearing underwear as outerwear, regardles of how translucent or otherwise.
"Has anybody noticed a severe shortage of sticks lately? I figure it must be because the principal ( and a few of the posters here) must have them stuck up their butts."
What, you'd let your daughter out looking like that?
Plus if they went home to change, and had a note from their parents/guardians to that effect, at worst they'd have a partial absence for that day. If they knowing broke a school rule, that should at least be a lunch time detention, if not an afterschool one.
"Most schools gave up trying to prevent it back in the late 60s through about mid-seventies. Micro-minis, second-skin minidresses, hot pants scarcely covering more than bikini briefs, zippered sweaters open almost down to there"
I have 2 words for you:
School Uniforms.
"rrlane, the simulated nudity arguement would work for a lot of people, meself included therein, if the girls were dressed as exotic dancers or Amazon warrior women. The fact that they were dressed as a male underwear-sporting superhero(don't know much more than that about him, Brian's not there in his books yet) changes the issue."
Oh, so the appearance of nudity would normally be wrong unless it's a geek related appearance of nudity. I am, as I've said a post above and many posts before, proudly a geek of the first order. I wouldn't think that a half nude/topless exotic dancer or Amazon warrior woman was appropriate for a high school costume day due to the nudity/toplessness of it and I'm not about to change that stance because the half nude character is a superhero. Besides the hypocrisy in that stance, a school administrator would run into endless headaches going by that rule. He lets Betty stay in school as the half nude superhero but sends Lady Godiva, an Amazon warrior and Eve home for the same level of costume "nudity". Can you say, "discrimination lawsuit and unemployment"?
New arguments, so I guess I'm back in the game.
First, PAD: Good thing it's your blog and you get to make that determination...
I was speaking for myself, not anyone else, so I guess I should apologize for not being clear.
I apologize for not being clear. I meant I was going agree to disagree with you, but did not mean to assert you had to do the same. The reason I made that statement was because I was getting a bit hot at the notion of being told my opinion, based on nearly fifteen years of experience as a high school teacher was "nonsense." You didn't say you disagreed with me. You said my opinion was nonsense. I was backing away because I didn't want to get into it with the man whose body of work I respect and who is essentially my host.
Geez, oh man--when did the notion of a friendly debate go out the window?
Starwolf: What does this say about the teacher? I'ver known some who were of such caliber that you could set off a bomb in the next room and the class would scarcely notice, so enraptured by the teacher were they.
It says you were either in a well behaved class. Every teacher who has been teaching more that six months has had incidents like I described.
Every single one.
I normally shy away from blanket statements like that, but I really can state this with a modicum of confidence. Yes, there are teachers who garner more respect than others. Yes, there are teachers who are extremely good at classroom discipline, and yes, there are teachers who, once these incidents happen, can bring the class back on task quicker than others.
But we all have them.
Most schools gave up trying to prevent it back in the late 60s through about mid-seventies. Micro-minis, second-skin minidresses, hot pants scarcely covering more than bikini briefs, zippered sweaters open almost down to there ... all very much in evidence in many schools back then.
No, they weren't, not everywhere and certainly not in most places. They still aren't. Life is not a Britney Spears video.
I don't recall society doing a crash-and-burn as a result.
Personally, I agree it hasn't either, but it certainly has coarsened, and problems that didn't exist prior to the time frame you describe exist now. We also have the freedom to do things now that we didn't then (I never could have taught my ninth graders The Chocolate War in the 60s had it been written, for example), so I guess there's a trade off. Still there many who would say that things have indeed gone down the toilet, so I guess it's a matter of perception about what constitutes a crash-and-burn.
Obelix was right: they ARE crazy these humans.
I would throw folks taking a man to task publicly for something as innocuous as this would warrant me agreeing with this statement.
ArizonaTeach: To paraphrase Peter David, "How many schools have you taught at?"
I was shying away from making that statement, but essentially you are absolutely correct. I have done published freelance writing for a national magazine that everyone here would recognize, but that by no means puts me anywhere near the level of Peter, and it would be utterly laughable were I to tell him the ins and outs of his job. Why then do others feel that it's okay to do the same to teachers? All or nearly all the teachers who have chimed in here have sided with the principal. Does that not carry any weight?
This is a very liberal blog, and if educators don't get respect here, is it any wonder garbage like NCLB gets put into law?
Sean: Now, at this school, for basketball games, do they do shirts and skins? If they do, (and I KNOW that's a big if) then the principalarguement deflates like a big deflating thing.
Only if they allow female skins/shirts games. Again, I've read here many times folks taking conservatives to task for seeing the world in black and white terms. Why then are there so many here giving "If x is the case, then you MUST accept y as true"? Education is not a black & white process.
as far as breaking wind, if you've lost them for five minutes you're lucky. Hey, I just taught a TV class to people ranging in age from late twenties to late forties and it happened, so it's not just a high school thing. At the end of the four hours, people were still cracking up.
That was my point. Thank you for the anecdote that demonstrated it better than I did.
Alan Coil: I figure it must be because the principal ( and a few of the posters here) must have them stuck up their butts.
We disagree with you, thus there is a stick up our asses. See my point about friendly debate.
Jerry C. Look, it WAS a really cute idea. It was kind of clever. I just don't think it was the best costume idea for a school and I don't see it as a reason to vilify or slag on the guy running the school.
That's the whole shebang in a nutshell for me. But what do I know? I just spout a lot of nonsense most of the time.
"You contradicted yourself in the same post, Jerry. Are they wearing bras or are they topless? Fucking pick one and give it another try."
Mike,
Gee, we're discussing characters that are topless, nudity in general and three girls in costumes made to give the appearance of nudity/being topless. I addressed the bra while specifically talking about the girls. I mentioned topless women and car wrecks while talking specifically about characters that are actually topless.
Kinda figured most adults had the reading comprehension skills and common sense to get that those two lines referencing two different things. The different locations in the post was, I would have thought, a really big hint.
I guess I gave you too much credit. I'll try to remember to use small words and spell everything out really well when posting to you in future.
I'm obviously the only one here who thinks the whole idea of "Come dressed as a Superhero" day a somewhat stupid in the first place.
Of course that is supposed to read:
"...stupid idea..." I can't spell this morning, I don't know what's wrong. Many apologies.
> I have 2 words for you: School Uniforms.
Most high schools here in Canada didn't have them back in the late 60s, early 70s. Note: I wrote "most", not "all". And as far some who did ... a former ladyfriend - who went to such in Montreal around that time - used to regale me with how 'un-uniform' many of the girls could (and did) make their uniforms look with very little work. Even today, in Japan, where school uniforms are de rigueur in most places, female students are known to have unofficial inter-district competitions as to whose school (on average) wears the briefest versions. English-language Japanese papers refer to it from time tom time. Slow news day, I guess.
>No, they weren't, not everywhere and certainly not in most places. They still aren't.
Not now? Not likely, no, not given the generally grungy 'look' so many kids seem to prefer nowadays (at least judging by what I see outside the high schools in the area.) But when I was in high school? Oh yeah. Both here (nation's capital) and, before the family moved here in between school years, in the small town we had spent the previous five years in. But that was over thirty years ago.
> Still there many who would say that things have indeed gone down the toilet ...
To a large extent I agree. But ... given how almost Puritanical the dress styles were from the mid 70s through the early 90s, if not later, I don't see how the 60s styles can be held responsible for the state of society. Not to mention that many of those 60s styles had a certain femininity or elegance of sort. Compare that with the deliberately trashy styles of today such as those Godawful pants than nearly fall off the wearer's butt ...
Oh and ... "simulated nudity"?
How long would it take the average hormonal high school guy to notice "no nipples" anyway? As simulationa go, it would need work.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 05:11 PM
When I quoted "simulated nudity" I wasn't quoting the principal. I merely continue to use the term because it still seems to apply.
Yes, if you continue to assume that you know what the principal meant by "the appearance was that they were naked." The statement is, however, far more vague than you are acknowledging.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 05:11 PM
I can't read your mind, Bill Myers. If you know a more apt word, lay it on us.
You're asking the wrong person. If you want a more precise explanation, ask Restivo.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 05:11 PM
Otherwise, what's your problem?
I still don't have a problem. I just disagree with you. It's not a problem for me. Is it for you?
Not now? Not likely, no, not given the generally grungy 'look' so many kids seem to prefer nowadays (at least judging by what I see outside the high schools in the area.) But when I was in high school? Oh yeah. Both here (nation's capital) and, before the family moved here in between school years, in the small town we had spent the previous five years in. But that was over thirty years ago.
I graduated from high school in 1982-twenty-five years ago, and I can tell you that that was not the case for us. We couldn't so much as wear shorts to school outside of gym class.
Hell, my sister graduated in 1976, and I can remember my parents getting steamed because at the time there was a ban on even wearing jeans or jean related material to school because it meant she couldn't wear a denim dress they had bought her.
Maybe your school was an adolescent Peyton Place; I certainly won't dispute that as I was not there. But I can say that if that was the case it was not typical.
When I quoted "simulated nudity" I wasn't quoting the principal. I merely continue to use the term because it still seems to apply.
So you take others to task for using imprecise wording from others: (Mike: "Captain Underpants is not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants...Ergo, there is no simulated nudity.") but feel free to make up whatever wording you feel "seems to apply"?
I've spent a few minutes trying to come up with something pithy to say to that, but instead I think I'll just let your words stand on their own.
I addressed the bra while specifically talking about the girls.
Unh-hunh.
I mentioned topless women and car wrecks while talking specifically about characters that are actually topless.
So "characters that are actually topless" are bad?
So is it fair to say you think Captain Underpants should be banned from high schools, not to mention elementary schools? Or are the costumes ok as long as the girls commute to school in sweats, and kept away from people operating heavt machinery?
I still don't have a problem. I just disagree with you. It's not a problem for me. Is it for you?
Bill Myers, in this thread, when I ask you what your problem is, I am referring to your holding me to an integrity you aren't holding to anyone else:
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?
And:
You may be driving home your point with "less and less" ambiguity, but unless you can demonstrate that the principal used the word "simulated," you are also doing so with less and less accuracy.
You asked me why I used "simulated nudity" when you suspected it was without merit, but you didn’t ask Rich Lane why he introduced it here. Ergo: "...what's your problem?"
That's a bit like asking me when I stopped beating my wife.
2 days ago you said my asking you what your problem was was an attempt to override Peter’s authority. Now it’s like asking you when you stopped beating your wife? There is no defense against your plainly observable chickenshit, Bill Myers.
So you take others to task for using imprecise wording from others: (Mike: "Captain Underpants is not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants...Ergo, there is no simulated nudity.") but feel free to make up whatever wording you feel "seems to apply"?
So... attempting to summarize a position I disagree with is a capitulation to its accuracy?
Rich, search the thread: you introduced the phrase here yourself (today, 12:26 PM). What is your problem?
Sorry, Rich! :-)
Mike: If the principal says he objected to the "simulated nudity," he is trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue than if he said he objected to the "simulated toplessness."
Luigi Novi: What do you mean by “quantum of virtue”? Can you clarify this?
Mike: Long Island. I've had three daughters go through LI schools and seen exactly the types of outfits I'm describing. How many daughters have YOU had in LI schools, Luigi?
Luigi Novi: None. And thank you for your answer; it’s the only thing I was asking for. It’s not like I was necessarily challenging your assertion. But any girls wearing those outfits you described should also be told to change or go home.
Peter David: Because the assertion was that the bra itself--not the mere outline--was visible. I was pointing out that, were that the case, the color would be definitively evident.
Luigi Novi: How so? A sheer garment can be otherwise tinted—thus showing what’s underneath while disguising its true color, as Jerry mentioned.
Peter David: Except it's not. Several people, including yourself, speculate that it's white, maybe, it appears to be, may have been. Except that's not necessarily the case at all, particularly if--as the girl asserted on the news (I'm assuming you didn't see the news item) she was wearing a tanktop (which she held up) under the garment (which she also held up.) As I said, two layers of clothing. They were punted not for what was actually there, but what was suggested. Which is ridiculous.
Luigi Novi: Which of the three girls? The girl in the photo we’re talking about here is Ashley Imhoff. Was it her, or one of the other two? If it was Ashley, then perhaps she did have time to change before they shot her for the story, perhaps that was the reason she took it off—she wanted to show everyone clearly what she had on underneath (though I think it would’ve been more to the point for the story if she just wore exactly what she wore at school so that viewers could judge it on that basis). Whatever her reason for changing, if it Ashley, then I’d agree that the principal’s decision was entirely unsupported (whereas before, I’d have said it was only partially so). But if it was Eliana Levin or Chelsea Horowitz who showed the tank top, and what Ashely wore in the photo is what she wore at school, I’d say that it was reasonable for her to be told to change or go home. Ditto if it were a bikini top or cut-off tank-top.
ArizonaTeach: Pretty obvious you have three girls and not boys, because you're professing the same type of ignorance you attribute to Luigi for not having three girls.
Luigi Novi: Geez, is this a veiled threat by you, or an admission that you’ve murdered one of his daughters?!!
Peter has four girls. Not three. :-)
"I see the outline of something that might be a bra. On the other hand, it could just as easily be a bathing suit top. Or a cut-off tank top, which is what she showed the TV news reporter. You don't know, nor do I."
No, you just insisted over and over again it's not see-through, which you've finally backed off on. Thank you for that, at least."
Huh? YOU said that you could clearly see a bra, and "not an outline." You specified that. I called you on that. You dodged it and now you're claiming *I* backed off?
"You did, however, conspicuously dodge the question. You claimed you could see the bra, not merely the outline. To which I said, if that were the case, you should easily determine the color. Your response? You dodged the question."
Because I figured you hadn't seen the picture, based on your staggering repeated assertions that is wasn't see-through."
It. Isn't. By your logic, any woman who displays visible panty line is wearing see-through trousers. Good God, I get the notion that you're a teacher and therefore you have a knee-jerk impulse to back up the principal, but get a grip.
"Now that you've finally agreed that it IS,"
Which I never did.
"my response is that it's entirely irrelevant."
And yet you keep harping on it.
"Might be white, might not be."
And thus do you admit that it isn't see through.
" I don't need to see the color to know it's a bra, no? I'll stand with Luigi on this."
Considering the way you shift your stance from one side to the other, I've got zero idea WHERE you stand.
PAD
This is the dress code listed on the district website. The school may still have it's own that expands on this, but this is the base district code:
http://www.lbeach.org/district/codeofconduct/codeofconduct2005.pdf
V. Student Dress Code
Long Beach Public Schools Code of Conduct
Page 6
All students are expected to give proper attention to personal cleanliness and to dress
appropriately for school and school functions. Students and their parents have the primary
responsibility for acceptable student dress and appearance. Teachers and all other district
personnel should exemplify and reinforce acceptable student dress and help students develop an
understanding of appropriate appearance in the school setting. A student's dress, grooming and
appearance, including hair style/ color, jewelry, make-up and nails, shall:
A. Be safe, appropriate and not disrupt or interfere with the educational process.
B. Recognize that extremely brief garments such as tube tops, net tops, halter-tops,
spaghetti straps, plunging necklines (front and/or back) and see-through garments
are not appropriate.
C. Ensure that underwear is completely covered with outer clothing.
D. Include footwear at all time. Unsafe footwear will not be allowed.
E. Not include the wearing of headgear in any building except for a medical or
religious purpose.
F. Not include items that are vulgar, obscene, libelous or denigrate others on account
of race, color, religion, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or
disability.
G. Not include gang related clothing or paraphernalia.
H. Not promote and/or endorse the use of alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs and/or
encourage other illegal or violent activities.
Each building principal or his or her designee shall be responsible for informing all
students and their parents of the student dress code at the beginning of the school year
and any revisions to the dress code made during the school year.
Students who violate the student dress code shall be required to modify their appearance
by covering or removing the offending item and, if necessary or practical, replacing it
with an acceptable item. Any student who refuses to do so shall be subject to discipline,
up to and including in-school suspension for the day. Any student who repeatedly fails to
comply with the dress code shall be subject to further discipline, up to and including out
of school suspension.
Luigi, by quantum of virtue I mean proportionally significant. I know it's used to measure sub-atomic orbits, but I remember hearing that a proton the size of a basketball in Detroit would have an electron orbiting it extending to the perimeter of the city.
On the plus side, at least this heated argument isn't about politics for a change. ;-)
I grew up in Montclair, NJ (suburb of NYC) and had LOTS of friends in that school district. It has been 7 years since I had friends there, but one of them got sent home for a tank top (too low and showed her belly button) and she got suspended for mouthing off to the principle.
Evidentially things have changed a lot.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 09:38 PM
You asked me why I used "simulated nudity" when you suspected it was without merit, but you didn’t ask Rich Lane why he introduced it here. Ergo: "...what's your problem?"
Rich Lane was using that phrase to sum up the points-of-view of Peter and some of the posters in this thread, all of whom have had ample space within which to articulate and elaborate on their points-of-view. Given what I've read here, I think it's a fair summary: that many people here believe it's "OK" because it's only "simulated nudity."
You are ascribing to the principal of this school the point-of-view that it's NOT okay because it's "simulated nudity." My point was, is, and shall remain that you do not have enough information to know that that's what the principal meant. All I have seen thus far are a couple of relatively vague quotes from Restivo.
You also should note that I disagreed with Rich Lane as well, earlier in this thread. He didn't seem to feel it was personal. My disagreement with you isn't personal either.
So I still don't have a problem.
Mike:Rich, search the thread: you introduced the phrase here yourself (today, 12:26 PM). What is your problem?
I never said I didn't. But I'm not making a big whooped-dee-doo about semantics either.
Bill: You also should note that I disagreed with Rich Lane as well, earlier in this thread. He didn't seem to feel it was personal.
Because you seem to understand that friendly debate should be a method for mutual edification and not become simply an online pissing match, and I thank you for it.
Mike, thanks for the clarification. I will merely repeat what I said above, that toplessness is partial nudity.
ArizonaTeach: Might be white, might not be.
Peter David: And thus do you admit that it isn't see through.
Luigi Novi: She admitted no such thing. She made it plain that a garment can be transparent while also disguising the color of what's beneath it if it's tinted. Jerry C also made this point, as did I. Even if you didn't read Jerry C's post or mine, Arizona made this point herself.
And sorry I misattributed a quote by you to Mike in my last post above before this one.
"So is it fair to say you think Captain Underpants should be banned from high schools, not to mention elementary schools? Or are the costumes ok as long as the girls commute to school in sweats, and kept away from people operating heavt machinery?"
Wow. He adds 1 plus 1 and gets 19.
No, I don't want CU banned from schools. The best you can come up with here is more of this off point, straw dog junk? Why not ask me if I want to ban Donald Duck because he walks around with no pants on? How about Daffy since he's got no clothes on at all? It would be about as intelligent as your CU question.
And I don't think the costumes are fine for school as long as the girls commute to school in sweats and avoid people operating heavy machinery. If you had any reading comprehension skills, you would have seen by now that most of my posts have pointed out, in one way or another, that, while I had no problem with the costumes in and of themselves, I didn't feel the costumes were appropriate for school and had no prob cutting Principal Restivo some slack on this.
"Because you seem to understand that friendly debate should be a method for mutual edification and not become simply an online pissing match, and I thank you for it."
Two thumbs up.
In that spirit...
Mike, lets start over here. I think I'm suffering the same Winter blahs I mentioned when to Bill some time back in the thread. I'm sorry I've been as snippy with you in this thread as I have been. If you wish to continue debating with me, I'll stay polite as long as you will.
I may get a friendly sarky remark in here or there. If I do, I'll make a point to put a :), ;), ;p or :D after the comment so you know how I meant the remark.
Deal?
Posted by: Rich Lane at October 27, 2006 10:33 PM
Because you seem to understand that friendly debate should be a method for mutual edification and not become simply an online pissing match, and I thank you for it.
You're welcome. And thank you for the compliment.
You big stupid fart-head!!! ;)
You big stupid fart-head!!! ;)
It just so happens my mom used to call me Big Stupid Fart-Head, so that just made me feel warm all over. ;)
Two questions just occurred to my overtired mind. First off, was this a school-sanctioned event, or was it just a bunch of kids saying "Let's dress like superheroes?" Because if it was the former, then my NEXT question is "Has anyone anywhere shown any parameters that were given to the students?" I only ask the second because I remember the Psycho Demon Bit...sorry, my ex-girlfriend bringing home the prom night memo about girl's dresses and both of us cracking up. The only memo that was more ignored was the one about not throwing your cap at graduation.
The StarWolf at October 27, 2006 08:39 PM
To the best of my knowledge, we've just about always had school uniforms. I wore them from Kindergarten in 1966 until I finished Year 12 in 1978. We used to push to see what we could get away with. I remember getting into trouble because I was wearing a halter neck bra under my tunic (the strap could be seen). Another time, my nail polish (seniors could wear descrete makeup - yes they would make you wash your face if it was too heavy) was considered mauve and not pink. It's the nature of teenagers to push the boundaries, just as it is the School's place to enforce the rules - good training for real life. I was at a 90th anniversary lunch for my old high school this year. There were photos from the 1930s and 40s - school uniforms. Here both State and non-government have uniform.
