On Hickory Ridge High, Michelle Cline, and the Dress Code
A very interesting bit of news popped up today that you can read about here: http://mashable.com/2017/05/23/shirt-...
And here: http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/michell...
To sum up, an honor roll student named Summer who goes to Hickory Ridge High School and has multiple scholarships went to school with a boat neck top that exposed her clavicles, and she was suspended for the rest of the school year and told she could not walk at graduation. This puts her scholarships in jeopardy, according to the article, though I would think that any university that looks at the situation would roll their eyes at Michelle Cline and welcome Summer aboard.
There have been many well-founded reactions to the situation, but I want to cover something that I don't think has yet been covered by any tweet or article I have read - and it's the problem of the law versus the spirit.
One problem that arises as an English professor, when you are taking graduate courses and learning to teach, is that you are warned against grading via correcting grammar. What you learn is that teaching writing by grading grammar doesn't help the student become a better writer (and that making grammatical errors might actually be a sign that learning while writing is taking place, rather than errors taking place - thus they might signify that a fantastic thing is happening), but most teachers grade via grammar because it's the EASY thing to do. It is easier to say "you missed a comma," rather than say, "I think the point you are trying to get at is that _____ is happening, but your lack of concluding sentences that reference back to the thesis or surrounding paragraphs doesn't help you fully develop your point, and it stunts your argument." So, teachers, in order to justify the grades they give out, search for commas and periods and semi-colons, items that are easy to spot, and this becomes a substitution for truly helping a student do better. That's because it's easy.
I argue that this is what the dress code does. It becomes a substitution for addressing something of value. "How do we know that certain colors aren't being used in schools to divide students into gangs? I know. Let's create a dress code." "How do we know that we aren't allowing girls to wear revealing clothing that distracts boys? I know. Let's create a dress code."
Once the dress code gets created (much like grammatical rules), then all one has to do to be "correct" or "a good teacher or principal" is follow that code. Then, BOOM, your job is done. Easy, easy. All you have to do is grade according to the new law with no shades of grey, and you're done. This is, perhaps, why the only response from Hickory Ridge High School is to send a copy of the Dress Code to news outlets. In other words, they are saying, "We are following the law."
Yes, they are. But it's a law they themselves set up. So, it's kind of like saying, "Look. We are following our own laws, unlike Summer." One could argue that this is a circular, or inbred, argument. We ask, "Why are you enforcing the law to the point that a student might lose scholarships?" and the school is saying, "The law is the law. We follow the law." It is circular and robotic. It also implies a kind of helplessness, where they are unable to rise up against a code that they themselves set into motion. If that's the case, then I am very worried about that school.
It's easy, though, isn't it? It's easier than looking at the situation for what it is. The original reason for creating a Dress Code is to ensure that girls aren't distracting boys in the first place (which is a problematic goal in itself, but I'm going to ignore that for the moment). The question, though, of course is whether a boat neck t-shirt can ever be worn without being distracting? If that's the case, then the "law" needs to account for that. The law needs to come as close to reality as possible. Otherwise, it kills the spirit. If there is no way for the law to fully account for reality, then the particular rule should not exist. That is, I would argue, what everyone is angry about.
Once the "law" is made, it is interesting how it can be bent in various different ways. I can guarantee that, just as there are English professors who might overlook comma splices because they don't ultimately take away from an English paper that is incredibly fantastic otherwise, there are teachers and/or principals out there who have made exceptions to the rules of the Dress Code because they know the student never intended to wear gang colors or make other students lust after them. In short, they just wore clothes because clothes are clothes. So, another way of looking at this is, "Can Michelle Cline guarantee that an exception has never ever been made in her school to these rules?" If she cannot, then it is obvious the law becomes bendable to what one might call "human emotion or spirit." If that's the case, then the question becomes, why not bend the law for Summer? Or, rather, why enforce this law on Summer if, once again, we know that the law can't possibly always be enforced at all times? It's because this is what Michelle Cline /desires/.
Again, I think what becomes enforced is ultimately what one desires to enforce. It's not as though Michelle Cline is saying, "I would love to help this 4.4 GPA student out, but I simply can't because of the laws I have put in place." Rather, she is saying, basically, that though it would be possible to allow Summer to walk across the stage and finish the semester, she won't allow it. And it can't be because the Dress Code is a watertight container through which nothing escapes (as I have pointed out above), and it can't be because Summer was trying to wear gang colors or distract students. It is rather because Michelle Cline doesn't DESIRE to help Summer out.
