No cross-dressing allowed! (at Morehouse College)
I'm all for freedom of expression, and I generally oppose efforts to stifle it (including most dress codes at work), but I can't find any good reason to object to Morehouse College's "Appropriate Attire Policy":
The policy also bans wearing hats in buildings, pajamas in public, do-rags, sagging pants, sunglasses in class and walking barefoot on campus.
However, it is the ban on cross-dressing that has brought national attention to the small historically African-American [and all-male] college.
The restrictions aren't especially harsh, it seems to me, and, even allowing for freedom of expression, there ought to be at least minimal standards regarding public attire. Now, these standards can differ from place to place. What is allowed on a beach, for example, ought to differ from what is allowed, say, in a government building. Even then, though, beaches may allow nudity or not. The basic point is not that there ought to be a uniform standard but that, depending on place, we ought to expect that people meet at least some minimum standards of dress while in public. Our standards in Canada and the U.S., as well as throughout Europe, are fairly low, or loose, and that's fine with me. But at least there are standards.
The issue here concerns what a private institution may do, and, again, such institutions, or establishments, can and do impose their own standards, whether it's a church or a mall or an office building or a college. What is, in this case, questionable, is the crackdown on cross-dressing, given that the code could be perceived to be a crackdown on homosexuality. But cross-dressing is not the same as homosexuality, and, indeed, Morehouse consulted with the college's gay student organization, Safe Space, before instituting the policy -- its members voted overwhelmingly to support the code.
Does the code amount to a restriction of freedom of expression? Yes, of course, but it doesn't seem to me to be a burdensome one. Having spent many years on college campuses -- Tufts and then Toronto -- as well as having taught in university, I do see the need for such minimal standards. Now, there could very well be some college out there that allows nudity or, say, sexual attire, but, for the most part, it seems to me, the cultivation of a serious teaching, learning, and research environment requires otherwise. Morehouse's code may be a bit stricter than others, and I may not care for it myself, but, then, that's Morehouse's decision. If you don't like it, don't go there. Though, of course, it still allows for a great deal of self-expression. It's not like the college has imposed a mandatory uniform or anything.
"The policy is just saying that you have to show more respect in how you dress and there are things that are just not acceptable at Morehouse," said one student. "We have a legacy that we are trying to uphold."
Labels: clothing, education, homosexuality, universities
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
10:17 PM
4 Comments:
The issue here concerns what a private institution may do, and, again, such institutions, or establishments, can and do impose their own standards, whether it's a church or a mall or an office building or a college.
I would think the issue concerns whether this institution ought to impose this standard not whether they can. Nobody is arguing that the school does not have the legal right to make this rule - but that doesn't make it the right rule.
There seems to be no reason for this ruling other than distaste at some people's preferences. The telling quote from the college official that it was aimed at a bare handful of students "living a gay lifestyle" makes it too clear what the real objection is. The student's comment about "respect", "acceptability", and "legacy" is neither here nor there - no reason is given for why certain behaviors are deemed disrespectful, unacceptable, or out of keeping with the school's legacy - and again it doesn't take much reading between the lines to see what the problem really is.
Morehouse has a choice whether to value all parts of their community, to or uphold the narrow standards of one part of it to exclude another part. The choice they've made is probably legal - it's just the wrong choice.
By
Kevin T. Keith, at 11:56 PM
Fair point, Kevin, and I don't necessarily disagree. Basically, Morehouse has adopted a policy that is rather conservative. Obviously, it doesn't think that certain forms of self-expression are acceptable, or even, perhaps, that certain lifestyles are acceptable. The policy isn't explicitly anti-gay, but that may very well be part of it. At the very least, the college disapproves of certain expressions of sexuality.
As I wrote, I likely wouldn't have supported the policy, but I don't object to the establishment of such policies generally. If Morehouse is too conservative, and if its policies are too restrictive, or even wrong (as you say), then don't go. It's clearly not a school for everyone.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 10:57 PM
As Michael alludes, not all cross-dressers are gay. In fact, some straight men just feel comfortable in women's clothing. So if the intent of some people was to be anti-gay in banning cross-dressing, they are missing the target.
That said, I don't think it's going too far to include it in an "appropriate attire" code as long as it does not single out a particular group for discrimination, and the last time I checked, having bad taste in clothing was not a protected class.
(Also, if someone really wants to do drag, they'll do it so well that no one will notice. Not all drag queens are Dame Edna.)
By
Mustang Bobby, at 8:00 AM
i would like to address all those opposing of our, morehouse college, new policy because it is “discriminatory against gays and transgendered students” but the reality is these students who identify with these positions, addressing the students that solely identify as homosexual or “feminine” as stated above, these students are all male and identify as such, there is no discrimination against these students because they are gay so lets stop saying that because it does become a greater issue from that false perspective; your clothing does not determine nor define your orientation, if you are gay are you gay because you put on womens clothing? thats a false identity if that is the case, there is no perscriptive diagnosis provided to the college stating these students will not be able to produce or become a great leader, as morehouse is known to produce, on the basis they are uncomfortable in clothing for males.also knowing the history of the college and its mission is important, a lot of these brothers come to morehouse for ATLANTA and not the rich tradition and nurturing provided at morehouse so it becomes blurry when they become engulfed in the sub-cultures of the city and transcend them into the culture of the campus. transgender students alike are responsible for knowing the institution they have chosen, there is no animosity towards any or none of my brothers alike; i have love for everyone, and in that i feel it is more important to figure out honestly if morehouse is the best choice, being an all male historic institution, rich and set in its own culture and development and leadership building skills for men, if identifying as transgender prohibits any of those, especially when it deals with changing the school for case by case accommodations; we have to really think rationally before we go head into situations, i know morehouse, i am morehouse, sexual orientation is not a determinant of that, what i produce is the etermining factor of that.
By
Anonymous, at 11:37 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home