My 4 children have worn uniforms all their school lives, the youngest from Prep-Class (the year before Kidergarten).
You also should note that I disagreed with Rich Lane as well, earlier in this thread. He didn't seem to feel it was personal. My disagreement with you isn't personal either.
4 days ago:
Mikey, I think I speak for a number of posters here when I say: bored now.Bill Myers, just because I was referring to you, that doesn't mean I was talking to you. What's your problem?
2 days ago:
You then accused me of "starting something" with you and even had the temerity to whine about me responding to a post in which you mentioned my name but didn't address me directly. You apparently believe you have an inherent right to decide who can respond to you and in what manner. You do not. This is Peter's blog and he, and only he, can decide what does or doesn't fly here.
Today:
[Asking me what my problem is is] a bit like asking me when I stopped beating my wife.
Well I’m certainly glad your invalidating me by telling me I’m boring, reserving the right to mischaracterize my behavior, and addressing me by names I’m not posting by aren’t personal.
You are ascribing to the principal of this school the point-of-view that it's NOT okay because it's "simulated nudity." My point was, is, and shall remain that you do not have enough information to know that that's what the principal meant. All I have seen thus far are a couple of relatively vague quotes from Restivo.
Principal Nicholas Restivo says he knows they weren't naked, but it appeared that way, so he sent them home to change.
I have enough information. I’m going by what he said. What is your problem?
So you take others to task for using imprecise wording from others: (Mike: "Captain Underpants is not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants...Ergo, there is no simulated nudity.") but feel free to make up whatever wording you feel "seems to apply"?Rich, search the thread: you introduced the phrase here yourself.
I never said I didn't.
I either “[felt] free to make up” “simulated nudity,” or I didn’t. I can’t have done both. I can only ask you to pick one and give it another try.
But I'm not making a big whooped-dee-doo about semantics either.
If we aren’t supposed to go by anything you say, then why are you here?
Wow. He adds 1 plus 1 and gets 19.
Jerry, when you contradicted yourself in the same post, saying "No, Mike, I said that I can see a bra," and "Topless females create car wrecks," you were talking to me.
If what you really wanted to talk about was the display of bras, what did topless females have to do with anything?
Mike, lets start over here. I think I'm suffering the same Winter blahs I mentioned when to Bill some time back in the thread. I'm sorry I've been as snippy with you in this thread as I have been.
But Jerry, I have a pattern of creepiness and craziness. Now you want to engage me on an even level? What kind of husband are you?
;D
Mike: I either “[felt] free to make up” “simulated nudity,” or I didn’t. I can’t have done both. I can only ask you to pick one and give it another try.
Ah. I did say "make up" when I should have said "use." I misspoke (mistyped, actually) and you are correct to call me on it.
See how easy it is to be civil if you put your mind to it?
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 11:36 PM
Well I’m certainly glad your invalidating me by telling me I’m boring,
I did that in a prior thread only after you took things to a personal level.
reserving the right to mischaracterize my behavior,
I haven't mischaracterized anything you've written. I've disagreed with you, which you've taken personally from the get-go.
and addressing me by names I’m not posting by aren’t personal.
Note that I chose to stop calling you "Mikey." I realized I was allowing you to bait me into responding to your personal attacks in kind when there's no reason to do so.
By the way, asking "what's your problem" is like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?" Both questions involve presuppositions. I can't answer your question because I don't have a problem. I'm debating with people and enjoying it. Why do you feel that's problematic?
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 11:36 PM
I have enough information.
No, you don't.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 11:36 PM
I’m going by what he said.
No, you're not. That which Restivo was quoted as saying was rather vague. You're reading more into it than is warranted by those brief quotes.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 11:36 PM
What is your problem?
See above.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 11:36 PM
But Jerry, I have a pattern of creepiness and craziness. Now you want to engage me on an even level? What kind of husband are you?
;D
Oh, Lord. Jerry C, I've already gone 10 rounds with this guy. He's all yours.
>To the best of my knowledge, we've just about always had school uniforms. I wore them from Kindergarten in 1966 until I finished Year 12 in 1978.
One learns something every day. If one is lucky ...
The StarWolf at October 28, 2006 12:03 AM
Just want to clarify that I'm talking about New South Wales, Australia, not Canada.
that many people here believe it's "OK" because it's only "simulated nudity."
Would now be a good time to say that I don't even consider those outfits to be 'simulated nudity', nor do I think its a blatant attempt by the girls at doing such? :)
I did that in a prior thread only after you took things to a personal level.
To quote a certain TV therapist referring to Tony Soprano: "He blames me."
I haven't mischaracterized anything you've written. I've disagreed with you, which you've taken personally from the get-go.
"He blames me."
Note that I chose to stop calling you "Mikey." I realized I was allowing you to bait me into responding to your personal attacks in kind when there's no reason to do so.
"He blames me."
By the way, asking "what's your problem" is like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?" Both questions involve presuppositions.
"He blames me."
That which Restivo was quoted as saying was rather vague. You're reading more into it than is warranted by those brief quotes.
"He blames me."
Oh, Lord. Jerry C, I've already gone 10 rounds with this guy. He's all yours.
"He blames me."
Mike, do you realize that Bill held up an olive branch and you're slapping it out of his hand?
Rich,
Do you realize Bill took 2 days to respond to my "what's your problem?" by saying I was trying to override Peter's authority? And by denying he mischaracterized my behavior, he effectively reserved for himself the privilege of doing it again?
There's a word for relinquishing such a privilege. It's called an apology. I don't like Bill Mulligan, but I didn't let that stop me from apologizing to him when I mischaracterized what he said. But reserving the privilege for himself to mischaracterize what I say? What kind of scumbag does that make me to him?
I wonder if the girls would have been sent home if they dressed as the Spectre, wearing white bodysuits and green shorts and cape over them.
Okay, giving people the benefit of the doubt here, maybe folks need to check the settings on their monitors. Semantic calisthenics aside, there is not only an outline, but a noticeable color difference between where the leotard covers the bra and where it is over bare skin. Comparing it to VPL is disingenuous at best.
Also, if Imhof was indeed wearing a tank top underneath, why would she take it off (or not put it back on if the outfits were re-donned) for the photo shoot? It only hurts her case.
As to the principal's stated reasons for sending the girls home, perhaps he's just not comfortable when confronted with the press, especially when said press seems bound and determined, instead of just reporting the story, to make him into some sort of hand-wringing, mustachio-twirling villain.
We have no evidence that there was any sort of double standard imposed. Perhaps it's just me, but there seems to be some perception that just about everybody was dressed up. Maybe teenagers have changed dramatically since I was one, but a large percentage are probably "too cool" to dress up as superheroes anyway. Quite a few others probably weren't going to dress up in tights in the middle of Autumn. So, while Bobby two seats over may have been dressed as the Silver Surfer, complete with "board," and been completely ignored, there's no indication that this is the case.
The principal made a judgement call, and decided that the three girls' outfits were inappropriate, whether for the reasons reported by the press or for others. Whether anyone agrees with his call or not is irrelevant. It was his call to make.
PAD, with all due respect (I know, I know...), trust me, I know how much it can suck when somebody tries to pull the rug out from under one's well crafted indignation. While it may not be entirely kosher to bring up past discussions, I seem to remember a situation a few months back when you defended the Comedy Central execs' right to make the unpopular call to not air an unedited South Park episode they found inappropriate, mostly on the basis that most of the people disagreeing with the decision were not in television, and therefore didn't really have the credentials to make a truly informed call on the situation. Don't the principal, and the other educators on this board, deserve the same consideration?
-Rex Hondo-
I'm getting the feeling that to some folks "see-through" must be synonomous with "transparent". It isn't not in the usual sense that I've seen. A full body nylon stocking outfit would obscure the specific shade of skin tone one has but it would show all of the naughty bits quite well.
All this reminds me of a cherished memory of youth--my sister bought an outrageously expensive white bikini for a school outing to the lake and discovered, too late, that when wet it was about as effective, modesty-wise, as saran wrap. I'd like to say that I came to her rescue with a beach towel. I'd like to say it but I was too busy passing a 16 oz Dr. Pepper through my nose in helpless mirth to be of any value whatsoever. Luckily she was saved by a bunch of her friends who surrounded her and marched her to the safety of dry land like P. Diddy's posse.
Body stockings are not necessarily made of the same denier (thickness) or yarn as panty-hose or stockings. My daughter has a "body stocking" which is virtually a flesh coloured cotton/lycra leotard. It is not translucent, it is still underwear.
"there is not only an outline, but a noticeable color difference between where the leotard covers the bra and where it is over bare skin. Comparing it to VPL is disingenuous at best."
The slim one is clearly wearing a white or cream coloured bra under her body stocking.
Hmm... I suddenly feel the urge to run around buck naked with nothing but a strategically placed toaster, steak knives taped to the back of my hands and a colander on my head and go as "Weapon-X" Wolverine for Halloween.
-Rex Hondo-
How about you have a nice cup of tea and a good lie down instead?
Yeah, considering I'm going to be working Tuesday night, it probably wouldn't be the best of ideas. I mean, where would I clip my name badge? :P
-Rex Hondo-
"PAD, with all due respect (I know, I know...), trust me, I know how much it can suck when somebody tries to pull the rug out from under one's well crafted indignation. While it may not be entirely kosher to bring up past discussions, I seem to remember a situation a few months back when you defended the Comedy Central execs' right to make the unpopular call to not air an unedited South Park episode they found inappropriate, mostly on the basis that most of the people disagreeing with the decision were not in television, and therefore didn't really have the credentials to make a truly informed call on the situation. Don't the principal, and the other educators on this board, deserve the same consideration?"
No, I really don't.
First of all, you're completely mischaracterizing my stand in that instance. It wasn't a case of claiming that, because people were not in TV, they didn't have the credentials. My contention was that a circumstance was being presented where there were potential life and death stakes present and that--if the people who were openly criticizing the Comedy Central head were in his position--they might well have made the same decision rather than risk lives being lost through the actions of outraged extremists.
There was no risk to life and limb here, no matter of life and death.
Yes, the dress code claims no outward display of underwear. But since other kids WERE wearing underwear on the outside and allowed to remain in school, obviously that rule was being suspended for the day. And the simple fact is that the principal caused far more "disruption" to school routine than the girls did. Plus, while everyone carps on the visible bra line (nope, no one can provide the definitive color no matter how much they fumfuraw about it) of one girl, what about the other two in which nothing--not outline, not color, not anything--is visible?
What annoys the hell out of me is two things: First, that school administrators will invariably--as someone here stated and wasn't disputed--will err on the side of caution. Always. Which means that the smallest number of conservative reactionary parents hold the greatest sway, and that extends to matters of greater import than Captain Underpants.
And second, considering the indisputable fact that the girls were dressed decently, covered from head to toe, the message sent by the principal was quite clear: What others think of you is more important than what you think of yourself. Your cleverness and imagination is secondary to my perceptions, even though they're not based in fact.
He singled out three perfectly decently dressed children--kids who were more thoroughly clad than probably a number of their peers--because of his perception of the situation than the actuality of the situation.
And by the way, I would like a moratorium on the use of the word "disingenuous," which basically means "lying." It's been thrown at me by several people and it's royally pissing me off, because I'm saying exactly what I believe--no more, no less--and consider it incredibly offensive to be informed that my opinion is a lie.
Of course, in retaliation I could just throw such individuals out of here with the contention that my belief in their actions outweighs the actions themselves. But then...I'd be on par with a school principal.
PAD
"Of course, in retaliation I could just throw such individuals out of here with the contention that my belief in their actions outweighs the actions themselves. But then...I'd be on par with a school principal."
And just as within your right. You've already alluded as such in your response to Rich Lane ("Good thing it's your blog and you get to make that determination") Similarly, it was, for all intents and purposes, the principal's school (I know he doesn't own it, but he is tasked with the responsibilities), and he did get to make that determination.
Meanwhile... back at the Gateway Arch ranch... Huzzah Cardinals!
"where would I clip my name badge? :P"
The mind boggles? :-)
Posted by: Peter David at October 28, 2006 07:41 AM
And by the way, I would like a moratorium on the use of the word "disingenuous," which basically means "lying." It's been thrown at me by several people and it's royally pissing me off, because I'm saying exactly what I believe--no more, no less--and consider it incredibly offensive to be informed that my opinion is a lie.
Fair enough. But I'd like to suggest in return that you may want to consider refraining from dismissing dissenting opinions as just "nonsense."
Look, I'm no angel when it comes to arguing. But typically when I tell someone "no, that's false," or "that is indisputably wrong," I'm referring to a particular premise or assertion of fact. I try to avoid blanket statements like "everything else is just nonsense" because I'm one person amongst billions, and I'm not omniscient.
By the way, when I use the words "suggest" and "may," they are not an attempt to couch a demand. It really is just that: a suggestion. Given how long I've been posting in your blog, I hope by now you realize I'm not going to demand that you do this or that. Ultimately, if I don't like someone's blog, or, as was the case earlier, if I feel my presence is troublesome to others, I'll walk away. Not because I want to take my toys and go home because "that will show them," but because there are better things to do than to get into fights unnecessarily.
And I think I've established my open-mindedness street creds well enough to be able to make this suggestion. You may recall, in fact, in the Comedy Central thread to which you referred, I started out with one very strongly held point of view. You persuaded me that I was wrong. You didn't do it by dismissing my argument as "nonsense."
Just offering a thought. No more, no less.
"He singled out three perfectly decently dressed children--"
I'm sorry Mr David, but those girls were anything but decently dressed. As I said earlier, I would not let my 13 year old daughter out the front door dressed like that, and I'm surprised those girls parents/guardians were happy to let them go to school dressed like that.
PAD: And second, considering the indisputable fact that the girls were dressed decently, covered from head to toe, the message sent by the principal was quite clear: What others think of you is more important than what you think of yourself. Your cleverness and imagination is secondary to my perceptions, even though they're not based in fact.
No, he wasn't. I've danced around calling you on this for several days, but you just plain are not correct here. Period. I don't think I can couch this in and stronger terms and still remain polite, but you just have no clue what you are talking about.
Again I will make the comparison. If a student wears a shirt with a drug message on it and gets sent home to change. He is NOT being sent home for wearing a T-shirt, and saying that the principal is wrong because these kids were singled out when there are DOZENS of other kids wearing T-shirts, would be utterly ridiculous. And that's exactly what you are doing.
I put out the question about whether anybody here would have a problem with a teenage girl wearing a "Superbowl Janet Jackson" costume on a hypothetical Rock Star Day, replete with flesh colored body stocking over the boob, and no one took me up on it. I asked if anybody would have had a problem with the Captain Underpants costumes if the girls had painted nipples on the body stockings and no one took me up on it. I think this is telling, because if you don't think either is appropriate, then you are conceding that it *IS* possible to take it too far while still covering all the appropriate parts. And while you may not agree that that was the case in this particular instance, *YOU* weren't there, and it wasn't your damn choice to make. It WAS this principal's. This guy with *at least* a Masters Degree in Education and more than likely *at least* ten years experience teaching and dealing with students in a variety of situations.
Does that make him a Solomon of wisdom? Nope, but it sure as hell give him the benefit of the doubt when all the internet arm chair quarterbacks come out spouting the right way to do his job.
And the simple fact is that the principal caused far more "disruption" to school routine than the girls did.
The *principal* called the press in? He *asked* bloggers around the world to call him on doing his job? I didn't read that in the article.
If he sent a girl home for inappropriate dress on any other day, and the girl in protest stripped down in front of the school and it got covered by the media, would you say then that the principal brought the disruption on himself? That's bit of blaming the victim in my book.
I would like a moratorium on the use of the word "disingenuous," which basically means "lying."
I beg to differ here. Disingenuous means "giving a false appearance of simple frankness" and that's exactly what you are doing. You are stating things in black and white terms as though they are matters of fact ("you can't determine the color of the bra, therefore the stockings aren't see through." "I don't think these costumes were that bad, therefore the principal is uptight").
I don't think I used that term, and I will refrain from using it out of difference to the host, but you give an incorrect definition, and *in my opinion* the word was used correctly in the instances I've seen it used in this thread.
I can understand you not liking being called disingenuous, though. It ranks right up there with having your professional opinion called "nonsense."
Of course, in retaliation I could just throw such individuals out of here with the contention that my belief in their actions outweighs the actions themselves.
“and though I could
With barefaced power sweep him from my sight
And bid my will avouch it…”
That little bit of unveiled threat is why I rarely venture far out into the blogosphere.
But then...I'd be on par with a school principal.
You mean you’d send us home for a half hour then let us back in without further repercussions? Doesn’t sound like much of a punishment to me.
And that’s the point, I guess.
"PAD: And second, considering the indisputable fact that the girls were dressed decently, covered from head to toe, the message sent by the principal was quite clear: What others think of you is more important than what you think of yourself. Your cleverness and imagination is secondary to my perceptions, even though they're not based in fact.
No, he wasn't. I've danced around calling you on this for several days, but you just plain are not correct here. Period. I don't think I can couch this in and stronger terms and still remain polite, but you just have no clue what you are talking about."
Yes, I really do. And the simple proof is that if the girls were wearing the outfits in the streets of Manhattan, they would not be in violation of any laws. I'm not a big fan of laws in the real world not being applicable in the academic world.
Furthermore, I'm also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they're thinking, you're on a slippery slope. In this instance the principal took it to a new level: He punished the girls for what OTHER people were thinking. The girls were NOT nude, the girls were NOT indecent, and because others MIGHT THINK they were, the girls were punished. That, by me, is wrong. Now if you think it's okay to punish people for what other people are thinking, then fine. But don't expect me to agree with that.
"Again I will make the comparison. If a student wears a shirt with a drug message on it and gets sent home to change. He is NOT being sent home for wearing a T-shirt, and saying that the principal is wrong because these kids were singled out when there are DOZENS of other kids wearing T-shirts, would be utterly ridiculous."
Depends what the message says, doesn't it. The CCA, for instance, endeavored to punish Stan Lee years ago because he was putting out an issue of Spider-Man with an anti-drug message. The CCA's contention was that ANY mention of drugs was in violation of the CCA, and therefore banned. Stan ran it anyway. It was seen as a gutsy move. If a kid was wearing a t-shirt that said "Drugs are Bad, M'Kay?" and the principal said he had to change shirts because the word "drugs" was in the shirt, that doesn't seem reasonable.
Nor am I a big fan of punishing kids who are being clever. This, to me, was clever.
"I put out the question about whether anybody here would have a problem with a teenage girl wearing a "Superbowl Janet Jackson" costume on a hypothetical Rock Star Day, replete with flesh colored body stocking over the boob, and no one took me up on it."
Possibly because everyone realized that an explicit recreation of something sexual was irrelevant in a discussion about the recreation of Captain Underpants.
"I asked if anybody would have had a problem with the Captain Underpants costumes if the girls had painted nipples on the body stockings and no one took me up on it."
Well, since Captain Underpants doesn't have realistic nipples, but merely little dots, it's once again irrelevant. The girls were making no effort to try and make people think their breasts were being displayed, and the whole point is that they were making no effort to do so, so again, the question is irrelevant.
"I think this is telling, because if you don't think either is appropriate, then you are conceding that it *IS* possible to take it too far while still covering all the appropriate parts."
So?
"And while you may not agree that that was the case in this particular instance, *YOU* weren't there, and it wasn't your damn choice to make. It WAS this principal's."
And here we go with one of the oldest internet wheezes: Rights. Because someone says that a wrong decision is being made, the immediate illogical jump is made that the RIGHT to make the decision is being disputed. Which it never was. So congratulations, you won a point that wasn't being disputed.
"This guy with *at least* a Masters Degree in Education and more than likely *at least* ten years experience teaching and dealing with students in a variety of situations."
Which doesn't mean he made the correct decision.
"Does that make him a Solomon of wisdom? Nope, but it sure as hell give him the benefit of the doubt when all the internet arm chair quarterbacks come out spouting the right way to do his job."
Really. Considering the staggering number of Long Island administrators who are punted from their positions for various abuses, I don't see where your presumption of his educational pedigree entitles him to jack.
And how would you like it if Hitler killed you?
PAD
"Hmm... I suddenly feel the urge to run around buck naked with nothing but a strategically placed toaster, steak knives taped to the back of my hands and a colander on my head and go as "Weapon-X" Wolverine for Halloween.
-Rex Hondo-"
Thanks, Rex.
I just spent twenty minutes fixing breakfast and NOW someone's gone and made it impossible for me to eat it. God, mental images can be a curse.
:)
PAD: Yes, I really do.
Remember when I said I was going to agree to disagree with you? It's because in inevitably boils down to "No, you didn't" "Yes, I did."
And the simple proof is that if the girls were wearing the outfits in the streets of Manhattan, they would not be in violation of any laws. I'm not a big fan of laws in the real world not being applicable in the academic world.
Really? A teenager can ride his skateboard down the street in many places (not all). Should he be allowed to ride it down the halls of the school? A teenager can have wear a shirt with Joe Camel (dating myself) on it at the mall, should he be allowed to wear cigarette advertising in school?