I think Summer stated it best when she said, "We have drug dealers walking across that stage, we have sex offenders walking across that stage and then the 4.4 student who showed her shoulders can’t." That's right. The law has cracks in it, as all laws do. It just so happens that this law can also be bent to do what Michelle Cline wants.
I think that, similar to not allowing an English professor to grade for grammar in order to improve writing, that a principal or teacher should not be allowed to address the intentions of a student simply by whether they follow an arbitrary dress code.
I'll also add that I don't think people ever really grow up. That's why we have a forty-something year old principal having a battle of wills with an eighteen year old.
And here: http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/michell...
To sum up, an honor roll student named Summer who goes to Hickory Ridge High School and has multiple scholarships went to school with a boat neck top that exposed her clavicles, and she was suspended for the rest of the school year and told she could not walk at graduation. This puts her scholarships in jeopardy, according to the article, though I would think that any university that looks at the situation would roll their eyes at Michelle Cline and welcome Summer aboard.
There have been many well-founded reactions to the situation, but I want to cover something that I don't think has yet been covered by any tweet or article I have read - and it's the problem of the law versus the spirit.
One problem that arises as an English professor, when you are taking graduate courses and learning to teach, is that you are warned against grading via correcting grammar. What you learn is that teaching writing by grading grammar doesn't help the student become a better writer (and that making grammatical errors might actually be a sign that learning while writing is taking place, rather than errors taking place - thus they might signify that a fantastic thing is happening), but most teachers grade via grammar because it's the EASY thing to do. It is easier to say "you missed a comma," rather than say, "I think the point you are trying to get at is that _____ is happening, but your lack of concluding sentences that reference back to the thesis or surrounding paragraphs doesn't help you fully develop your point, and it stunts your argument." So, teachers, in order to justify the grades they give out, search for commas and periods and semi-colons, items that are easy to spot, and this becomes a substitution for truly helping a student do better. That's because it's easy.
I argue that this is what the dress code does. It becomes a substitution for addressing something of value. "How do we know that certain colors aren't being used in schools to divide students into gangs? I know. Let's create a dress code." "How do we know that we aren't allowing girls to wear revealing clothing that distracts boys? I know. Let's create a dress code."
Once the dress code gets created (much like grammatical rules), then all one has to do to be "correct" or "a good teacher or principal" is follow that code. Then, BOOM, your job is done. Easy, easy. All you have to do is grade according to the new law with no shades of grey, and you're done. This is, perhaps, why the only response from Hickory Ridge High School is to send a copy of the Dress Code to news outlets. In other words, they are saying, "We are following the law."
Yes, they are. But it's a law they themselves set up. So, it's kind of like saying, "Look. We are following our own laws, unlike Summer." One could argue that this is a circular, or inbred, argument. We ask, "Why are you enforcing the law to the point that a student might lose scholarships?" and the school is saying, "The law is the law. We follow the law." It is circular and robotic. It also implies a kind of helplessness, where they are unable to rise up against a code that they themselves set into motion. If that's the case, then I am very worried about that school.
It's easy, though, isn't it? It's easier than looking at the situation for what it is. The original reason for creating a Dress Code is to ensure that girls aren't distracting boys in the first place (which is a problematic goal in itself, but I'm going to ignore that for the moment). The question, though, of course is whether a boat neck t-shirt can ever be worn without being distracting? If that's the case, then the "law" needs to account for that. The law needs to come as close to reality as possible. Otherwise, it kills the spirit. If there is no way for the law to fully account for reality, then the particular rule should not exist. That is, I would argue, what everyone is angry about.
Once the "law" is made, it is interesting how it can be bent in various different ways. I can guarantee that, just as there are English professors who might overlook comma splices because they don't ultimately take away from an English paper that is incredibly fantastic otherwise, there are teachers and/or principals out there who have made exceptions to the rules of the Dress Code because they know the student never intended to wear gang colors or make other students lust after them. In short, they just wore clothes because clothes are clothes. So, another way of looking at this is, "Can Michelle Cline guarantee that an exception has never ever been made in her school to these rules?" If she cannot, then it is obvious the law becomes bendable to what one might call "human emotion or spirit." If that's the case, then the question becomes, why not bend the law for Summer? Or, rather, why enforce this law on Summer if, once again, we know that the law can't possibly always be enforced at all times? It's because this is what Michelle Cline /desires/.