Again, you are stating things in a black and white context when the world is a might more complex than that. Sounds like a certain president saying "If you're not with us, you're against us."
I'm also not a fan of hate crime laws.
Is this where I get called a Nazi?
I think when you start punishing people for what they're thinking, you're on a slippery slope.
Life's full of slippery slopes, Peter. The trick is keeping your balance on them.
Depends what the message says, doesn't it. The CCA, for instance, endeavored to punish Stan Lee years ago because he was putting out an issue of Spider-Man with an anti-drug message. The CCA's contention was that ANY mention of drugs was in violation of the CCA, and therefore banned. Stan ran it anyway. It was seen as a gutsy move. If a kid was wearing a t-shirt that said "Drugs are Bad, M'Kay?" and the principal said he had to change shirts because the word "drugs" was in the shirt, that doesn't seem reasonable.
So you believe the situation should define the response? THANK YOU. You made my point for me.
if you think it's okay to punish people for what other people are thinking, then fine. But don't expect me to agree with that.
Straw man argument there. I'm having visions of Colbert asking someone "Why do you hate America?"
Considering the staggering number of Long Island administrators who are punted from their positions for various abuses, I don't see where your presumption of his educational pedigree entitles him to jack.
Wow, talk about generalizations. "Other administrators are wrong. This man is an administrator, ergo he's wrong."
How's about this "Many doctors are sued for malpractice, ergo a doctor's education entitles him to jack. I will trust my own diagnosis over all doctors."
And how would you like it if Hitler killed you?
I'm probably being thick here (I am, after all, merely a lowly English Teacher who doesn't know shit about education), but I have no goddamn clue what wry allusion you are making here.
Furthermore, I'm also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they're thinking, you're on a slippery slope.
The irony of this statement just hit me. You call punishing people for what they are thinking a "hate crime."
Hate crime= criminalization of thoughts of hate
Do you understand what hate crime is? Do you realize you are putting the torture and slaying of Matthew Shepherd in the same category as a principal sending three girls home to change their clothes?
Slippery slope, thy initials are P-A-D :)
"Really? A teenager can ride his skateboard down the street in many places (not all). Should he be allowed to ride it down the halls of the school?"
Obviously not. Safety issues. Irrelevant.
"A teenager can have wear a shirt with Joe Camel (dating myself) on it at the mall, should he be allowed to wear cigarette advertising in school?"
Absolutely.
"Again, you are stating things in a black and white context when the world is a might more complex than that. Sounds like a certain president saying "If you're not with us, you're against us.""
No, I'm simply proceeding from the notion that students should not abandon the rights accorded them in the real world when inside a school.
"I'm also not a fan of hate crime laws.
Is this where I get called a Nazi?"
No, but thanks for anothe irrelevance.
"I think when you start punishing people for what they're thinking, you're on a slippery slope.
Life's full of slippery slopes, Peter. The trick is keeping your balance on them."
I agree. Still irrelevant, though.
"Depends what the message says, doesn't it. The CCA, for instance, endeavored to punish Stan Lee years ago because he was putting out an issue of Spider-Man with an anti-drug message. The CCA's contention was that ANY mention of drugs was in violation of the CCA, and therefore banned. Stan ran it anyway. It was seen as a gutsy move. If a kid was wearing a t-shirt that said "Drugs are Bad, M'Kay?" and the principal said he had to change shirts because the word "drugs" was in the shirt, that doesn't seem reasonable.
So you believe the situation should define the response? THANK YOU. You made my point for me."
Except I made that point ages ago. I said, for instance, that if the girls had come in in such attire on a normal school day, the principal would have been absolutely correct in telling the girls to change attire. But the situation in which they presented themselves made the princpal's response inappropriate.
"Considering the staggering number of Long Island administrators who are punted from their positions for various abuses, I don't see where your presumption of his educational pedigree entitles him to jack.
Wow, talk about generalizations. "Other administrators are wrong. This man is an administrator, ergo he's wrong.""
And this is the second favorite internet wheeze: Slap quotations around something that someone didn't say, pretend they did, and attack that. You claimed that because of his credentials (which you made up for him) he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. My contention is that many administrators have similar credentials, and that doesn't make them immune from accusations of wrong doing. The "ergo, he's wrong" is just something you made up.
"How's about this "Many doctors are sued for malpractice, ergo a doctor's education entitles him to jack. I will trust my own diagnosis over all doctors.""
Pretty stupid. Then again, if you're interested in an analogy to what I actually said, as opposed to what you say I said, then how about, "Doctors have medical degrees, and therefore they should be given the benefit of the doubt in whatever they say." So much for seeking second opinions.
"And how would you like it if Hitler killed you?
I'm probably being thick here (I am, after all, merely a lowly English Teacher who doesn't know shit about education), but I have no goddamn clue what wry allusion you are making here."
Try reading the comics pages.
PAD
Ah, well. I made my points, and I'm tired. Those whose opinions were up in the air have probably come down on one side or the other at this point, and those whose haven't on either side probably aren't going to. I'm not going to say "I'm done" because whenever I do, something ends up drawing me back in, but I think I'm finished with this for now.*
*The above statement should not be inferred as demanding Peter David should follow my lead. This is, was, and shall be his blog, and he is the final determination of when a specific thread is ended. I respect his authority on his site.
I wish there was an edit button because I would rather add this to my last post rather that come back with another. But anyways...
Try reading the comics pages.
PAD
See, in my mind this is the difference between friendly debate and snide oneupmanship. If somebody had said they didn't recognize my earlier quote about "barefaced power," I would have told them it came from Macbeth, and if necessary given the context. I admitted I didn't get the context of PAD's quote, but rather than say, "it's from such and such" and if necessary give the context. Instead I got a haughty, condescending answer that dangles the inference of "I know something you don't know" in front of it.
Furthermore, I'm also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they're thinking, you're on a slippery slope.
I think hate crime laws make as much sense as laws protecting police.
- The safety of cops are disproportionately vulnerable to the predatorial agendas of those who reserve for themselves the privilege of committing crime, because of their high visibility in performing a public service antagonistic to them. We need cops, so it can't be helped.
- The safety of minorities are disproportionately vulnerable to those who reserve for themselves the privilege of indulging in predatorial agendas because of their visible non-conformity. Minorities and gays can't help living and going out in public.
For those of you thinking my support of hate crime exceptions to the law somehow means I should throw my support of the school principal, please review my summary of my position before you attempt to make that point:
- Captain Underpants isn't nude.
- The girls weren't nude.
- The principal didn't send them home because their bras were showing.
I know Bill denies that "Principal Nicholas Restivo says he knows they weren't naked, but it appeared that way, so he sent them home to change" means the principal didn't send them home because their bras were showing. I haven't forgotten that hanging issue, which may still have the appearance of "he said/he said." But I'm still baffled as to what information is lacking from the news quote for me to make my third point.
"I would like a moratorium on the use of the word "disingenuous," which basically means "lying." It's been thrown at me by several people and it's royally pissing me off"
Not my intent. Sorry. But you are taking what was said to an extreme interpretation. In most circles I travel in, personal and professional, saying something in regards to "the disingenuous nature of that question" is not calling someone a liar. It's used in much the same way I used it above.
You asked a question that seemed to demand that a substance be either 100% transparent or not see through at all with no third option. It was the fabric equivalent of, "you're either with us or against us." Some things are translucent. You can see through them but not get an accurate color visual because of the tinting of the object you're looking through (like my tinted glass example).
Many people have addressed this and you still bring up your either/or question as though it's THE definitive point on the issue. It's not. That's why I and many people I know, while in no why calling you a liar, would say that the nature of the question and its repeated use after being answered so many times is disingenuous. It comes across as you refusing to acknowledge that there is in fact a THIRD option beyond the two you keep offering us with your question and demanding that we debate the issue based on a set of false and limited choices.
You're still doing it... "(nope, no one can provide the definitive color no matter how much they fumfuraw about it)" ...as though you've yet to be told that seeing through a color tinted material CHANGES THE VISIBLE COLOR OF WHAT'S UNDERNEATH IT at least a good half dozen times or so.
My trying to point that out was not my calling YOU a liar. I'm sorry it came across that way.
"But since other kids WERE wearing underwear on the outside and allowed to remain in school, obviously that rule was being suspended for the day."
Yes, but how many others were doing it with a costume that simulated nudity/being topless while wearing tights stretched thin enough that you could see what they had on underneath as well? Again, people showing up as Superman or Supergirl could have had red underwear on over their tights with no problem because the rules were being loosened a bit and you couldn't see through loser fitting, blue, non-translucent tights.
"And the simple fact is that the principal caused far more "disruption" to school routine than the girls did."
No, he didn't. His quietly sending three girls home probably did very little to stop the normal school day from chugging along quite nicely. The girls going to the press and making a stink over their not showing a wee bit of common sense in their costume choice was what caused the greater disruption in the school and the community.
"...what about the other two in which nothing--not outline, not color, not anything--is visible?"
I think that would fall back to the costumes giving the appearance of nudity. These were three high school girls who dressed as a topless male character. That is going to weigh in on the decision being made by an administrator. I would think it would be an even bigger factor for someone who had never even heard of the character or, like me, had never seen the character. All that person would see is three girls dressed as a topless (nude) character in school. The one girls bra would only add to the tipping factor if it were my call to make.
"What annoys the hell out of me is two things: First, that school administrators will invariably--as someone here stated and wasn't disputed--will err on the side of caution. Always. Which means that the smallest number of conservative reactionary parents hold the greatest sway, and that extends to matters of greater import than Captain Underpants."
No, it could also mean that in matters of dress and general day to day structure, this school hasn't slid as far as some. It's also unfair to vilify or denigrate the principal for doing his job because you think he might one day in the future maybe give more credence to the opinions of a group of conservative reactionaries or extremists.
"And second, considering the indisputable fact that the girls were dressed decently, covered from head to toe, the message sent by the principal was quite clear: What others think of you is more important than what you think of yourself. Your cleverness and imagination is secondary to my perceptions, even though they're not based in fact."
The "indisputable" fact? Well, there are more then a few of us disputing that here. I would tend to think the principal would find it a somewhat less then an "indisputable" fact as well. The sun rose in the East this morning. That is an "indisputable" fact. Whether or not three high school girls dressed as a topless male superhero and wearing tights that give questionable coverage is decent is far from an "indisputable" fact.
"What others think of you is more important than what you think of yourself."
No, it means that the school has a dress code, the spirit, if not the letter itself, of the dress code will still be followed even on fun days like this and attempting to walk around looking like three topless females doesn't fly.
"He singled out three perfectly decently dressed children"
Again, that's in dispute there and here.
"--kids who were more thoroughly clad than probably a number of their peers--"
Since no pictures of other students have been printed in the press, Neither you nor I can definitively argue that point.
"because of his perception of the situation than the actuality of the situation."
The situation was three girls dressed as a topless superhero and giving the appearance of nudity in school. That would seem to be the actuality of the situation he acted on.
"And the simple proof is that if the girls were wearing the outfits in the streets of Manhattan, they would not be in violation of any laws. I'm not a big fan of laws in the real world not being applicable in the academic world."
Really? Girls can walk down the street in Daisy Dukes and a string bikini top and not get in trouble. Shall we now make that the allowable dress code for school? Guys can walk down the street with no shirt and their pants hanging too low. Would you like to go before the PTA and School Board and argue that you think it's unfair that they can't do the same in class and school hallways?
There are countless numbers of laws in the real world that are not applicable in the academic world or the working world. I can walk around on my fourteenth day of vacation with a full beard on my face. I show up at work the next day still sporting that beard while in uniform and I'm getting written up. What, are you going to come down to Richmond and tell my Lt. that I should be able to keep my beard because the laws in the real world say I can?
"Furthermore, I'm also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they're thinking, you're on a slippery slope. In this instance the principal took it to a new level: He punished the girls for what OTHER people were thinking."
Wow. Comparing this to hate crimes. That's a stretch. They got punished for for dressing up to appear nude/topless in school. It showed a lack of common sense in both their and their parent's judgment. I'm sorry, but they got zinged for it.
"Depends what the message says, doesn't it. The CCA, for instance, endeavored to punish Stan Lee years ago because he was putting out an issue of Spider-Man with an anti-drug message. The CCA's contention was that ANY mention of drugs was in violation of the CCA, and therefore banned. Stan ran it anyway. It was seen as a gutsy move. If a kid was wearing a t-shirt that said "Drugs are Bad, M'Kay?" and the principal said he had to change shirts because the word "drugs" was in the shirt, that doesn't seem reasonable."
Now you're the one dodging the question by bring up an off point reference. The point was being made, as you full well know, about shirts and accessories that simply display drugs or drug paraphernalia or even have a boarder line positive slant about them. Your ducking his question by throwing out an example of how it COULD be ok. Would you still think that the shirts are fine then and that the student was being singled out if the shirt had a bong printed on it and the words "get high" plastered across the kids chest? I don't think you would. I certainly wouldn't.
"Possibly because everyone realized that an explicit recreation of something sexual was irrelevant in a discussion about the recreation of Captain Underpants."
Not if you didn't know the character and all you saw was three girls dressed to appear topless. Then it would be the exact same thing.
"I think this is telling, because if you don't think either is appropriate, then you are conceding that it *IS* possible to take it too far while still covering all the appropriate parts."
"So?"
So I would tend to believe that schools aren't the smartest places to try and push it too far and think that you're going to not run into problems. There were lots of things in my closet that I didn't wear to school because common sense told me not to. There were several events in each year of my High School life that allowed me to dress up in costume where I went with choices that were actually my Number two or three choice because common sense told me that my number one wouldn't fly. I was often right as we always had at least one incident like this one. The difference was that the kids didn't go running to the press to play "poor little me".
"Nor am I a big fan of punishing kids who are being clever. This, to me, was clever."
I said above that I thought it was a great idea for a costume and a costume I would have let a kid of mine wear at a party in the house or at a friends house. It was clever. No issue there. Deciding that they would wear it to school wasn't that clever. That's where they got tagged.
"And how would you like it if Hitler killed you?"
Did I miss a post? Where the &%$# did that come from?
Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2006 01:05 PM
I haven't forgotten that hanging issue, which may still have the appearance of "he said/he said." But I'm still baffled as to what information is lacking from the news quote for me to make my third point.
I don't consider it a "hanging issue" because I've decided we've reached "agree to disagree" territory. So that's what I'm going to do. You, of course, are free to do as you wish.
Posted by: Jerry C at October 28, 2006 01:07 PM
"And how would you like it if Hitler killed you?"
Did I miss a post? Where the &%$# did that come from?
It threw me for a moment, too. It's an allusion to a "Dilbert" comic strip wherein an animal character (I don't recognize which one, as I don't often read "Dilbert") brags about winning every argument on the Internet by saying the same thing: "How would you like it if Hitler killed you?"
You know, I really don't understand all this mess. I have white shirts that, while they look perfectly fine and non-see through when I put them on, as soon as someone take a picture of me, you can clearly see the outline of my bra -even with a top on. I have pink shirts that do that too, and they're made of material that in no possible sense of the word would be described as 'see-through'.
I've also seen 'cosplayers' in public events dressed a lot worse than this three girls (One whose only disguise was a pair of black underwear and a cape comes to mind. She couldn't be older than sixteen, and was acompained by her mother).
Yes, that picture does look like you can clearly make out the bra that the girl is wearing, but given my experience with flashes and lighting (I just had an argument with a co-worker about a black tanktop that IMHO does show the white bra of the model underneat, he says it doesn't), I don't think anyone can say that it was actually see-through if the principal isn't quoted as saying so (I'm with Mike here. If the Principal said that the reason to send them home was the 'impression that they were naked', that doesn't equal 'the fact that you could see the outline of their bras') and we weren't there. What *I* would like to see is pictures of the other kids's costumes. *Then* I could say if the Principal was being an idiot or just an excessively careful man. BEcause, really? I rather see this kind of costumes in a costume contest than the Supergirl's newest uniform or some of the newest japanese heroines that I've seen around.
Bill,
Oh. That's why I didn't get it. Not much of a Dilbert fan.
Now, If it had been a Bloom County, Outland or Opus refs, I would have been very much less confused. To each his own
:p
"I've also seen 'cosplayers' in public events dressed a lot worse than this three girls.."
Yeah, but was that in a public event at a HS?
But I'm still baffled as to what information is lacking from the news quote for me to make my third point.I don't consider it a "hanging issue" because I've decided we've reached "agree to disagree" territory. So that's what I'm going to do. You, of course, are free to do as you wish.
In what world does:
Principal Nicholas Restivo says he knows they weren't naked, but it appeared that way, so he sent them home to change.
not mean "The principal sent them home for simulated nudity?" Where is the ambiguity in the words says, appeared, and naked?
Yes, but how many others were doing it with a costume that simulated nudity/being topless while wearing tights stretched thin enough that you could see what they had on underneath as well?
Jerry, you said these girls were topless with visible tops – in the same sentence. You have to pick one and stick with it. This isn’t the first time this pattern of yours has been brought to your attention. According to your understanding of the word, you are being disingenuous.
As to the issue of nudity: Captain Underpants isn’t nude and the girls weren’t nude. Everyone is against the display of nudity in high schools. You are trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue for referencing nudity. If you mean toplessness, say only toplessness. If you can’t be taken by your word, there is no virtue in you debating anyone.
"I've also seen 'cosplayers' in public events dressed a lot worse than this three girls.."
Yeah, but was that in a public event at a HS?
The particular one I mentioned? No. It was an all-ages event, and kids with school credentials got a free pass, but not in a HS.
At a HS costume event I saw once a vampirella -no flesh-colored tights underneath- and a couple of costumes that logically should have had tights underneath but didn't. Still, I was talking about a sixteen year old girl, and I find it funny that someone would imply that a girl dressed in a skimpy outfit is perfectly ok as long as she isn't at school. (Or make it sound as if that was the case. I'm guessing that was not your meaning)
And anyway, what I'm baffled about is that people for the principal are saying that the principal didn't stated why he sent the girls home, when he did. It wasn't that he could see the bras through the tights, it was that they 'simulated' being naked. It's a whole different thing. He never mentioned that he could see the bras. Everyone is saying that the girls could've took off their tops for the picture, damaging their story, why no one is mentioning that if the principal *had* said 'You could see the outlines of their bras' then everyone would've agreed with him? To me, the fact that the principal never mentions the bras means that he didn't saw them, so that little fact was not a part of his desicion. He sent them home because they made a costume that simulated them being naked. That's about what the story says.
have we ever had this much bad feeling over something so silly/ It must be an election year...
PAD, there are some things I'm not seeing eye to eye with you on. I respect your opinion and, as I said, I would have let the girls stay were I, in some alternate hellish reality, a principal.
"Plus, while everyone carps on the visible bra line"
It's more than just an outline--you can see the bra. And I'm sorry, but it's just not convincing to say that if you can see something you must be able to see the color. When my wife wears some body suits you can still see her tattoo. You can't see the color or even always make out just what it's a tattoo of (a battleship) (I kid) but she'd be kidding herself if she thought they couldn't see it.
It's a minor point but I think a lot of the dissention here has been from frustration of people being told not to believe what their own eyes make obvious.
"Which means that the smallest number of conservative reactionary parents hold the greatest sway, and that extends to matters of greater import than Captain Underpants."
I'll just add that,depending on the schools location, one may be just as or even more likely to get such grief from liberal radical parents. Our own Halloween costume tradtion died after one year when a kid came dressed as Jesus. Rumour had it some parent raised a church and state stink, which is ludicrous but there you are.
Yes, I really do. And the simple proof is that if the girls were wearing the outfits in the streets of Manhattan, they would not be in violation of any laws. I'm not a big fan of laws in the real world not being applicable in the academic world.
There are tons of rules for dress that are perfectly legal in the real world and not allowed in school. You can dress like a hooker in the real world and, unless you are an actual hooker, it doesn't matter. To list just a few things that are ok in real life but not at my school: saggy pants, hats in the building, belly buttons, halter tops, skirts above the level of the fingers when the hands are held down, excessive cleavage, thong straps, bra straps, spaghetti straps, tube tops, derogatory or profane words, the Confederate flag (at least at our sister school--I think we haven't addressed that one here yet), etc. etc.
"Furthermore, I'm also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they're thinking, you're on a slippery slope. In this instance the principal took it to a new level: He punished the girls for what OTHER people were thinking. The girls were NOT nude, the girls were NOT indecent, and because others MIGHT THINK they were, the girls were punished. That, by me, is wrong. Now if you think it's okay to punish people for what other people are thinking, then fine. But don't expect me to agree with that."
I think this is your strongest argument and I need to think on it
"Depends what the message says, doesn't it. The CCA, for instance, endeavored to punish Stan Lee years ago because he was putting out an issue of Spider-Man with an anti-drug message. The CCA's contention was that ANY mention of drugs was in violation of the CCA, and therefore banned. Stan ran it anyway. It was seen as a gutsy move. If a kid was wearing a t-shirt that said "Drugs are Bad, M'Kay?" and the principal said he had to change shirts because the word "drugs" was in the shirt, that doesn't seem reasonable."
Interesting point...but I would be a little troubled that a kid who wears a shirt that is anti-drug would be ok while one that simply says "legalize drug use" is not--in that case aren't you advocating the cersorship of certain political thoughts? The legalization of drugs is a perfectly legitimate political stance. What if a kid wears pictures of aborted fetuses? Or George Bush being comically sodimized by an Arab with a gas pump? Or a confederate flag with the emblam "History Not Hate"?
The point is, it isn't easy to draw the line. I'm a get along go along kind of guy on free speech issues but even I know taht at some point you end up with a class so disrupted that your only recourse is to send out the students. It takes 15 minutes minimum to break up a fight and that's time I'll never get back (and the kids who are removed slip ever further behind. So who wins here.).
There are a lot of examples of Pricipals Gone Wild but I don't think this one was a clear cut case.
Rich:
Do you understand what hate crime is? Do you realize you are putting the torture and slaying of Matthew Shepherd in the same category as a principal sending three girls home to change their clothes?
The idea behind hate crimes is that somehow killing Sheherd for being gay is somehow worse than killing him for his sneakers or $25. If someone kills me I want them to get the full penalty regardless of whether they hated me, loved me, didn't like my political beliefs, had a grudge against white folks, whatever. let's focus here people--I'm dead!
It's also enforced poorly. We had a case here wher some nut went around shooting white people and they found racist junk in his home and he basically said he was targeting white people and yet the cops did all they could to minimize it as a hate crime. Feh. Bad idea for a law, badly enforced, who needs it. (of course if a politician opposes such laws they might be portrayed as the sort of people who advocate dragging a black man to his death behind a truck).
PAD again:
No, I'm simply proceeding from the notion that students should not abandon the rights accorded them in the real world when inside a school.
But that isn't realistic and it's certainly not the case. in school cops can search your locker any time they wish. Sniffy, the Drug Sniffing Dog roams the halls. You can't have a legally obtained gun even in your car. You can't carry a knife or box cutter of any kind. Or a lighter. Or a cell phone, in some schools. You can't use your cell phone on campus. Free speech is limited--one profanity and you are out of there (I am lax on this but by the rules I shouldn't be). Express a racist statement in my class and you will probably be removed (unless I think you are salvagable by a good dose of righteous indignation). You can't dress like a hoochie momma. You can't go overboard on makeup--show up with your face half blue like Braveheart and you are probably going to the school psychiatrist at minimum. You can't write gang symbols in the margins of your worksheets or have certain color bandannas hanging out of your pockets or...
I've seen schools where the rules were either virtually non-existant or unenforced, where the kids pretty much had the same rights as they did on the streets. You'd be better off sending your kids out into the streets, there are more places to hide. I've seen schools where the rules were overly enforced and right joyless places they were. Obviously, the logical choice is some middle ground but in that case you are going to have to make some judgement calls and it's quite possible that some will be debatable, which, I think, this thread has proven.
"Jerry, you said these girls were topless with visible tops – in the same sentence."
No, I didn't. I said that they were in COSTUMES that SIMULATED being topless. I have never said that the girls THEMSELVES were topless. There is a wee bit (like, say, friggin huge) dif in those two statements.
I have also said that you can see through the costumes to see a bra on one of the girls. The costumes that simulated their being topless would have gotten them booted from most schools I went to. Being able to see their bra would have gotten them booted from most schools I went to. You've got both in this case.
"You are trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue for referencing nudity. If you mean toplessness, say only toplessness."
Big words do not an argument make, Mike. :)
I'm trying to do no such thing. People on this board are using both the words "nudity" and "topless" in this debate. Some people here are using them to mean the same thing. People out in the real world mix and match the two all the time as well.
People call strippers nude dancers all the time in this area. They wear thongs and pasties. They're not really nude. Can't tell that to some people.
I've been posting "nudity/topless" in my posts because the posts are being addressed to several people who are using both words and the issue of the simulated toplessness was first raised as being simulated nudity. Me, I think the character is topless and not nude.
But, I'm not going to be trivial enough to argue with someone who says a merely topless woman is nude. That's the lawyers job. I'm also not going to pick nits with the Principal of the school or others for saying that what I see as simulated toplessness is simulated nudity.
Thus, "nudity/topless" when I post.
"When my wife wears some body suits you can still see her tattoo. You can't see the color or even always make out just what it's a tattoo of (a battleship) (I kid) but she'd be kidding herself if she thought they couldn't see it."
nice knowing yah, Bill. Sorry the wife killed you for that one.
:)
Bill: Rich:
Do you understand what hate crime is? Do you realize you are putting the torture and slaying of Matthew Shepherd in the same category as a principal sending three girls home to change their clothes?
The idea behind hate crimes is that somehow killing Shepherd for being gay is somehow worse than killing him for his sneakers or $25...
No, I agree one hundred percent with what you say here, Bill. I just found it sardonically amusing to call "thought crime" a "hate crime" when hate is a form of thought. That and the fact I find it gloriously hyperbolic to call this a hate crime in any sense of the term.
Bill Mulligan,
If this is true:
The idea behind hate crimes is that somehow killing Sheherd for being gay is somehow worse than killing him for his sneakers or $25. If someone kills me I want them to get the full penalty regardless of whether they hated me, loved me, didn't like my political beliefs, had a grudge against white folks, whatever. let's focus here people--I'm dead!
Then this is also seems true:
The idea behind stiffer penalties for cop-killing is that somehow killing a cop for being a cop is somehow worse than killing him for his sneakers or $25. If someone kills me I want them to get the full penalty regardless of whether they hated me, loved me, didn't like my political beliefs, had a grudge against white folks, whatever. let's focus here people--I'm dead!
Jerry,
No, I didn't. I said that they were in COSTUMES that SIMULATED being topless. I have never said that the girls THEMSELVES were topless.
Of course.
Since the girls are not topless, the only applicable use of the word "topless" in this debate is to Captain Underpants. It’s only consistent that Captain Underpants should be banned from high schools, yes?
I mean, is toplesness bad, or isn't it?
You are trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue for referencing nudity. If you mean toplessness, say only toplessness.Big words do not an argument make, Mike. :)
I'm trying to do no such thing. People on this board are using both the words "nudity" and "topless" in this debate. Some people here are using them to mean the same thing. People out in the real world mix and match the two all the time as well.
People call strippers nude dancers all the time in this area. They wear thongs and pasties. They're not really nude. Can't tell that to some people.
If the big words are true, they do, Jerry.
Consensus -- which seems to be the merit of your reply -- does not an argument make. You haven't demonstrated I'm wrong. You are only demonstrating how most people can disagree with something plainly observable.
You persist in trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue for referencing nudity. Everyone is against the display of nudity in school. What I said about the principal seems to be plainly true for you also: There's no defense against that kind of manipulative bs.
Rich, in your lengthy post, I noticed you used the phrase "in difference to our host." Not to pick nits or act like my degree supersedes yours, but the phrase is "in DEFERENCE," as in, you defer to Peter. Could also be a typo, if so, I profoundly apologize, as I myself am not immune to victimization by the typo monster. I'm just kind of a stickler for proper use of language.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Just because someone has a degree or a title or a bunch of acronyms behind their name does not necessarily a smart person make, and the converse is ALSO true. Not to go all Yoda here but there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.
Things you never find out in a story like this--what was the principal's standing in the community in general and the district specifically? Same with the girls, are they good students or troublemakers or doesn't anybody ever notice them? What kind of girls ARE these? What, if any, WERE the guidelines for this day? Were there problems with any other costumes? What do the parents think? That last one I'm really curious about.
Rich, in your lengthy post, I noticed you used the phrase "in difference to our host." Not to pick nits or act like my degree supersedes yours, but the phrase is "in DEFERENCE," as in, you defer to Peter. Could also be a typo, if so, I profoundly apologize, as I myself am not immune to victimization by the typo monster. I'm just kind of a stickler for proper use of language.
For clarity: This touches a nerve with you, Sean?
"Since the girls are not topless, the only applicable use of the word "topless" in this debate is to Captain Underpants."
Uhmmmm..... Did see the many posts and starting point of this thread? Did you read any of the bits about whether or not their simulated nudity or simulated toplessness should have gotten them booted for the day? Did you just choose to just blank that word out of your mind so you could ask really dumb questions as though you were making some great point?
"It’s only consistent that Captain Underpants should be banned from high schools, yes? I mean, is toplesness bad, or isn't it?"
You're being stupid. And I've answered this above.
"Consensus -- which seems to be the merit of your reply -- does not an argument make.
You're reading a thread from another planet.
"You persist in trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue for referencing nudity. Everyone is against the display of nudity in school. What I said about the principal seems to be plainly true for you also: There's no defense against that kind of manipulative bs."
Sigh. I really meant it when I said that I would be nice. But the choices are that you really are just too dumb to get what you're reading or you are trying to see how long it takes to bug people by being stupid. I think it's the choice option. And I really was trying to be nice.
But you just have to play your game it seems. You went the copy and paste out of context road, starting repeating the same two or three meaningless phrases over and over again and now we've gotten to the point were someone (me) is manipulative if they (I) don't agree with you. I know your next, more twisted step in debates and I don't care to play that far.
There are adults on this site that are fun to debate and worth the time it involves. To me, you're not.
Bye.
Bill, you can have hime back now.
:)
The idea behind stiffer penalties for cop-killing is that somehow killing a cop for being a cop is somehow worse than killing him for his sneakers or $25.
The idea behind stiffer penalties for cop killing is that killing cops destroys society's ability to protect itself, thus endangering us all. Which is to be discouraged. It does not place a higher value on a cop's life, just tries to discourage a situation which would put all of our lives in danger.
It also does not in any way take into account the mindset of the cop killer--doesn't matter if they hated cops or just wanted to make a quick getaway.
So I have no problem with stiffer penalties for cop killing. Hell, you could also add a few others--killing a fireman while he/she's on the job ought to have an extra penalty as well. What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.
Mike, yes, it DOES touch a nerve with me. Anytime anyone is involved in a discussion like this one, clearly an intelligent individual, a person whom I'm pretty sure had said he was an English teacher, I think they should communicate clearly. Using the incorrect words will only muddy the message.
Bill, I had never looked at the justification for stiffer actions against cop killers like that. I always thought a death is a death. Darn it, Mulligan, you made me think! I HATE that.
Bill,
Yeah, that's almost word for word how they put it to us in our legal training. I would also agree on your desire for additions to the rule.
Hell, I think fire and EMS deserve it more then we do. We're armed. They're not.
Uhmmmm..... Did see the many posts and starting point of this thread? Did you read any of the bits about whether or not their simulated nudity or simulated toplessness should have gotten them booted for the day? Did you just choose to just blank that word out of your mind so you could ask really dumb questions as though you were making some great point?It’s only consistent that Captain Underpants should be banned from high schools, yes? I mean, is toplesness bad, or isn't it?
You're being stupid. And I've answered this above.
Yes, I've highlighted the telling words your reply.
You heard it here, folks. Captain Underpants should be banned from high schools.
I'm trying to do no such thing. People on this board are using both the words "nudity" and "topless" in this debate. Some people here are using them to mean the same thing. People out in the real world mix and match the two all the time as well.People call strippers nude dancers all the time in this area. They wear thongs and pasties. They're not really nude. Can't tell that to some people.
Consensus -- which seems to be the merit of your reply -- does not an argument make.
You're reading a thread from another planet.
Review the highlighted words. Your words. My summation refers to your post.
But you just have to play your game it seems. You went the copy and paste out of context road, starting repeating the same two or three meaningless phrases over and over again...
If you aren't to be taken at your word, what are you doing here?
The idea behind stiffer penalties for cop killing is that killing cops destroys society's ability to protect itself, thus endangering us all. Which is to be discouraged. It does not place a higher value on a cop's life, just tries to discourage a situation which would put all of our lives in danger.
Right, the life of a cop represents the safety of many. Check.
Well, parents can represent the safety of more than themselves. Should we have "orphan-maker" and "widow-maker" crimes?
Mike, yes, it DOES touch a nerve with me.
Well, your post to Rich was kind of a passive-aggressive way to express it, now, wasn't it?
What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.
Right. The Holocaust was just the execution of 6 million people. There is no such thing as genocide. Check.
Right, the life of a cop represents the safety of many. Check.
Oh, and how's this: cigarettes are the only commercial product that when used as marketed kill you. Now we have to ban cops from smoking -- because they are killing a whole fucking neighborhood.
I say: What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.
After injesting a bottle of cough syrup, Mike replies: Right. The Holocaust was just the execution of 6 million people. There is no such thing as genocide. Check.
Why did I do it, folks? Why did I hold out some glimmer of hope that Mike McTroll was actually worth responding to in any way other than sarcastic mocking?
(and coming on the heels of the Dilbert reference just adds some irony to the situation).
No, moron, nobody is saying there is no such thing as genocide, though I can see where you would want that to be so, since even a pathetically bad debater as yourself could probably hope to win THAT argument.
I now shroud you from any further discussion in this thread. You may have the final word. Perhaps in the future we will have a thread that you can actually contribute to ("The effects of tertiary syphilis on the brain" for example) and you'll be worth responding to again, but I think you've exhausted your limited repertoire on this topic.
What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.
...
No, moron, nobody is saying there is no such thing as genocide...
Right, there is genocide, but any special concession for it is totally bs.
Establishing Isreal -- when it most likely wouldn't have been established after WWII -- was totally fucked up.
Thanks for clearing that up, Bill Mulligan.
Y'know, I thought that maybe, just MAYBE, I'd been wrong, that a lot of people here had been wrong about Mike.
Well, I've been wrong before. Probably will be again. It's almost as though he wants to be the blog version of Colbert, though he lacks both the sophistication and the self-awareness to lay claim to the title. But, just because I'm a thick-headed Celt with brain damage, I would see no reason to get aggressive with Rich or Jerry or even you, because 1)I'm a bigger man than to let a difference of opinion stand in the way of enjoying my life, and 2)I've got more important things to do like cutting my toenails than to get dragged into a troll fight with individuals like yourself.
This discussion has come full circle. Basically there are two points of view:
Some see three girls who were wearing a flesh colored costume covering their whole body, and having very little resemblance to actual nudity, and possessing no sexual tones whatsoever. The suit may have been tight, but it is hard to imagine super hero suits that are not. The shape bra of one of the girls may have been visible (assuming it was not the result of the flash the photographers were using) underneath the costume, although there is nothing to suggest that this was the reason for the principal's decision.
The principal and others consider the costume's flesh color and tightness (as well as designed to evoke the image of a naked baby) as indecent and inappropriate as it creates an appearance of nudity. To make the point the use phrases like simulated nudity, simulated toplessness, and speak about the possibility of adding nipples to the costume and so forth.
Peter thinks it is wrong that the point of view and sensibilities of the second group (the more cautious? more conservative? more puritan?) concerning the said costume will determine what is appropriate for the girls to wear, going contrary to the girls' individuality, creativity and intent. This touches on an underlying problem in an increasingly culturaly divided society in which agreement of what is acceptable dress, art and so on is often in dispute. Who should determine what is appropriate in society?
I think this is an imprtant point. I didn't find anything wrong with the costumes myself in the pictures I saw. I also think the use of phrases like simulated nudity and toplessness, male toplessness, female toplessness in this discussion, as well as references to adding nipples to the costumes are unfair, since they suggest the girls were trying to be sexualy provocative. To me it seems that we can't even say that they were trying to simulate the nudity of a male baby.
However, I understand the principal's concerns He has a tough job to set bounderies in a situation where boundries are hard to define. I also don't think it is a clear cut case in which it was obvious whether or not the costume's were appropriate. I had to think of it for a while. And even if we can dispute his decision (which I do), and even joke on his prudish attitude, I don't think it is fair to place him in a middle of battlefield of a cultural conflict which our society is experiencing. There are other times when it is necdessary to stand up and prevent an over conservative or over politically correct, or more militant point of view from determing for everyone else what is appropriate at the expence of artistic integrity, individuality, and free speech. this does not seem to me to be such a case, assuming the girls were not harmed (beyond indignation) by being sent home.
----------------------
The idea of hate crimes is that a person who, for ideological reasons, goes around seeking and attacking a segment of society, is a greater threat to society than someone who commits and single act of violence. Such a person is comparable to a terrorist or a serial killer. His actions have repercussions to society beyond the single incident, just as the killing of cops does.
The idea of hate crimes is that a person who, for ideological reasons, goes around seeking and attacking a segment of society, is a greater threat to society than someone who commits and single act of violence. Such a person is comparable to a terrorist or a serial killer. His actions have repercussions to society beyond the single incident, just as the killing of cops does.
But a hate crime can be a single act. Certainly any case of a person going around attacking an entire segment of society is worse than someone attacking a single person.
My point is that if an Eskimo assaults me on the street and it turns out that he may have picked me over anyone else because of my ethnicity and general good looks I don't see the value of tacking on an extra penalty. And if, as would be likely, he DIDN'T get that extra penalty but another white guy who assaulted an eskimo DOES, it will make me feel like my life is somehow less valuable in the eyes of the law. Which will do little for racial harmony.
Good points though, Micha.
What the hell is going on?
- Peter says, "I'm also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they're thinking, you're on a slippery slope."
- I say, "I think hate crime laws make as much sense as laws protecting police.
- "The safety of cops are disproportionately vulnerable to the predatorial agendas of those who reserve for themselves the privilege of committing crime, because of their high visibility in performing a public service antagonistic to them. We need cops, so it can't be helped.
- "The safety of minorities are disproportionately vulnerable to those who reserve for themselves the privilege of indulging in predatorial agendas because of their visible non-conformity. Minorities and gays can't help living and going out in public."
- Bill says, "What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups."
Look at the highlighted words. If that isn't genocide, what is?
What is your problem?
Wow, a 253-post debate spawned by three high school girls being sent home to change clothes, with stops at cop killing and hate crimes along the way. Astonishing, truly astonishing.
Micha, just to preface my question, I'm not trying to start an arguement with you, here. But in your post, you talk about someone who commits a hate crime being comparable to a terrorist or serial killer. I wonder, what exactly is it that marks the delineation between the three? I myself would've said all three can be intermingled, but if you've got some definition or idea or something I'd like to hear it.
[A cop-killer law] does not place a higher value on a cop's life.
....
[The hate crime law] will make me feel like my life is somehow less valuable in the eyes of the law.
Stricter sentencing either places a higher value on the life protected or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways, Bill Mulligan. Pick one and give it another try.
I'm still stuck on the whole "real-life principal tells students they can't dress up as the popular, crime fighting alter ego of a fictitious, power-hungry, mean principal"
Eventually I might get around to caring about how someone who is so clearly does not understand children and adolescents ever get that job. Perhaps, at some point, I may even care enough about whether the costumes are innapropriate or not to ponder that question for a few nanoseconds.
At the moment, I'm still boggling over the fact that a real life Mr. Krupp is mad at some kids dressed as Captain Underpants.
What's he going to do next, accuse an ex-cheerleader and the school librarian of being in cahoots to bring down the mayor?
and to whomever felt the need to say they thought the costumes looked gross:
Well, yes, of course they do. That would, after all, be the point. This is Captain Underpants. Dav Pilkey originally came up with the idea when he was in second grade himself. Captain Underpant's foes include Professor Poopypants, Talking Toilets, the Wicked Wedgie Woman, and the Bionic Booger Boy.
If the costumes weren't silly and gross, they wouldn't be worthy of the title "Captain Underpants"
You know, I really don't understand all this mess. I have white shirts that, while they look perfectly fine and non-see through when I put them on, as soon as someone take a picture of me, you can clearly see the outline of my bra -even with a top on. I have pink shirts that do that too, and they're made of material that in no possible sense of the word would be described as 'see-through'.
This is an important point I think everyone is ignoring in their attempts to score points off each other--the picture is of questionable value as evidence because not all materials look the same under normal lighting as they do under the intense light of a camera flash. Therefore, any argument hinging on "you can make out that girl's bra in the picture" has a hole in it, the hole being that the picture doesn't prove the bra was perceptible under normal lighting conditions. (There are plenty of pictures out there of female celebrities on the red carpet, wearing tops that were probably opaque under normal conditions but became partially see-through under the photographers. Same idea.)
Doug, it's a valid point. I don't think that a flash was needed to take the picture in question but it may well have been the case.
Anyone remember the digal camcorder that had some kind of night-vision option that apparently made certain clothes see-through. They yanked it from the market and it brings big bucks on ebay. As others have pointed out though, being able to see through clothes might not be the thrill most teenaged boys think it would be--seeing bodies mashed up and squeezed against clothes would probably be more gross than titillating.
OTOH one can well imagine young Clark Kent absently staring in the direction of the girl's shower room during math class...
Funny that Doug should bring that up. A few of my TV working friends and I have wondered on more than one occasion if these, um, alternately translucent garments weren't picked on purpose for these events just to get people talking. Just to keep things even, I don't think that's what happened with these girls. I doubt that this is in the same country, let alone the same neighborhood, of the valedictorian who was pulled off the stage for mentioning Jesus in her speech when she'd been told over and over that Jesus couldn't be in her speech. The only thing I have to wonder about, seriously, is all three of them dressing as the same character. Was this planned, or was it "Let's see who's a better captain?" or was it that bane of teenage exisitence,"She's wearing the same outfit as me!"
I really think I've been spending too much time thinking about this. I'm gonna go watch Dracula.
[A cop-killer law] does not place a higher value on a cop's life.....
[The hate crime law] will make me feel like my life is somehow less valuable in the eyes of the law.Stricter sentencing either places a higher value on the life protected or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways, Bill Mulligan. Pick one and give it another try.
...because if we aren't supposed to hold you to what you say, why are you bothering to post here?
Bill, I'm astonished, ASTONISHED, that you would insinuate that a paragon of virtue like Clark Kent would stare in the girl's shower room during math class. After all, he stands for truth, justice, and all that stuff.
(Of course, he could look at it as the truth that he's got these powers, justice because none of the girls ever paid any attention too him, and what's more like the American way than looking at girls?
And, as a videographer, I wanted that camcorder as soon as I heard about it. Yeah, just because I'm a videographer...really...I'd never use it for evil...or e-VIL, as it were...
As I recall, it worked best on white spandex. Have you ever SEEN the kind of people who wear white spandex? Do you really WANT to see them naked?
Great, just GREAT. First, Bill, you make me think(they just finally got the smoke alarms to shut the $#%! up from THAT one) and now you put THAT visual into the vast wasteland between my ears. If I need to act scared on Tuesday, I'll just picture that...
And just hope the therapist has a LOT of open sessions.....
[A cop-killer law] does not place a higher value on a cop's life.
....
[The hate crime law] will make me feel like my life is somehow less valuable in the eyes of the law.
Bill Mulligan, I'm particularly glad you are retreating in a manner that leaves such little opposition to my explanation for the merit of hate crime law. Thank you.
I know that I'm slow and dimwitted, but how is a school headmaster sending home students inappropriately dressed a hate crime?
Megan, Peter said the principal's ruling on the costumes was like the merit of a hate crime law: "I think when you start punishing people for what they're thinking, you're on a slippery slope."
Then I proposed another justification for hate crime law, and Bill Mulligan became unhappy as it slowly dawned on him I was right.
Nor am I a big fan of punishing kids who are being clever. This, to me, was clever.
If anything, they were "punished" because they were not half as clever as they, or others, thought they were.
They dressed as a topless male hero, making the erronious assumption that most, if not all witnesses would be familiar with the character, a bald, obviously male character. Even with the body stockings, the three girls are very obviously girls. Also, all three have long hair, and at least one was wearing makeup. The first thing anybody unfamiliar with the character (and many familiar with him) would think upon seeing one of them would not be "Hey, Captain Underpants!" but "Hey, topless... er.. maybe not... girl." Regardless of their professed intention, it's, quite frankly, a half-assed costume, and a potentially (if not deliberately) racy one.
It's somewhat akin to what would happen if I slapped on some white body paint or a body stocking and a bikini, then got miffed because nobody got that I was supposed to be Lady Death, despite the short dark hair and beard, and the obvious lack of bazooms.
Now, I can't speak for the actual educators here, or the other young parents, but it worries me a little bit that people consistently bemoan the sad state of American puclic education, but then a relatively minor thing like this happens and some of the same people can't wait to try and undermine the authority of the school administration a little further. Especially the press. These girls turn on the water works and every reporter I've seen paints them as heroes and martyrs, with the principal as the villain of the piece, instead of just reporting the damn facts like they're supposed to.
(Oh, sorry about the new mental image, guys.)
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by: Jerry C at October 28, 2006 06:55 PM
Bill, you can have him back now.
Are you addressing me? Because, when I said he's "all yours," I meant it. I'm done with Mikey McTroll, dude.
"Megan, Peter said the principal's ruling on the costumes was like the merit of a hate crime law: "I think when you start punishing people for what they're thinking, you're on a slippery slope."
I have tried to frame several responses to this, but I remain flabbergasted at the leap from a headmaster doing his job, to thought police & hate crimes.
Bill,
Well, I was talking to you but it seems that Mulligan thought I was talking to him. Hey, it's all good by me. If he wants to deal with a twit that doesn't know the dif between one death VS thousands, can't figure out the dif between cartoon or comic characters and flesh and blood people and can't seem to grasp, either by being just plum stupid or lack of hands on knowledge, the dif between males and females (with all that that entails), then he can have him.
Have fun, Mulligan. Myers and I thank you for your selflessness and willingness to sacrifice yourself on our behalf.
:)
Rex, I can't equate this with the problem of teachers that are decidedly out of touch with the people they're teaching or not getting the resources they need or parents that just don't give a bleep. This just reflects the state of intitutions all over this country. They're so, SO afraid of offending someone and getting slapped with a lawsuit or losing their position that they do things like this. More is learned at school than the three R's. One of the big things that I learned over my years was "You need to fit into this pattern!" Well, I never fit into that pattern, still don't. But there are people out there that will just bow to the pressure, and let any sense of individuality be beaten out of them.
"quotes cherry-picked by "journalists" more interested in writing a superhero story than news."
I'm guessing that it was a slow news day.
Sean, sorry if I wasn't entirely clear on my meaning. The problems with public education are legion. The one I'm referring to specifically in this instance is the movement over the years to replace actual education, and the actual preparation of children and young adults for the real world with a desire to make sure that everybody feels important and nobody gets their feelings hurt.
More than one teacher I've had the pleasure to know has commented on how it's gotten to the point they're afraid to hand out F's. One has actually had parents show up and try to argue over their child's grades. It's gotten to where the students' and parents' opinions mean more than those of the educators. More and more we bemoan declining education standards, while more and more we take away the tools necessary to provide that education.
I know it's probably a bit of a digression from the original thread, but this situation is symptomatic of larger problems.
-Rex Hondo-
"rrlane at October 26, 2006 04:59 PM"
At my children's School (and their old Primary school), blazers are part of the Winter uniform and must be worn to and from school (boys and girls), and when out in the playground during Terms 2&3. They may remove them while in class, but need to wear them when moving between classrooms. For the Seniors (Yr11 &Yr12), the blazers must also be worn during Terms 1 & 4 (Autumn and Spring) to formal school functions such as a Full Assembly and Senior Assembly.
Have fun, Mulligan. Myers and I thank you for your selflessness and willingness to sacrifice yourself on our behalf.
The great thing is, if you just ignore him he keeps on trying to get you back into it! I keep checking back to see how many posts he's made begging for me to pay attention to him. It's nice to be wanted.
But I've had enough of an ego boost for one day. Hey Craig! Wanna crack at him?
"rrlane at October 26, 2006 04:59 PM"
At my children's high school (and their old Primary school), blazers are a part of the Winter uniform and must be worn traveling to and from School, moving between classrooms and out in the playground during Terms 2&3(Winter). They may take them off during class. Seniors (Yrs 11& 12) must also wear theirs for "formal" school functions such as Full School Assembly and Senior Assembly in Terms 1&4 (autumn and Spring).
> It's an allusion to a "Dilbert" comic strip wherein an animal character (I don't recognize which one, as I don't often read "Dilbert") brags about winning every argument on the Internet by saying the same thing: "How would you like it if Hitler killed you?"
Or, perhaps, it's a reference to the idea, mentioned in previous entries, that bringing Hitler into a debate was a sign the debate should be ended?
>>The idea behind hate crimes is that killing Sheherd for being gay is somehow worse than killing him for his sneakers or $25. If someone kills me I want them to get the full penalty regardless of whether they hated me, loved me, didn't like my political beliefs, had a grudge against white folks, whatever. let's focus here people--I'm dead!
Which would, to me, be what really matters, yes.
>>The idea behind stiffer penalties for cop killing is that killing cops destroys society's ability to protect itself, thus endangering us all. Which is to be discouraged. It does not place a higher value on a cop's life, just tries to discourage a situation which would put all of our lives in danger.
Doesn't wash. If someone massacres the family next door in some crazed, random killing spree, that's going to affect me a heck of a lot more than if a pusher takes out a narcotics officer on the other side of town. Subjectively, if not objectively. Try and convince me that [hypothetical case suggested by real ones] some drugged up maniacs breaking into my 88-year-old mother's domicile and beat, rape and kill her don't deserve to be put down like the mad dogs they are, just as much so as someone who kills a traffic cop or a random passer-by. And the best of luck to you.
>>in school cops can search your locker any time they wish.
See kids, school is indeed educational. You learn all sorts of useful things, such as the fact that unlawful searches laws apparently don't apply while you're in schools. Isn't that a useful lesson to learn about society?
>>Or a cell phone, in some schools
That one I'm all in favour of. Parents need to call the kid in an emergency can call the office and leave a message. Cell phones are used to cheat all over and have no place in school.
So, if anything, sending the girls home was potentially a riskier proposition for the principal, as is borne out by the reactions over the last couple of days. Many people are more inclined to accept the sob story of three teenage girls (teenagers, of course, being known for their fastidious adherence to the truth in all things) over the principal, based entirely on quotes cherry-picked by "journalists" more interested in writing a superhero story than news. The teachers who thought it was "cute?" All based on the girls' account. Multiple layers underneath the leotards? Not according to the photos. Being "singled out?" Well, girls, you did that yourselves by your choice of costume. All the other people supposedly running around in their underwear? Photos, or at least a reputable account showing this to be remotely true?
Anything, frankly, showing we should take the word of three kids of that of an adult?
-Rex Hondo-
See kids, school is indeed educational. You learn all sorts of useful things, such as the fact that unlawful searches laws apparently don't apply while you're in schools. Isn't that a useful lesson to learn about society?
Except that it's the school's locker, not the student's. Nothing illegal about searching their own property.
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 29, 2006 01:34 AM
The great thing is, if you just ignore him he keeps on trying to get you back into it! I keep checking back to see how many posts he's made begging for me to pay attention to him.
I know! Isn't it a hoot?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 29, 2006 01:34 AM
But I've had enough of an ego boost for one day. Hey Craig! Wanna crack at him?
Yikes. Craig, you could certainly mop up the floor with him. But do you really want to bother? It's like shooting fish in a barrel! :)
The great thing is, if you just ignore him he keeps on trying to get you back into it! I keep checking back to see how many posts he's made begging for me to pay attention to him. It's nice to be wanted.
Bill Mulligan,
Here are the plainly observable facts:
You said:
What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.
For comparison, here is the definition of genocide:
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
"Deliberate" meaning on purpose. "Systematic" meaning "presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles."
- You are trying to flatten the distinction between a race-based murder and murder. In effect, to render the word genocide obsolete.
- I expressed this by saying "Right.. There is no such thing as genocide. Check."
- On this, you call me a moron, and end the exchange.
As it stands, you've only left us to imagine that you are sheltering some kind of nazi sympathy and I touched on a nerve or something.
I didn't invent that problem any more than I invented the rain or the sky.
Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2006 06:04 AM
As it stands, you've only left us to imagine that you are sheltering some kind of nazi sympathy and I touched on a nerve or something.
ZING! In your face, Mulligan! There's just no beating this intellectual juggernaut!
Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2006 06:04 AM
I didn't invent that problem any more than I invented the rain or the sky.
Mike, I've noticed you've taken to repeating this phrase of mine. The fact that you can't even come up with your own rejoinders anymore, and have taken to appropriating mine, is a tacit acknowledgement of my intellectual superiority over you. Thank you for the implied compliment, and for finally recognizing who's who and what's what.
Of course, it seems as though every other poster in this thread is your intellectual superior. So I guess I shouldn't crow about that too awful much.
:P
"Micha, just to preface my question, I'm not trying to start an arguement with you, here. But in your post, you talk about someone who commits a hate crime being comparable to a terrorist or serial killer. I wonder, what exactly is it that marks the delineation between the three? I myself would've said all three can be intermingled, but if you've got some definition or idea or something I'd like to hear it."
A terrorist act and a hate crime have three things in common:
1) Propaganda of action -- By commiting the act the criminal is trying to send a political message delegitimizing the group he's attacked.
2) Terrorizing -- he wants the people belonging to the group to be able to live regular open lives without fear, and or work for their own political agendas.
3) Being part of a string of actions motivated by the same ideology -- he is likely to repeat the crime for the same ideological purposes, and or have others likeminded people commit similar crimes for the same purpose.
---------------------
""Megan, Peter said the principal's ruling on the costumes was like the merit of a hate crime law: "I think when you start punishing people for what they're thinking, you're on a slippery slope."
I have tried to frame several responses to this, but I remain flabbergasted at the leap from a headmaster doing his job, to thought police & hate crimes."
Peter's logic seems to be as follows:
If I oppose the legal administration increasing somone's punishment (perhaps in the name of a poltically correct way of thinking) for what he or she thinks (i.e. hate of gays etc.), then all the more reason to oppose an educational administrator punishing three girls, in the name of an over-conservative way of thinking, for something others (these conservatives), but the girls, think about their costumes (that they are sexualy provocative).
I don't think this was a very good way for Peter to make his point, but there it is. And I think the point he was trying to make is important. We all of aware of more serious situations in which the over sensitivity of one group was used to justify penalizing or curtailing the artistic choices of others.
-------------------
The reason for reference to the holocaust by Mike is obvious. The holocaust and hate crimes share in common bering acts of violence against a group motivated by racial hatred. However it is a really bad way to make a point. References to the holocaust usually are, which i the point of the Dilbert cartton, it seems.
-----------------
Rex, accusing the girls of lying in any way is baseless and wrong. The facts are known: the girls wore a costume which they felt were unfairly considered to be indecent by the principal, and which resulted in them being sent home. They disputed this decision in one of the few ways available for people who face unfair decisions by somebody holding administrative power, namely by appealing to public opinion through the press. You may agree with the principal that the costumes were too provocative (I don't), and that his decision to send them home was not an overreaction. You may think that the girls over reacted by fighting over such an insignificant decision (I'm not sure myself, it depends on the harm done to them by that decision). But, it is unfair to suggest they were lying. It is also pointless to refer as to the photos. We have all seem them, but obviously we don't all see them as indecent, or the thread would have been shorter. The only thing we are not sure of is how these costumes stand compared to other costumes stundents wore. At best we can assume, without being certain, that other costumes were also tight and involved wearing capes and/or underwear over the clothes.
- You are trying to flatten the distinction between a race-based murder and murder. In effect, to render the word genocide obsolete.
- I expressed this by saying "Right.. There is no such thing as genocide. Check."
- On this, you call me a moron, and end the exchange.
As it stands, you've only left us to imagine that you are sheltering some kind of nazi sympathy and I touched on a nerve or something.
ZING! In your face, Mulligan! There's just no beating this intellectual juggernaut!
My assertion is ridiculous, why? Because there's no such thing as a nazi?
If there's no such thing as a nazi, that must mean there's no such thing as genocide. By Bill Mulligan's definition, you're a moron, too.
Mike, I've noticed you've taken to repeating this phrase of mine.
Nurse Ratched, please don't tell my mother.
Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2006 07:05 AM
By Bill Mulligan's definition, you're a moron, too.
Mulligan!!! How could you have turned on me like this??? You BASTARD!!!!!!
You are trying to flatten the distinction between a race-based murder and murder. In effect, to render the word genocide obsolete.
And to be clear, I consider this different than Peter's objection to the slippery-slope aspect of hate crime law. Bill Mulligan conceded the establishment of intent:
What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.
Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2006 07:14 AM
Nerve, meet finger. Finger, meet nerve.
Mikey McTroll, you've found me out. The problem is, I realize I can never measure up to you and it's eating me alive.
I mean, you're roguishly handsome, you have a vast fortune, women want you, men want to be you, you won a Nobel Prize last year, and your deoderant is strong enough for a man but made for a woman.
How can I get out from under your shadow? Throw me a bone, Mike! Give me a reason to live!
Oh, wait, I think Peter is flattening the distinction between a race-based murder and murder. Ok, I guess I asked for whatever is coming from Peter. Go ahead.
Mike, don't you think there is another small objective difference between a single act of murder and the murder of millions other than being motivated by racial emotions? Maybe?
Don't you think a person can oppose punishing hate crimes more severly without actually denying that such crimes do exist?
Don't you think it is wrong to accuse a person you do not know of being a holocaust denier and nazi sympathiser based on a little (faulty) semantics?
After all, using the same reasoning it could be claimed that you consider the killing of millions that is not racially motivated to be better than the kililng of millions for racial reasons. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is not your opinion.
Okay, I'm done poking the troll with a stick.
I've been thinking about this issue in terms of a much larger context and decided to share my thoughts. I hope at least some of you find them worthwhile.
Before I address that larger context, I'd like to summarize my thoughts about the facts of this particular situation, and their implications:
Principal Restivo sent three girls home to change clothes because their "Captain Underpants" costumes. He acknowledged that they were not naked, but said "the appearance was that they were naked." This statement is vague, and lends itself to more than one plausible interpretation. It can be interpreted to mean he objected to their "simulated nudity." That same statement, however, can also reasonably be interpreted to mean that the girls, while full covered by clothing and therefore technically not "naked," were wearing leotards that were sheer enough so as to reveal what was underneath and thus gave the "appearance" of being naked.
One definition of the word "sheer," according to the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary (I could go downstairs to get my big honkin' Webster's but I think I can trust Encarta for this), is "so thin and fine as to be almost transparent." In at least two of the photos available at www.newsday.com, the bra of at least one of the girls is clearly visible. That meets the definition of "sheer." And as Jerry C has already correctly pointed out, the fact that I cannot with certainty identify its color does NOT mean that I cannot see it, or that it is merely an "outline." Was this merely a trick of the camera, or was this girl's bra equally visible to the naked eye? I submit to you that we do not know. But I also submit to you that the photographs in question preclude ruling out such a possibility.
According to Peter, one of the girls held up a tank top "on the news" (I'm assuming he meant the local T.V.) and claimed she was wearing it underneath her leotard. Maybe she was telling the truth and maybe she wasn't. Teenagers are at an age where they're "old enough to know what's right but young enough not to choose it," in the words of my favorite lyricist, Neal Peart (he of the rock band Rush).
So, here we are with uncertainty piled on top of uncertainty, and yet so many of us have regardless decided beyond a shadow of a doubt that Principal Restivo was just plain right or just plain wrong.
To put this issue in a slightly larger context, I was a team leader where I work for about a year-and-a-half. Before Mike pounces on the fact that I am no longer in this role, allow me to explain that I voluntarily left the position when I was offered another, higher-paying position elsewhere in the same company.
When I was younger I was always the in-your-face agitator, always quick to point out what management was doing wrong and wondering why they couldn't see it! Yeah, that was great for my career. As I grew older and wiser, I realized that it's easy to criticize leadership but harder to formulate the solution and even harder still to implement it. So, when offered the position of team leader, I saw this as my chance to determine once and for all if I had the stuff, or if I had just been full of hot gas.
According to my managers and even many of my subordinates, I succeeded quite well, thank you very much.
One of the things I learned, however, is that it is easier by far to criticize leaders than it is to be one. It's like watching someone try to thread a needle. You're sure you can do it better until, out of exasperation, they hand it to you and suddenly it's not so easy anymore. You go into it thinking you'll be the "good guy" across the board until you realize that it's not possible. You learn that at times the needs of the collective outweigh the needs of the individual.
Trust me, that was a distasteful realization for me. I was always the iconoclast, the rebel, the agitator.
To put this issue in a much larger context, there was a time when people respected authority figures and tradition far more than we do now. That had its advantages, but also a very big and very ugly dark side. For example, it meant that we tolerated racism far more than we do today; racism hasn't been eradicated but this nation no longer tolerates blatant Jim Crow laws and no longer accepts the "separate but equal" doctrine.
I look at the 1960s civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, and Watergate as a few watershed events that helped us see the folly of putting the collective ahead of the individual to the extent that we did. Unfortunately, humanity tends to move like a pendulum, from one extreme to the other. We've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. We are now at a place where authority figures are questioned to a point of causing near-paralysis. Now, when a principal sends girls home for the way they are dressed and it becomes a news story and the subject of lengthy debates.
This kind of attitude -- a near-presumption that authority figures are wrong unless proven otherwise -- comes with pernicious consequences. Because it is that same attitude that led a high school athletics coach in my old school district to be fired for attempting to punish his players. You see, they were throwing crap all over the bus while coming back from an away game, and one of them hit the bus driver in the head with an ice cube. That kind of distraction could have caused an accident. So the coach decided that the boys would be required to clean the bus. Unfortunately, the coach wasn't familiar with all of the cleaning products involved and many of the boys were sickened by fumes. No one was hospitalized or in any way suffered lasting harm, but the coach was fired and the boys were never given an alternative punishment. The lesson: whine and bleat and you can dodge the consequences of your actions. That is becoming increasingly truer in our society with each passing day, and it is just as pernicious as allowing the collective to hold too much power over the individual.
It is for that reason that I believe in a situation like this "Captain Underpants-gate," where there are significant and reasonable questions about what actually happened, where the principal was clearly acting within his authority, and where the consequences to the students were minor and easily forgettable, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the principal.
That's not a "cool" point of view but I believe it is the correct one.
So, here we are with uncertainty piled on top of uncertainty, and yet so many of us have regardless decided beyond a shadow of a doubt that Principal Restivo was just plain right or just plain wrong.
A fair assessment, Bill, but I'd add another category: There are those here that admit they weren't there and don't know the whole situation, and because of that are simply willing to give the trained professional the benefit of the doubt in lieu of more facts. We concede that there are poor administrators out there, but there are also poor journalists who will go out of their way to paint a story one way or the other to make it more appealing. Because of the latter, we don't assume this principal is one of the former.
Posted by: Rich Lane at October 29, 2006 09:26 AM
A fair assessment, Bill, but I'd add another category: There are those here that admit they weren't there and don't know the whole situation, and because of that are simply willing to give the trained professional the benefit of the doubt in lieu of more facts.
Oh, agreed. I hope my post didn't imply otherwise. In fact, I think you and I are saying the same thing in slightly different ways.
You'll note, Rich, that I came into this debate with one point of view but am coming away from it with another. Funny how that works sometimes, eh? ;)
"It is for that reason that I believe in a situation like this "Captain Underpants-gate," where there are significant and reasonable questions about what actually happened,"
I don't think there is as much doubt as you suggest. It is unfair to say that the girls were lying based on no evidence. And the pictures provide enough proof that the costumes were not transparent enough to reveal their bodies, but enough to reveal the color and shape of one bra (no flash was used, or there would be no shadows covering parts of their bodies). The principal's statement indicates that he was concerned about the appearance of nudity, despite the fact that the costume was not transparent. He may also have been concerned about the bra.
"where the principal was clearly acting within his authority, and where the consequences to the students were minor and easily forgettable, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the principal."
I agree to that part.
How can we have a society that questions authority without underminding it to the point of paralysis. a more balanced attitude would probably help. Both the principal and the girls reacted to extremely in a silly situation.
You'll note, Rich, that I came into this debate with one point of view but am coming away from it with another. Funny how that works sometimes, eh? ;)
That's the joy of honest friendly debate. If you come in with an open mind, secure in the knowledge you will not be roasted for having a different opinion, you may find information you hadn't thought of before and change you opinion without fear of being considered weak or being accused "flip-flopping." And even if you don't change your opinion, you find your thoughts crystallized and you hone your ability to state them clearly and succinctly.
I didn't change my mind, but I found myself having to sharpen and focus my ability to state it. Even the whole sidebar on nude vs. semi-nude served that purpose.
Posted by: Micha at October 29, 2006 09:36 AM
It is unfair to say that the girls were lying based on no evidence.
Micha, that is a gross mischaracterization of what I said (although given what a rational guy you are, I also know it was inadvertant). I was merely pointing out that we only have the girl's word that she was wearing a tank-top. I didn't say she was lying, but merely pointed out that the possibility exists.
Posted by: Micha at October 29, 2006 09:36 AM
And the pictures provide enough proof that the costumes were not transparent enough to reveal their bodies, but enough to reveal the color and shape of one bra (no flash was used, or there would be no shadows covering parts of their bodies).
No, they don't prove that at all. A photograph taken from a moderate distance (I can't tell how far away the photographer was -- cameras are good at zooming these days, but I'd guess he/she wasn't more than 10 or 20 feet away) is not the same as looking at something up close with the naked eye in indoor lighting. Thus I continue to maintain the photographs prove nothing more nor less than this: that you cannot rule out the possibility that the leotards were inappropriately sheer.
Posted by: Micha at October 29, 2006 09:36 AM
Both the principal and the girls reacted to extremely in a silly situation.
I disagree. The principal felt the girls' costumes were inappropriate and sent them home to change into something he deemed more appropriate. That's a very targeted and measured response. Yeah, I know, they received a negative mark on their attendance records. Trust me, when it comes time to apply for a career-maker of a position, ain't no one gonna be worried about their high school attendance record. They'll live.
Doesn't wash. If someone massacres the family next door in some crazed, random killing spree, that's going to affect me a heck of a lot more than if a pusher takes out a narcotics officer on the other side of town. Subjectively, if not objectively. Try and convince me that [hypothetical case suggested by real ones] some drugged up maniacs breaking into my 88-year-old mother's domicile and beat, rape and kill her don't deserve to be put down like the mad dogs they are, just as much so as someone who kills a traffic cop or a random passer-by. And the best of luck to you.
Oh look, I'm right there with you. Let's be honest-if, God forbid, anything were to happen to any member of my family it means a hell of a lot more to me than 100,000 Chinese people dying in an earthquake (Yes, I know, I just gave somebody the opportunity to claim "Mulligan hates Asians!". hey, it's almost his birthday.)
And I'll bet you'd agree that if the horrible scenario you mention were to happen a peaceful death like lethal injection is several oders of magnitude too kind for the scum. They should let you kill him in the cruelest way possible. Hell, I'll help you break up the glass rods and take photos as you shove them in.
But while I emotioally want that to be the case, rationally I don't want to live in the kind of world where that's how it works.
The life of a cop is worth no more tha that of you, me, or your grandmother. (and personally I'd have a minimum of life without parol for all 3). But the effect of scoiety as a whole, which is far larger than our circle of loved ones is greater if cops become, as in Iraq, sitting ducks. In such a world your grandmother is far more likely to have atrocities done upon her. So it seems to me to be a reasonable effort to try to prevent such a thing.
Thanks for the discussion though, it's good to have a disagreement worthy of reply.
See kids, school is indeed educational. You learn all sorts of useful things, such as the fact that unlawful searches laws apparently don't apply while you're in schools. Isn't that a useful lesson to learn about society?
Well, if it were illegal I think someone would have sued by now. The lockers are school property, thus the school can do with them as they wish. (at least, I think that's how it works. Anyone know for sure?)
That one I'm all in favour of. Parents need to call the kid in an emergency can call the office and leave a message. Cell phones are used to cheat all over and have no place in school.
yeah but it's such a lost cause. Almost every kid has one, even the poor ones. And when you take them be prepared to have an Angry Parent come to the school and raise holy hell, sometimes to the point of violence. Our administration just gave up on it and given the amount of time wasted and lack of any support from the community I don't blame them. But when some turd takes a picture of a girl in the shower and posts it around the school watch the lawsuits. THEN we will actually be able to confiscate them as a matter of law, but it will probably take something like that for it to happen.
(In fairness to the parents, it is not always easy to get through to classes, Our phone system is linked to our computer system and there are times when both go down. I would say that in an emergency it is ALWAYS possible to get somebody--even the principal has a, yeah, cell phone. But what constitutes an "emergency" varies from parent to parent.)
Mulligan!!! How could you have turned on me like this??? You BASTARD!!!!!!
Well, the groundswell of support for He Who Is Shrouded is just so overwhelming that I thought I might as well jump on the bandwagon. Sorry chum!
Okay, I'm done poking the troll with a stick.
Oh, but it was so funny! I mean, you're roguishly handsome, you have a vast fortune, women want you, men want to be you, you won a Nobel Prize last year, and your deoderant is strong enough for a man but made for a woman. had me almost spray coffee on the keyboard.
Your analysis was sober and even handed. meh, where's the fun in that? Couldn't you have thrown in something like "So, in conclusion, PAD is saying that the Roadrunner is the Anti-christ."?
"Well, if it were illegal I think someone would have sued by now. The lockers are school property, thus the school can do with them as they wish. (at least, I think that's how it works. Anyone know for sure?)"
For Virginia, that's about 100% the case. The lockers are school property and not the students' property. The schools don't want drugs or guns on their property so they can give the police the ok on going into the lockers.
Several schools around here won't even let you use your own lock. The lockers have combo locks that can also all be opened with the same master key. There is a slot to put a key lock on it, but that's for the school's use if they want to lock down the locker for some reason. If a student uses the slot and adds their own key lock, the school cuts it off and the student is out the money for the lock. If the same student does it again, they can get zinged for it by the school.
Several schools around here won't even let you use your own lock. The lockers have combo locks that can also all be opened with the same master key. There is a slot to put a key lock on it, but that's for the school's use if they want to lock down the locker for some reason. If a student uses the slot and adds their own key lock, the school cuts it off and the student is out the money for the lock. If the same student does it again, they can get zinged for it by the school.
That's pretty much the case everywhere, I think. Here, the lockers have built in combination locks with no place to secure a padlock if you wanted to use one. The office keeps all the combinations on file.
The problem at our school isn't kids wanting to keep their lockers locked, it's that some try to jimmy them so they DON'T lock. They use them as drop off points for drugs and other contraband.
The problem at our school isn't kids wanting to keep their lockers locked, it's that some try to jimmy them so they DON'T lock. They use them as drop off points for drugs and other contraband.
We've had some kids here who use pens to exchange money--they roll a $100 bill so small that it can fit in.
Of course, it's easy to lose a pen. Legend has it that some teachers have gotten an unexpected supplement by checking dropped pens.
More evidence that drug use really DOES make you stupid...
Hey Craig! Wanna crack at him?
Umm. I haven't even bothered to follow the posts involving him.
Wow. I woke up this morning with no clue as to what was really going on in the world or what has really happened in the last fifty some years of history. Then I started to read the last twelve hours of posts and really started to think about the wisdom I have been missing in my arrogance and ignorance.
And, my god, the conspiracy is of epic proportions!!!!
Lets look at the facts that we, the lowly and unworthy, have been blessed to be graced with. If there is no such thing as a Nazi then there is no such thing as genocide. But it has been proven that some of us are, so it seems, Nazi sympathizers and you can only be a sympathizer if there really are Nazis. But, if the elimination of Nazis means there can be no genocides, then it stands to reason that all genocides must be committed by Nazis. Q.E.D.
Now, this is the scary bit. I mean, this is the really scary bit. That little bit of information that we were blessed to be enlightened with has pulled the veil from my eyes and staggered the foundations of my beliefs and my trust of authority. We lost WWII and we've been lied to ever since!!!!
Darfur, Rwanda, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Burma, Chad, Sudan, the Ethiopian Anuak, the Middle East and others. All examples of genocides. But... but... but... You can't have genocides without Nazis!!! That means that the Nazis did all this and that they're everywhere!!!
That can only mean that we've been lied to all these years. Our TV, movies, books, history.... Everything we "know" has been whitewashed to conceal the Nazi victory and keep us in the dark. We've been tricked into complacency and inaction by parlor tricks and propaganda. The evil is running unchecked throughout the world!!!
But, now... Now we have been blessed with a prophet whose greatest gift is to see arguments of logic in ways that we mere mortals can only imagine being able to comprehend. And he has led us to the truth with his mighty vision.
"If there's no such thing as a nazi, that must mean there's no such thing as genocide."
The foundation of the lie is crumbling my brothers! We have been led to the truth!! We can now stand up and fight the power!!! Now we can fight to take back our world and make the world safe for democracy!!!!
Long live the revolution. This is the voice of Radio Free America. And lets give out a special thanks to the new Great Prophet M.*
*The Great Prophet M would like it noted that the first official "secret" meeting of the revolution will be held in his basement on November 1, 2006 at precisely 10:00 am. Kool-Aid will then be served promptly at 10:25 am.
Yeah, after rereading it, I confess that even I now think that that was an overly silly post.
Still, it's no sillier then Great Prophet M's actual posts where he's trying to be serious.
:)
"Of course, it's easy to lose a pen. Legend has it that some teachers have gotten an unexpected supplement by checking dropped pens."
Oh, it's don't lose your PEN!!! Damn I'm a fool. I've been misunderstanding the bank warnings all these years. No wonder I can't keep any real money in savings.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 29, 2006 12:20 PM
Umm. I haven't even bothered to follow the posts involving him.
You are a wise man.
Jerry C, yeah, your post was overly silly. That's because you omitted one key fact, so horrifying that I almost dare not utter it for fear of my own life:
Bill Mulligan is the architect of the entire conspiracy. Even the stuff that happened before he was born. He's that good.
Now I must go into hiding, before Mulligan, the master of the great Nazi/Illuminati/United Auto Workers conspiracy, sends his cybernetic monkey space-alien assassins to eliminate me.
See, the Nazi/Illuminati/United Auto Workers Axis of Evil exists to pave the way for the return of the Cybernetic Monkey Space-Gods, who at one time ruled the earth and will do so again.
Rex Hondo said:
"As to the principal's stated reasons for sending the girls home, perhaps he's just not comfortable when confronted with the press, especially when said press seems bound and determined, instead of just reporting the story, to make him into some sort of hand-wringing, mustachio-twirling villain."
Simple solution --- the principal should shave off his mustache.
Rich Lane said that he was done unless somebody dragged him back into the argument.
Right. Just like I told the Local Comics Shop that I was no longer buying Loveless because the latest issue was drawn so poorly.
I was just looking for an excuse to drop the book, as I didn't find it satisfying enough to continue purchasing.
Just as, I suspect, Rich was just looking for an excuse to get back into the argument. :)
As far as I can tell, I haven't been dragged back in. I haven't added any additional information, nor have I engaged in any more debate, so I'm not quite sure what you mean. I never said I was taking a vow of silence or that I was walking away from the thread. In all honesty, I'm not a big fan of "take my marbles and go home" dramatic exits.
If I gave that impression, I apologize.
Posted by: Rich Lane at October 29, 2006 02:52 PM
I apologize.
Really? Why?
Seriously, you needn't apologize. Even if you did say "I'm not coming back" and then you did, you wouldn't be hurting anybody.
Really? Why?
Seriously, you needn't apologize. Even if you did say "I'm not coming back" and then you did, you wouldn't be hurting anybody.
Because apologizing doesn't hurt me either. :)
Seriously, I can see it appearing that I intended to walk away completely when I just got tired of saying the same thing over and over. I was apologizing for leaving the wrong impression because otherwise it may weaken my arguments in the future if I simply come across as melodramatic. That was not my intent.
Bill Mulligan is the architect of the entire conspiracy. Even the stuff that happened before he was born. He's that good.
Damn you, Myers!
Now I must go into hiding, before Mulligan, the master of the great Nazi/Illuminati/United Auto Workers conspiracy, sends his cybernetic monkey space-alien assassins to eliminate me.
Oh you WISH! My cybernetic monkey space-alien assassins would be all to merciful!!! What I have prepared for you will be such torture as to make even Prometheus weep! The heavens themselves will shudder at the sounds of your agonies!
In other words, it will really hurt.
I just don't understand why the fuss over the headmaster's actions. Then again as I said days ago, I wouldn't let them leave the house dressed like that in the first place.
It is unfair to say that the girls were lying based on no evidence.
Micha, that is a gross mischaracterization of what I said (although given what a rational guy you are, I also know it was inadvertant). I was merely pointing out that we only have the girl's word that she was wearing a tank-top. I didn't say she was lying, but merely pointed out that the possibility exists.
Actually, I think that one may have been mostly, if not entirely directed at me. I apologise if i gave the impression that I was flat out declaring perfidy on the part of the girls. There may have been a perfectly innocent reason she removed the tank top from between the bra and leotard before the photo shoot. We'll probably never know.
The disappearing and reappearing tank top, along with other questionable statements may not be enough to condemn them as liars, but are certainly enough to raise questions as to the veracity of their claims.
Oh, and for those of you eagerly awaiting my mind's-eye scarring mental image of the day. I've also been pondering the possibilities of a Silver Surfer costume consisting of little more than a thong and silver body paint.
-Rex Hondo-
But look on the bright side, guys! We have a nice, shiny new thread to point to whenever the next guy tries to accuse us of being a bunch of knee-jerk, lockstep PAD-zombies. ;)
-Rex Hondo-
> And I'll bet you'd agree that if the horrible scenario you mention were to happen a peaceful death like lethal injection is several oders of magnitude too kind for the scum.
State of mind I might be in by then? Possibly. But I'd just be happy they'd be gone for good and no longer any even potential threat to society.
As for students not being allowed their own locks and all that sort of thing, it may be common in schools now but, if so, it's just another sign of how far down society has gone, because it didn't used to be. Then again, there was no perceived need for it back then, either. A time to worry.
> And I'll bet you'd agree that if the horrible scenario you mention were to happen a peaceful death like lethal injection is several oders of magnitude too kind for the scum.
State of mind I might be in by then? Possibly. But I'd just be happy they'd be gone for good and no longer any even potential threat to society.
As for students not being allowed their own locks and all that sort of thing, it may be common in schools now but, if so, it's just another sign of how far down society has gone, because it didn't used to be. Then again, there was no perceived need for it back then, either. A time to worry.
> And I'll bet you'd agree that if the horrible scenario you mention were to happen a peaceful death like lethal injection is several oders of magnitude too kind for the scum.
State of mind I might be in by then? Possibly. But I'd just be happy they'd be gone for good and no longer any even potential threat to society.
As for students not being allowed their own locks and all that sort of thing, it may be common in schools now but, if so, it's just another sign of how far down society has gone, because it didn't used to be. Then again, there was no perceived need for it back then, either. A time to worry.
As for students not being allowed their own locks and all that sort of thing, it may be common in schools now but, if so, it's just another sign of how far down society has gone, because it didn't used to be. Then again, there was no perceived need for it back then, either. A time to worry.
I don't think I'd disagree with you on that. At least my school doesn't have metal detectors yet.
I've also been pondering the possibilities of a Silver Surfer costume consisting of little more than a thong and silver body paint.,
I hope it's warm where you are, or you're going to follow that up with the Amazing Pneumonia Man.
Peter,
After my post Sunday 7:26 pm, I made an attempt to post a little before 9 pm and discovered you were screening the thread. Your tech support should be able to confirm this. I don't know what's going on, but can I still at least make my point that cop-killing is a form of hate crime?
The idea behind stiffer penalties for cop killing is that killing cops destroys society's ability to protect itself, thus endangering us all....
Hell, you could also add a few others--killing a fireman while he/she's on the job ought to have an extra penalty as well.
No, there are no firemen-killer laws. You submitted and withdrew your justification for cop-killer laws in the same post.
This leaves that cop-killing is a form of hate crime. The excuse has yet to be made for withholding the same protection where the same vulnerability exists.
Fianlly, it all makes sense! What are laws before they're laws?? Bills. What do you have to pay every month or your life is in financial ruin? Bills. These companies don't casre, they just have to keep tithing to Mulligan! Which leads me to my next point, a Mulligan! Which refers to a do-over in the game of golf, which is the preferred game of executives everywhere, they who have the power over our very exsistence! By calling out Mulligan's name, a person can take absolute control of the game quietly, in much the same way Bill obviously did with the world. He also hands out titles, like Rex with the Amazing Pneumonia Man! (BTW, Rex, do you just sit somewhere and think of things to mess with people's heads?)
Rich, your school doesn't have metal detectors yet? I thought they were pretty much standard issue nowadays, but then, I work in TV, so everyone knows my head is odd.
Three questions I've got about the original topic. (Don't know that anyone'll have the answers around here, these are just things to think about.) First off, where I come from,
kids have to be signed out by their parents, they can't just leave, even if they are seniors. So, that being the case, if this school has a similar procedure, obviously the girls' parents would have had to be there, so why didn't the prinicpal jus tell the girls' parents to bring something so he wouldn't object to the costumes? And, second question, ready, good, if the principal's reasoning had been perhaps explained better would the reaction be a bit different? Taken as it's been reported, his arguement boils down to little more than "Because I said so." Too many people are too willing to just blindly follow whoever is in charge without question. Authority needs to be questioned and people need to feel free to question it. They also need to understand that just because they can question it, sometimes authority is right. Anyway, third question if anybody's still awake. Would there have been the same reaction if it was three boys dressed as the good Captain? Or, say, as three members of the Swedish Bikini Team? (If there were, maybe they'd have a place for you, Rex.)
Rich, your school doesn't have metal detectors yet? I thought they were pretty much standard issue nowadays, but then, I work in TV, so everyone knows my head is odd.
Not yet, at least. We have our share of problems, to be sure. Just input "Titusville, PA" and "crystal meth" into Google and you will find my home town is the meth capital of the United States (not hyperbole--we've been called that by several higher ups in law enforcement). But meth, alcohol and other illicit drugs wouldn't be caught by metal detectors, and thus far we don't have the types of problems that they *would* catch (i.e., guns, knives, etc.).
I'm at a different computer that I hadn't changed to "Rich Lane" yet, so I just wanted to verify the above *is* from me.
I used to be a teacher. I think the worst I encountered was the time another teacher got in trouble for mentioning that Jesus was a Jew!
Fortunately, I taught science, so I only got in trouble for failing to teach "creationism," "intelligent design," or "religion," whichever you care to call it.
"After my post Sunday 7:26 pm, I made an attempt to post a little before 9 pm and discovered you were screening the thread. Your tech support should be able to confirm this."
I'm not screening anything. Wouldn't know how to even if I wanted to. Frankly, I stopped reading this thread because I'd made all the points I felt worth making and thought it had gone completely off the rails. Other boards will shut down such threads, but I tend to let such things run their course. Only reason I'm replying to this is because you sent me an e-mail about it.
"I don't know what's going on, but can I still at least make my point that cop-killing is a form of hate crime?"
You can make whatever point you want, but cop killing is only "a form" of hate crime if you define "a form" as being not really remotely it, but you want to apply the term to it.
Definition of hate crime I picked up off google: "Crime of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal homicide, motor vehicle theft, robbery, sex offenses, and/or crime involving bodily injury in which the victim was intentionally selected because of the victims' actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability."
Keep in mind, I have NO problem with extra penalties for assaulting or killing a cop. They're on the front line of attempting to keep the more vile elements of society reined in. Anything that exists to deter the bad guys or make them think twice about attacking cops, I support.
But if you kill a cop, you go down for killing a cop. If you're a black perp and you shoot a white cop because you hate white guys, that shouldn't factor in, and same for a white perp capping a black cop. Sentencing should factor into the action itself, not the reasons for the action beyond the establishing of motive for legal purposes.
See, that's why the concept of "hate crimes" is, to me, kind of silly. The argument could be made that killing someone because of the clothes he wears (which is, let's face it, what cop killing is) is just as vile and arbitrary as killing someone for the color of his skin. And that's a very valid point. So let's add clothing to hate crimes. But...what about hair, or lack thereof? Let's say that a perp has no trouble with black men, but he hates black men with shaved heads, and so he shoots Taye Diggs. "Your honor, honest, it wasn't that he's black, it's the shaved head, that's what put me over." So do we refuse to charge him with a hate crime on that basis?
I should emphasize that the only thing I was pointing out when I brought up the notion was that, once you start punishing people for thoughts, you've opened up a huge can of worms. And that punishing the girls because of the thoughts other people might have about them was inherently ridiculous. Considering the endless discussion this has led to since then, I have to think my original point is pretty much borne out.
PAD
For whatever it's worth, I showed the photo to my six-year-old son (and major Captain Underpants fan), devoid of any context. It was simply a "look at what these girls dressed up as" interaction.
His reply? "Hey, they don't have black polka-dots on their capes!" There's a budding fanboy... ;-)
Oh, and count me as a "The principal was being a Poopyhead" supporter. What's the point of letting the kids dress as superheroes for "Fun Week" if they can't have fun? It's not as if the school couldn't have supported other, wardrobe-safe "fun" activities instead.
--R.J.
, "and count me as a "The principal was being a Poopyhead" supporter. What's the point of letting the kids dress as superheroes for "Fun Week" if they can't have fun? It's not as if the school couldn't have supported other, wardrobe-safe "fun" activities instead."
I feel very sorry for the Headmaster of that School. The headmaster is the "Unpire". Not only do three of his students, who wouldn't "accept the umpire's ruling", show disrespect for his position and authority, they run to the media and whip up a storm in a tea cup, and try to further undercut his position. None of us were there on the day, none of us are aware of any boundaries re costuming that may have been spelled out prior to the day - I don't believe for a minute that there weren't. I can only go by the photos - these girls look as if they were trying to push to see what they could get away with. When they were called on it, they kicked up a stink because they couldn't get their own way. Setting and imposing boundaries are not hate crines and thought police. Children need boundaries.
Would those cybernetic monkey space-alien assassins be wearing bras or tank tops?
"I just don't understand why the fuss over the headmaster's actions. Then again as I said days ago, I wouldn't let them leave the house dressed like that in the first place.I just don't understand why the fuss over the headmaster's actions. Then again as I said days ago, I wouldn't let them leave the house dressed like that in the first place."
It would seem the girls' parents didn't have a problem with the costume. It also seems that Peter, as a parent, doesn't have a problem with it. Part of the question is whether the principal, as an administrator, should be as sensitive as the parents who wouldn't let their girls come dressed like that or the ones who do?
----------------
I have not followed the media involving this story, but it seems to me that most of the questions concerning the veracity of the pictures, the tank top, and the clarity of the principal's statements came from the discussions here. Did the principal revise his statement, or claim that the girls' claims concerning their dress are not true? Did the girls' claim that the photos misrepresent their costume, or that the principal claims something that is not factualy true? If not, I don't see much point for these speculations, since the basic issue -- the principal felt the costume resembled nudity to much, the girls didn't -- is sufficient. I also was afraid that suggesting the girls were not telling the truth was used in order to make them -- as a side in this dispute -- look bad without actual proof.
------------
I think the fact that the punishment for the costumes was so insignificant (as pointed by Bill), suggests that they did not challenge the principal's decision because they were trying to avoid the punishment.
----------------
Both the cop kililng laws and the hate crimes laws are based on the assumption that the significance of the crime goes beyond the boundries of regular murder.
Also, it should be pointed out that the thoughts of a criminal make a difference between degrees of murder.
I'm not sure about this issue myself, but I understand the reasoning of both sides of the issue.
"I feel very sorry for the Headmaster of that School. The headmaster is the "Unpire". Not only do three of his students, who wouldn't "accept the umpire's ruling", show disrespect for his position and authority, they run to the media and whip up a storm in a tea cup, and try to further undercut his position."
I find that comment interesting for two reasons. First, you're 100% willing to believe the absolute best of the principal and the absolute worst of the students, up to and including the assumption that they contacted the news media. How do you know they did? How do you know that any other pupil in the school didn't do it? Or one of the kids' parents? How do you know that the school newspaper didn't tip off Newsday? How do you know that perhaps the reporter was already there covering Superhero day and lucked into more of a story than she was originally expecting?
You don't.
Although, considering the ungodly amount of time that has been spent discussing the visibility of their bras, rather than referring to it as a tempest in a tea cup, a more appropriate comparison might be making mountains out of mole hills.
Second, let's say they did take it upon themselves to call the newspapers. They would have been undercutting nothing. They put their views and position out there, and the principal was fully able to respond in the context of the news coverage.
PAD
How do you know that perhaps the reporter was already there covering Superhero day and lucked into more of a story than she was originally expecting?
You don't.
They are underage, and this has to do with discipline. They could not go public with the kids' names or their pictures without parental permission.
So in other words, they may not have contacted the press, but the story wouldn't and couldn't run without the parents' say so. At least not under any laws in the U.S. that I'm aware of.
I find that comment interesting for two reasons. First, you're 100% willing to believe the absolute best of the principal and the absolute worst of the students,
Actually, I think many people have said things akin to,
Posted by: rrlane at October 26, 2006 02:00 PM
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.
And
Posted by: Rich Lane at October 28, 2006 09:02 AM
Does that make him a Solomon of wisdom? Nope, but it sure as hell give him the benefit of the doubt when all the internet arm chair quarterbacks come out spouting the right way to do his job.
Most of the other posters who haven't automatically sided with the girls seem to echo these thoughts, so I really don't know where that notion of "absolute best" and "worst" is coming from.
I think that we will have to agree to disagree re this topic. We obviously hold different opinions regarding headmasters' roles,m obligations, rights and resposibilities, students and appropriate behaviour. Perhaps this is a cultural difference.
I think that we will have to agree to disagree re this topic.
Don't go there...
"Second, let's say they did take it upon themselves to call the newspapers. They would have been undercutting nothing. They put their views and position out there, and the principal was fully able to respond in the context of the news coverage.
PAD"
On second thoughts - they 're holding the headmaster up as an object of ridicule, this can reduce his ability to do his job. If these and other students believe the headmaster to be an object of ridicule and fair game, how can he effectively run the school?
"I find that comment interesting for two reasons. First, you're 100% willing to believe the absolute best of the principal and the absolute worst of the students, up to and including the assumption that they contacted the news media."
This from the guy who started this thread by willing to believe the absolute worst of the principal and the absolute best of the girls and started calling the guy cutesy, clever names to further denigrate the man from the get go.
Glass houses, man.
Posted by: Peter David at October 30, 2006 04:21 PM
First, you're 100% willing to believe the absolute best of the principal and the absolute worst of the students, up to and including the assumption that they contacted the news media.
Just as you're equally willing to believe the absolute best of the students and the absolute worst of the principal.
Posted by: Micha at October 30, 2006 04:02 PM
I also was afraid that suggesting the girls were not telling the truth was used in order to make them -- as a side in this dispute -- look bad without actual proof.
Micha, I wasn't trying to cast aspersions on the girls' veracity. My point was merely this: just because someone -- anyone -- says "such-and-such is true" doesn't make it so. That's why witnesses are cross-examined in courts and why good journalists (an increasingly endangered species) attempt to corroborate their stories.
Or, to put it more simply: we weren't there. Principal Restivo was. Period.
As I said in an earlier post, authority figures are becoming increasingly paralyzed by those who would question their every decision under the presumption that those in charge are wrong until proven otherwise. This is just as pernicious as giving the collective too much power over the individual.
It is equally pernicious to exaggerate the effects of limit-setting by authority figures. These girls were sent home to change clothes! I don't recall them being assigned to some kind of indoctrination camp where they were brainwashed into agreeing never to do anything like that anywhere in the world ever again. And as far as being given a negative mark on their attendance records -- *yawn*. They'll live.
Trust me, I know all about the way schools discourage creativity. When I was in high school, I wrote a play and decided I wanted to produce and direct it. I did so, successfully. But I also encountered resistance, interference and censorship from the administration, the drama club advisor, and even my own mother! (Trust me, that last one is a sore spot.) I also experienced a real lack of support from most of the rest of the school. It was the first time in the school's history that a student wrote, produced, and directed an original play at the school, yet the vast majority of the faculty and administration didn't give a crap. I had to do my own promotion. I had to scream at the top of my lungs to get a budget even though the drama club advisor approved the production and promised me funds. The list goes on and on.
I still managed to get enough people to attend that the show broke even. And to this day I have the satisfaction of knowing that at the age of 17 I did something at my school that had never been done before -- or since.
Yeah, there's a point to this. Schools don't do much to encourage individuality. Never have. I doubt they ever will. But that doesn't mean they're capable of killing it, either. My school certainly didn't kill mine, despite having tried.
As an aside, want to know who gave me the idea to write a play? You did, Peter, at a comic-book convention in Rochester sometime around '85 or '86.
Posted by: Megan at October 30, 2006 04:58 PM
?
Posted by: Peter David at October 27, 2006 05:22 PM
"No new information is being added now, nor are there any new insights. Time to agree to disagree and leave it at that."
Good thing it's your blog and you get to make that determination...
PAD
"as a tempest in a tea cup, a more appropriate comparison might be making mountains out of mole hills."
How about a tempest in a "B" cup? :-)
Rich, I'm not really following you from your last post. Whether or not the reporter was already there, or whether parental permission was gotten, what does this have to do with discipline? Now, the principal's actions could be seen as having to do with discipline, but from all his reported statements, all he was worried about was the appearance of nudity and what someone might think. Someone ELSE, not these three girls. Are these valid things for a principal to worry about? Heck, yeah. But, as a principal, someone with the master's degree you spoke of and at least 10 years of teaching, a person would think someone like that could communicate more effectively. For one thing, it'd be a heck of an example to the students. Some people would say with the reporter in his face, he blurted out the first thing that came to mind. (I wouldn't be one of them, since I know how reporters always look for sound bytes.) Again, someone with the training and experience that you ascribe to him should know by this point to always have a reasoned response ready. If you don't have one, take a moment(which far too few people do) weigh your position then respond. (Somewhere, there's a pot looking for me, saying "Are you still black, kettle?" but I usually choose to let my video speak for me.) But I'm sure that enough people in Long Island(and now all of us) have become familiar with this story that someone somewhere would want to know what his stand is. Don't be surprised if you see some article with his explanation somewhere.
Rich, I'm not really following you from your last post. Whether or not the reporter was already there, or whether parental permission was gotten, what does this have to do with discipline? Now, the principal's actions could be seen as having to do with discipline, but from all his reported statements, all he was worried about was the appearance of nudity and what someone might think. Someone ELSE, not these three girls. Are these valid things for a principal to worry about? Heck, yeah. But, as a principal, someone with the master's degree you spoke of and at least 10 years of teaching, a person would think someone like that could communicate more effectively. For one thing, it'd be a heck of an example to the students. Some people would say with the reporter in his face, he blurted out the first thing that came to mind. (I wouldn't be one of them, since I know how reporters always look for sound bytes.) Again, someone with the training and experience that you ascribe to him should know by this point to always have a reasoned response ready. If you don't have one, take a moment(which far too few people do) weigh your position then respond. (Somewhere, there's a pot looking for me, saying "Are you still black, kettle?" but I usually choose to let my video speak for me.) But I'm sure that enough people in Long Island(and now all of us) have become familiar with this story that someone somewhere would want to know what his stand is. Don't be surprised if you see some article with his explanation somewhere.
Okay, here's a new wrinkle. Just looked for the article I said I wouldn't be surprised about, went wcbstv.com(funny to go there without looking for work!) and the last line of the article said that he wouldn't have any visible underwear in his school. So, if they had just worn white shorts would they have been okay? My head hurts. I've just been thinking way too much about underpants. And not in THAT way, Rex. I have nightmares about the Silver Surfer tongiht and I ain't going to be happy.
Whether or not the reporter was already there, or whether parental permission was gotten, what does this have to do with discipline?
The students were sent home by the principal. Whether or not you or I want to call that a punishment is irrelevant; it is a disciplinary action. As such, the principal (assuming laws there are similar to the laws in every other state I have personal knowledge of) is precluded from discussing the incident without parental permission. If I said to you right now "I had to hold [student name] after class for talking during a test" and that student's parents found out about, I would be in dire jeopardy of losing my job. Thus we know that the principal almost certainly didn't initiate the contact with the newspaper, and had he been asked any questions by the newspaper, without the parents' permission, all he could say was the equivalent of "no comment."
Again, someone with the training and experience that you ascribe to him should know by this point to always have a reasoned response ready.
I don't really see where one necessitates the other. I know of many teachers who are excellent in the classroom who blanch at the thought speaking in front of other adults. Why would he have a statement prepared? This is a non-issue, a routine matter of discipline. If I had held a kid after class today, and found a reporter in my classroom when I came back from lunch who wanted to grill me on it, I doubt would be very eloquent.
Also, (and I am NOT disparaging news reporters as a group here)I have known many instances of reporters taking things out of context and/or simply getting things wrong (The one I love is Roger Ebert, in his review of the movie Spawn, showing his complete knowledge of all things comic books by saying "That's what comic book writers call the "origination story,"). Maybe the reporter is 100% correct. Maybe he wasn't.
Don't be surprised if you see some article with his explanation somewhere.
I wouldn't doubt it.
"But Restivo made his decree: There would be no visible underpants in his hallways."
Doesn't really help the deabte either way. He said underpants and not underwear. That could be what was on the outside or the inside.
The vid link on the page does hit a few good points though. Amongst other things, it says the principal didn't act on his own. He contacted his higher ups and they agreed with him.
"This from the guy who started this thread by willing to believe the absolute worst of the principal and the absolute best of the girls and started calling the guy cutesy, clever names to further denigrate the man from the get go.
Glass houses, man."
More like apples and oranges, man.
I based all my comments on the on-the-record material in the newspaper. Yes, I drew conclusions based upon what was there, plus what I saw in the TV news coverage. Everything I said was anchored in what was on the public record.
That's a far cry from what I've seen here--comments, speculation and condemnation based, not upon what was reported, but individual interpretations and suppositions. Saying, "I think what the principal did was wrong based upon what was reported is one thing." Saying, "The principal said X but he undoubtedly meant Y" or "When the Principal said he sent them home because they appeared nude, he really was talking about bra outlines" or "The girls contacted the press"...THAT is giving every benefit of the doubt to the principal and none to the students.
PAD
Rich, don't get me wrong. By every measurement known to, well, me, what the principal did was discipline. I'm still not seeing the connection, though, to whether or not the reporter was there or the parental permission. Either these facts doesn't have anything to do with discipline.
I wasn't saying that he should have a "statement"(which I usually read as 99.992 per cent padding anyway. I just think a bit more reasoned response would've saved him a lot of headaches. Guarantee he spendsat least the next three years as Principal Poopypants. Off the top of my head, I can come up with a half dozen responses still in line with what he was trying to say but do so more clearly. But then, I specialize in writing dialogue, so maybe I should disqualify myself from writing his speeches.
And in your scenario, with your invasive reporter, I have little doubt that you'd be a bit more eloquent, but I say that based on two things. You've expressed yourself clearly in everything I've seen, and the kid in question would obviously have done SOMETHING to warrent being held after. Something besides wearing underwear on the outside, I mean. And with your description of reporters(this is the reason I don't work TV news) some of them out there are serious versions of Stephen Colbert, always asking the leading questions and only reporting that which supports their angle. I could tell you a few stories of this happening with people I know.
Jerry, looking at that article, were you also left wishing the reporter had either A)found out who these higher-ups were, and B) contacted THEM for comment? MAybe THEY could've given a clearer reason.
I'm still not seeing the connection, though, to whether or not the reporter was there or the parental permission. Either these facts doesn't have anything to do with discipline.
I'm not sure where the disconnect is, so I'm going to assume I'm being fuzzy on the explanation somewhere and try again.
The principal was quoted in the story talking about what he did with the girls. Since he would be discussing a disciplinary action, he would be breaking the law if the parents of these minors did not already give permission to discuss it.
I'm not sure on the laws regarding whether the paper could interview the girls without the parents' permission. That may be entirely legal. And they could certainly call/talk to the principal about, but he could not say a blessed thing without the parents having okayed it.
So maybe there was a reporter there covering the "event" (slow news day, I guess). And maybe he/she heard about three girls sent home, and maybe he caught them on the way out the door and took pictures. If he went back to the school and asked the principal for his comments, the principal would have told him he could not discuss it. The reporter would then have to go to the parents, get (more than like written) permission from them to discuss the story and go back or call the principal.
This means that the students may/may not have called the paper, but they didn't stand by wringing their hands helplessly as the story went on without their consent. More than likely, therefore, the students and their parents had control over whether this story went through.
And purely conjecture on my part, but I doubt the paper just stumbled upon the story while covering the event. Any reporters who come to our school for human interest stories come in, snap two pictures and get names, and are out of there faster than you can get breakfast at McDonalds. Even if they had heard about the girls in the brief time they were there, they wouldn't be allowed (in my experience) to wander the halls to find out who they were, nor would the office be allowed to supply them the names legally even if they were so inclined.
By calling out Mulligan's name, a person can take absolute control of the game quietly, in much the same way Bill obviously did with the world.
Also, if you say my name 3 times in a mirror bad shit happens.
Rich, your school doesn't have metal detectors yet? I thought they were pretty much standard issue nowadays, but then, I work in TV, so everyone knows my head is odd.
I donm't even know how those things could work--the amount of bling on come kids would set off anything. I'm surprised they don't make the compasses on passing jets spin. we only have 1 sad little detector and we only use it at games. Did I ever tell you about the MORON who tried to bring in a gun-lighter and got all bent out of shape when we told him he could not take his lighter--which looked exactly like a handgun--into a school function.
I'm at a different computer that I hadn't changed to "Rich Lane" yet, so I just wanted to verify the above *is* from me.
For some reason reading that made me suddenly imagine the voice of Ted Baxter "MEANWHILE, in an abandoned warehouse somewhere in Gotham City, THE AMAZING PNEUMONIA MAN changes back into his SECRET IDENTITY, that of MILD MANNERED RICH LANE."
PAD--your take on hate crime laws is pretty much spot-on, in my opinion.
Would those cybernetic monkey space-alien assassins be wearing bras or tank tops?
Neither. But diapers, certainly. Because, well, you know. Monkeys.
I have not followed the media involving this story, but it seems to me that most of the questions concerning the veracity of the pictures, the tank top, and the clarity of the principal's statements came from the discussions here. Did the principal revise his statement, or claim that the girls' claims concerning their dress are not true? Did the girls' claim that the photos misrepresent their costume, or that the principal claims something that is not factualy true?
My guess is that, outside of here, this was a pretty much one-day story. At least I hope so. Otherwise by now the principal is seriously condiering moving to Titusville to take advantage of the low low crystal meth prices.
As an aside, want to know who gave me the idea to write a play? You did, Peter, at a comic-book convention in Rochester sometime around '85 or '86.
I know this is like asking you to show the picture of you naked on the bear skin rug or, more emabarassingly, ANY of my high school haircuts, but I'd love to read that play. And keep in mind that I am in a good position to read it with the right expectations, that of the the work of a clever 17 year old.
"I think that we will have to agree to disagree re this topic. We obviously hold different opinions regarding headmasters' roles,m obligations, rights and resposibilities, students and appropriate behaviour. Perhaps this is a cultural difference."
I don't dispute the headmaster's authority, I'm just not sure his decision was right.
I think there is a little bit of a cultural difference. I was in the 9th grade for one year in Ohio back in 1989-90. I was told about two rules concerning dress code: that you are not allowed to wear shorts from a certain date, and that a certain Simpson T-shirt was not allowed. Both rules seemed strange to me, not because people in my high school wore extremely inappropriate clothing but because I didn't even know if we had a dress code one could brake, nor did I know of any case where dress was an issue. Maybe we (teachers and students) were more easygoing? Maybe we are less litigious? I don't know.
--------------------
"we weren't there. Principal Restivo was."
So were the girls. Given no evidence to the contrary, nor any claim by either side of the other lying, I don't see much use in assuming either side is not saying the truth. If I was actually investigating this case, I would probably talk to both sides and so forth, but this is just interesting as a test case, so I'm going by the available information with as least speculation or bias for or against any side.
-----------------
"These girls were sent home to change clothes! I don't recall them being assigned to some kind of indoctrination camp where they were brainwashed into agreeing never to do anything like that anywhere in the world ever again. And as far as being given a negative mark on their attendance records -- *yawn*. They'll live."
Which is why I said before that I don't consider this a case worth fighting for even if the principal was wrong. But it is worth discussing as a test case, of greater issues like censorship and authority, even if in this case I doubt either the creativity of the girls or the authority of the principal was badly harmed.
It seems to me a little unfair to burden the principal with the cultural conflicts of liberal and conservative norms. But it is also unfair to burden the girls with the growing undermining of authority and problems of leadership in 21 century America.
Bill, your high school story is in a way much worse than any censorship story. Indifference is worse than opposition. In any case, had you written a play and encountered censorship you thought was unjust, would you fight against it or give up so as not to undermine authority? I am happy to hear tthat you were couragous enough to fight indifference.
---------------------
"On second thoughts - they 're holding the headmaster up as an object of ridicule, this can reduce his ability to do his job. If these and other students believe the headmaster to be an object of ridicule and fair game, how can he effectively run the school?"
The day headmasters are not an object of ridicule I'll start worrying.
-----------------
There is a little excellent movie called Winslow's Honor that's worth watching, that has some very suprficial similarities to this story, but is quite good on its own right.
Boy, you sure can tell it's an off-year election. Only days away and THIS is what we're arguing about!
Oh well, nobody got hurt.
And in your scenario, with your invasive reporter, I have little doubt that you'd be a bit more eloquent, but I say that based on two things. You've expressed yourself clearly in everything I've seen,
Thank you! And I return the compliment.
and the kid in question would obviously have done SOMETHING to warrant being held after.
But you only know (and we must admit that even that is an assumption on your part) that because you now have some basis to make that statement--your past (albeit brief) association with me. We have none of that with the principal, good or ill.
Yes, I am making an assumption when I give the principal the benefit of the doubt, and it is not based on his personality because I don't know him. I'm basing it on the fact that I have seen innocuous things like allowing eccentric clothing disrupt a classroom. I've experienced the disruption to a school that has to spend money and man hours preparing a legal defense against what I would consider baseless charges. And I've heard parents that I respect and like make baseless charges against administrators and teachers they never met, but whose abilities, credentials and genuine love for their students I do know to be unquestionable.
Because of all this I do not say this guy was 100% in the right. What I do say that this situation is not cut and dry, and I'm going to continue to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. And to crystalize things further, I will reiterate that coming down on the principal's side does not mean the girls are evil, manipulative or immature, nor does it mean their parents are glory seekers. Mistakes can be made without anybody involved being a bad person.
You know what would have held me back from posting a single thing in this thread? If PAD at the outset had said "I know this guy Restivo from (bowling, PTA, whatever) and he's always struck me as a guy with a stick up his ass. I shall call him Poopypants. PAD's personal knowledge of the man would trump my impersonal knowledge of the profession. His "character witness" would win out over my "expert witness." But he's basing his character assessment on a three hundred word "man bites dog" story and a handful of pictures.
Rich, NOW I understand what you were saying. Sorry, my mind's a little fuzzy after the last few days. Tonsilectomy/Adenoidectomy plus five year old does not rest permit.
Bill Myers, allow me to second the motion, I want to see it too! (The play, not the picture with the bear skin rug. Or Mulligan's head shots.)
And, now, on to Mulligan, your mirror thing made me realize that Mulligan backwards is Nagillum. YOU were the bad guy in that second season Next Gen episode, weren't you! Actually, looking at that, now I REALLY don't wanna see your head shots. And your lighter story doesn't surprise me. "Wait, you mean the rules apply to ME, too?" Which, Ironically enough, could sum up this thread.
Rich, NOW I understand what you were saying. Sorry, my mind's a little fuzzy after the last few days. Tonsilectomy/Adenoidectomy plus five year old does not rest permit.
Bill Myers, allow me to second the motion, I want to see it too! (The play, not the picture with the bear skin rug. Or Mulligan's head shots.)
And, now, on to Mulligan, your mirror thing made me realize that Mulligan backwards is Nagillum. YOU were the bad guy in that second season Next Gen episode, weren't you! Actually, looking at that, now I REALLY don't wanna see your head shots. And your lighter story doesn't surprise me. "Wait, you mean the rules apply to ME, too?" Which, Ironically enough, could sum up this thread.
Hey, everybody, sorry about the double posts. Contrary to appearances, it's not just that I like to see myself in print, it's a sensitive mouse.
I'm have a vision of a rodent crying while reading Shelley now.
PAD,
Not really. I and others waited until I saw the pictures and read the reports. I and others were on the principal's side over the statement...
"Yes, I know they weren't naked," Restivo said. "But the appearance was that they were naked."
The debate continued. Other things came in to play and were debated as to things that MAY be reasons to back him up even more. Still, a bunch of us spent a whole hell of a lot of time on the subject of whether or not there was an appearance of nudity, an appearance of being topless and whether that was of merit ot not.
Oh, you say that everything you said was anchored in what was on the public record?
Well, you missed something.
*******************************
Posted by: Peter David at October 26, 2006 12:09 PM
"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
*********************************
wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_299071033.html
"But Restivo made his decree: There would be no visible underpants in his hallways."
If Autumn's hollow sighs in the sere wood,
And Winter robing with pure snow and crowns
Of starry ice the gray grass and bare boughs;
If Spring's voluptuous pantings when she breathes
Her first sweet kisses,--have been dear to me...
Gets poor old Mr. Whiskers every time. Sad to see him weeping into his cheese....
Feeling ok, Sean?
Shhh! He's consoling his weeping mouse now.
"Tidy whities", not an expression I'm familiar with. Mind you, I haven't bought my boys white grundys (undies) since they stopped playing cricket.
Posted by: Micha at October 30, 2006 06:53 PM
In any case, had you written a play and encountered censorship you thought was unjust, would you fight against it or give up so as not to undermine authority?
Actually, Micha, as I said in my prior post, I did indeed encounter censorship when I produced my play. And yeah, I thought it was unjust.
The battles were primarily over "foul" language. I felt that the "foul" language in my play was mild compared with what I heard in the high school hallways every day, and this wasn't a play for little kids anyway. Others disagreed, including my own mother (she was trying to "protect" me from myself -- as I said, still a sore spot).
It was highly unlikely (to say the least!) that I could produce this play outside of the confines of my school. The play was a comedy, so I didn't want to "gut" it -- who wants to see a comedy without actual, y'know, comedy? But I picked my battles carefully. I capitulated on certain things that I thought weren't central to the story. That made it easier to fight for the things that I thought were important. I won enough of the latter fights that I was satisfied with what I put on the stage.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 30, 2006 06:51 PM
I know this is like asking you to show the picture of you naked on the bear skin rug or, more emabarassingly, ANY of my high school haircuts, but I'd love to read that play. And keep in mind that I am in a good position to read it with the right expectations, that of the the work of a clever 17 year old.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at October 30, 2006 07:01 PM
Bill Myers, allow me to second the motion, I want to see it too! (The play, not the picture with the bear skin rug. Or Mulligan's head shots.)
I dunno. I'll think about it. You guys know how to contact me.
Megan, the actual phrase is TIGHTY whities, although one would hope they were also tidy. Especially your mother in an accident, but that's another story. (Ironically enough, after mmy head broke a windshield and I woke up from the coma, when I asked if I had clean ones on, no one but me thought it was funny. Weird.) Anyhoo, it refers to jockey shorts or briefs in general.
And that's right, Bill. Lord Mulligan and I know where you live.
Well, he does, but it sounds more intimidating if it's both of us. Or something.
Who, in their right mind buys boys white undies, or white anything (clothing wise) for that matter?
And, thanks to Megan, everyone here now understands why neither my son nor me has any white...anything. Besides, or Night of the Living Irishmen skin is white ENOUGH.
3 years of trying to get grass stains and red leather marks out of cricket whites, and trying to keep school uniform shirts pristine white (especially when one of the boys was majoring in Art), put me off buying white anything. :-)
Posted by: Peter David at October 28, 2006 10:06 AM
"Furthermore, I'm also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they're thinking, you're on a slippery slope. In this instance the principal took it to a new level: He punished the girls for what OTHER people were thinking."
www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lidres1026,0,928031.story?coll=ny-longisland-homepage
Newsday
October 25, 2006, 10:09 PM EDT
""Yes, I know they weren't naked," he said. "But the appearance was that they were naked."
The outfits looked so much like nude skin that they caused a commotion among students, Restivo said. The girls and their parents all said otherwise. "They're not see-through or anything," Horowitz said. "All the teachers thought it was cute."
Restivo said they could have worn gym shorts or called someone to bring clothes to school for them.
"I didn't know which superhero it was, not that it mattered," Restivo said. He pointed out that other students wore underwear on the outside, but on top of pants or shorts. That was acceptable."
So, the principal said that the oufits were causeing a commotion and not that he thought they may because of what others were thinking. The girls said they weren't. He did what most people in his job do. He tried to remove the source of the disruption and commotion.
Now, maybe the other students' ACTIONS were based on their thoughts. Tough. You can say that about just about anything if you parce it enough.
So you decide to believe the absolute worst of the principal and the absolute best of the girls and claim that he acted because of what he felt other students may think rather then what he said was the case. You called the man a liar.
Oh, and did the girls contact the press?
Posted by: Peter David at October 30, 2006 04:21 PM
"I find that comment interesting for two reasons. First, you're 100% willing to believe the absolute best of the principal and the absolute worst of the students, up to and including the assumption that they contacted the news media. How do you know they did? How do you know that any other pupil in the school didn't do it? Or one of the kids' parents? How do you know that the school newspaper didn't tip off Newsday? How do you know that perhaps the reporter was already there covering Superhero day and lucked into more of a story than she was originally expecting?
You don't."
www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liunde1028,0,3156255.story?track=rss
October 27, 2006, 10:27 PM EDT
""We didn't do it for publicity," Horowitz said of their decision to contact Newsday after they left school on Superhero Day, Wednesday. "We did it to prove a point."
For Imhof, it was about standing up for what they believed was right."
PAD "I based all my comments on the on-the-record material in the newspaper."
Well, then you missed a few just like we missed a few. You still want to base it on just what is there? Fine. His school, they were dressed in a manner to look like topless girls, he contacted his bosses and they backed him, it's not the end of the world, the girls are playing this to the hilt by calling the local press and, according to the one newsday bit, talking to CNN about coming on their shows and he still made the right call.
I will give more then an inch on this though.
"But Restivo made his decree: There would be no visible underpants in his hallways."
I keep seeing that or a version of that on lots of news sites but none have actual quotes of him saying that. I'll file that one as a line that the writer threw in as a cutesy quip that got picked up with her bit or by other news sources that didn't care enough to check it out.
""We didn't do it for publicity," Horowitz said of their decision to contact Newsday after they left school on Superhero Day, Wednesday. "We did it to prove a point."
I have to admit I missed that in the article too.
Jerry, is there anywhere where it's actually documented what he told his bosses? If he did actually tell them they were dressed like topless girls, that's a lot different from being dressed like Captain Underpants, who, while topless indeed, is not a girl. Really wish the article said just what exactly the point they were trying to prove IS, though. Still, if in fact this IS the case, along with his not knowing or thinking that it mattered, really hurts his position. Although, I really want to see some quotes from some of these "thought it was cute" teachers. Rich, Bill, think that's likely? (Just being curious, not trying to provoke anything, here. Like I said, I've only taught TV to middle-agers and swimming to little kids.)
I missed that in the article, too, but can I use Brian's tonisl/adenoidectomy as an excuse?
Well, I thought they were cute but I have notoriously poor judgement in such matters. I wanted to name Tim's baby girl Mothra Lynch for godssakes! Who the hell would ever take my advice?
10 teachers will probably give you 10 different views on just about anything.
I sincerely doubt you'll get a transcription about what he asked the dean. More than likely it was a five minute or less conversation because it wasn't that big a deal until the press got hold of it. He probably documented the fact that he sent them home and for what reason, but like I said earlier, he wouldn't be allowed to release that without the parents' permission.
I would also imagine the teachers have been told not to speak to press about it.
I think you're probably dead on, Rich. "No comment" goes a long way, although not as far as it used to.
And I saw nothing wrong with Mothra Lynch, Bill. Hey, I thought anything but Mob would be a good start.
Sean,
"Jerry, is there anywhere where it's actually documented what he told his bosses?"
No. Not much chance of finding it either. It's not like he was calling because of a riot or drugs. I doubt either of them thought to write down what was said just in case people lost their minds over this later on.
"If he did actually tell them they were dressed like topless girls, that's a lot different from being dressed like Captain Underpants, who, while topless indeed, is not a girl. "
This has been addressed both above and by the principal himself. He didn't know about the character. He didn't know who they were dressed up as. Thus, all he saw was three girls dressed up to look like they were topless or, as he put it, "the appearance was that they were naked."
Not his fault and not theirs. That left him to make a judgement call. He weighed the options, looked at the commotion being made, checked with his bosses and made the call.
"Still, if in fact this IS the case, along with his not knowing or thinking that it mattered, really hurts his position."
Not really. Take me. I knew of the character. Never saw it but I have had it described to me. I said way up at the top of this thing that I was holding judgement on the matter until I could see some photos. Why? Because it would have made a dif to me if the girls were dressed in baggy or lose outfits vs skin tight tights.
They were in the tights. To me, three girls walking around and dressed in a manner as to look topless would not fly in the school if I were in his place. I wouldn't care if it was a real character and HE really was topless. These were three high school GIRLS dressed to look that way and walking around in school.
There are lots of options out there for them to dress up as on a superhero day at school. Many of the options could be just as clever as CU. Common sense would have told me to go with one of the others were I in their place.
They lost some points with me on the common sense thing. They also lost points with me when they ran to the press to play poor little picked on, singled out us.
They didn't use common sense in their costume choice, they were given a fair offer by a school that, judging by other schools i've read about in the news and schools I went to, could have jammed them up pretty hard and they acted like twits about it. Should the school ditch the dress up day starting next year, the future students can thank the three of them for creating a stink over an actually very tiny thing that they blew up stupid heights and was basically created by a their small lack of good judgement compounded by their even bigger lack of good judgement after that.
Damn.
That would be "loose outfits" up their. "Lose outfits" would be a whole other thread.
You can make whatever point you want, but cop killing is only "a form" of hate crime if you define "a form" as being not really remotely it, but you want to apply the term to it.
The safety of cops are disproportionately vulnerable to those who reserve for themselves the privilege of committing crime.
The safety of minorities are disproportionately vulnerable to those who reserve for themselves the privilege of indulging in predatorial agendas because of their non-conformity.
The comparison seems plain and straightford.
Definition of hate crime I picked up off google: "Crime of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal homicide, motor vehicle theft, robbery, sex offenses, and/or crime involving bodily injury in which the victim was intentionally selected because of the victims' actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability."
Keep in mind, I have NO problem with extra penalties for assaulting or killing a cop. They're on the front line of attempting to keep the more vile elements of society reined in. Anything that exists to deter the bad guys or make them think twice about attacking cops, I support.
I believe your rationale for cop-killer laws can be fairly summed as: The safety of cops are disproportionately vulnerable to those who reserve for themselves the privilege of committing crime. The excuse has yet to be made for withholding the same protection where the vulnerability exists elsewhere for the same reason.
But if you kill a cop, you go down for killing a cop. If you're a black perp and you shoot a white cop because you hate white guys, that shouldn't factor in, and same for a white perp capping a black cop. Sentencing should factor into the action itself, not the reasons for the action beyond the establishing of motive for legal purposes.
Martial training is a form of resocialization. You take an oath. In a sense, the uniform becomes your ethnicity.
See, that's why the concept of "hate crimes" is, to me, kind of silly. The argument could be made that killing someone because of the clothes he wears (which is, let's face it, what cop killing is) is just as vile and arbitrary as killing someone for the color of his skin. And that's a very valid point. So let's add clothing to hate crimes. But...what about hair, or lack thereof? Let's say that a perp has no trouble with black men, but he hates black men with shaved heads, and so he shoots Taye Diggs. "Your honor, honest, it wasn't that he's black, it's the shaved head, that's what put me over." So do we refuse to charge him with a hate crime on that basis?
Re: clothing crime, bald crime: Only if you see the vulnerablility between them and outsiders of "race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, [and] disability" as flat. It is observably not flat.
10 years ago, Yaphet Kotto was filmed trying to hail a cab in New York. Yaphet was dressed nice. Cab after cab drove past him. Cabs drove past him to pick up other passengers 20 feet away. The cabs were resolved to not take his money. Between Yaphet Kotto and a pre-Star Trek Patrick Stewart competing for a cab, no one is going to bet against the cab stopping in front of Patrick Stewart.
I should emphasize that the only thing I was pointing out when I brought up the notion was that, once you start punishing people for thoughts, you've opened up a huge can of worms.
People proven to plot a bank robbery are breaking the law. As Micha pointed out, what a killer was thinking is a factor in prosecuting and sentencing degrees of murder. That can of worms is already open.
Jerry, you've indirectly pointed out the problem I have with this. See, when I look at the pictures, I don't think the outfits are that tight from the waist up. Hey, from the tops of their legs up. I know dancers, I've been theater people, so I've been around tights enough to make a fair judgement, or at least what I'd call one. To me, the outfits look either fairly padded or at least not skin-tight. But then, to REALLY make a judgement, I'd need to see a picture of the girls in their regular clothes to see whether or not these costumes really WERE too tight, besides all the lighting/composition problems that umpteen people have talked about before. Looking at even the picture at the top of the thread, they look pretty padded, and I don't think that's just their bodies because they don't have chunky faces.
And now, having discussed all this in detail, I have to go wash my brain out with soap. I feel like some kind of wierd voyeur.
Mike, your last two examples, the bank robbers and the killer, are different from the people Peter was talking about. Peter wasn't talking about people committing or thinking of committing a crime. THAT's where the difference lies.
"Actually, Micha, as I said in my prior post, I did indeed encounter censorship when I produced my play. And yeah, I thought it was unjust.
The battles were primarily over "foul" language. I felt that the "foul" language in my play was mild compared with what I heard in the high school hallways every day, and this wasn't a play for little kids anyway. Others disagreed, including my own mother (she was trying to "protect" me from myself -- as I said, still a sore spot).
It was highly unlikely (to say the least!) that I could produce this play outside of the confines of my school. The play was a comedy, so I didn't want to "gut" it -- who wants to see a comedy without actual, y'know, comedy? But I picked my battles carefully. I capitulated on certain things that I thought weren't central to the story. That made it easier to fight for the things that I thought were important. I won enough of the latter fights that I was satisfied with what I put on the stage. "
The point is, you did fight. It seems to me that a play is more worth fighting for than a costume. But I do have a problem with the idea going on this board of the terrible girls who are undermining and threatening the authority of the principal by daring to not only question his decision, but by going to the press.
wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_299071033.html
"But Restivo made his decree: There would be no visible underpants in his hallways."
Newsday, October 26:
"He (Restivo) pointed out that other students wore underwear on the outside, but on top of pants or shorts. That was acceptable."
PAD
wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_299071033.html
"But Restivo made his decree: There would be no visible underpants in his hallways."
Newsday, October 26:
"He (Restivo) pointed out that other students wore underwear on the outside, but on top of pants or shorts. That was acceptable."
PAD
Posted by: Rich Lane at October 30, 2006 05:41 PM
Also, (and I am NOT disparaging news reporters as a group here)I have known many instances of reporters taking things out of context and/or simply getting things wrong.
So, when they report things that support your argument, they're accurately reporting, but when they report things that undermine it, they're wrong?
I should emphasize that the only thing I was pointing out when I brought up the notion was that, once you start punishing people for thoughts, you've opened up a huge can of worms.People proven to plot a bank robbery are breaking the law. As Micha pointed out, what a killer was thinking is a factor in prosecuting and sentencing degrees of murder. That can of worms is already open.Mike, your last two examples, the bank robbers and the killer, are different from the people Peter was talking about. Peter wasn't talking about people committing or thinking of committing a crime. THAT's where the difference lies.
Peter said, "once you start punishing people for thoughts," as if it isn't done, or doesn't aggravate an offense. I cited an example of what seems to fit Peter's objection as a thought crime, and where intent aggravates an offense.
Again, where the same protections already exist, why withhold them because of ethnicity or sexual preference?
PAD,
I think you missed the post where I already said that that wasn't the best point to use for my side of the debate.
One of my principals put a nice end cap on this for me. He hadn't heard this story due to the fact he doesn't putz around on the net like I do. I gave him all the facts as I know them and asked his opinion.
"Did the principal get disciplined?" he asked.
"No," I said. "In fact he checked with the higher ups first, and they concurred."
"It's a non-story then," he said.
"But he IS being raked over the coals on the web by non-participants," I added.
"So?" He smiled a tired smile. "He'll live...just like the girls will. Making unpopular decisions based on what you know is part of the job. It sounds like the web just makes the vocal group larger."
It just gave me a bit more perspective about the utter inanity of this whole shebang.