Again, I think what becomes enforced is ultimately what one desires to enforce. It's not as though Michelle Cline is saying, "I would love to help this 4.4 GPA student out, but I simply can't because of the laws I have put in place." Rather, she is saying, basically, that though it would be possible to allow Summer to walk across the stage and finish the semester, she won't allow it. And it can't be because the Dress Code is a watertight container through which nothing escapes (as I have pointed out above), and it can't be because Summer was trying to wear gang colors or distract students. It is rather because Michelle Cline doesn't DESIRE to help Summer out.
I think Summer stated it best when she said, "We have drug dealers walking across that stage, we have sex offenders walking across that stage and then the 4.4 student who showed her shoulders can’t." That's right. The law has cracks in it, as all laws do. It just so happens that this law can also be bent to do what Michelle Cline wants.
I think that, similar to not allowing an English professor to grade for grammar in order to improve writing, that a principal or teacher should not be allowed to address the intentions of a student simply by whether they follow an arbitrary dress code.
I'll also add that I don't think people ever really grow up. That's why we have a forty-something year old principal having a battle of wills with an eighteen year old.
date
newest »
newest »
There is an hypocrisy going on with regards to dress codes and schools. Schools encourage pep rallies which take place in school hours which routinely have the cheerleaders wearing outfits that do not conform to the dress code. In fact they are often encouraged by the administration to wear these outfits. I would be interested if at any time during this last academic year the school in question has encouraged cheerleaders to wear their uniform during the school day and in class. If so that I humbly would suggest is the administration deciding that the dress code is irrelevant, therefore how can they choose to selectively punish some students and not others. I am not suggesting that cheerleaders or athletic uniforms have to comply with a dress code, impractical for the swim team, what I am saying is these uniforms if they are non compliant with dress code should never be encouraged to be worn during regular school hours by the school administration and if they are the punishment should be identical to the student who has an off the shoulder top. If there is an instance they do encourage non-compliant uniforms then that should make the dress code null and void so as to not discriminate against those students who are punished for non compliance.
John wrote: "There is an hypocrisy going on with regards to dress codes and schools. Schools encourage pep rallies which take place in school hours which routinely have the cheerleaders wearing outfits that do ..."You're absolutely right! I had not even thought to consider cheerleader uniforms. Right there is proof that obviously the Dress Code isn't necessarily a law that is rigidly enforced, which means that Michelle Cline is selectively targeting Summer. There might be reasons for it (a history between the two), but at this point, I think the situation has definitely become a battle of wills. If that's the case, I think Cline needs to gain some distance from that school because I don't think she's thinking objectively.
But I completely agree with you. Either enforce the Dress Code to the fullest extent for everyone, or be lenient with everyone. Picking and choosing is incredibly subjective and obviously leaves room for favoritism.
Mike wrote: "Thank You for this insightful post. I have researched the issue. If you go to the Schools own website, The lead image is of a girl with an off the shoulder dress mentioning her scholastic achieve..."
I just went to the school's website, and you're right! One of the pictures on the first page is of a girl in a dress that has a boat neck. I don't think it's quite as wide as Summer's, but it's the same cut. I think this, as well as many other details about the story, prove that it's not really about the boat neck shirt. Something else is going on.
The problem with bullying in the school might go hand-in-hand with what Summer said about drug dealers and sex offenders walking across the stage. In other words, there are true problems going on, and yet the focus of the school goes straight to the Dress Code. Again, I feel like this is an easy way out for believing that one is appropriately dealing with students. It's a focal point for teachers and principals, and then all else falls away when that focal point emerges. They ignore other problems, like bullying. Though, I also think your point could be that, why would a school that bullies students care that other students are also bullying students? It might just be a toxic environment.
"Zero Tolerance" in schools has been an increasing problem for quite a while now. Hardly a week goes by that I don't read a story about a child or teenager being suspended, expelled, or even arrested over exceedingly rigid interpretation of school rules. And of course the rules are not enforced equally across the student body. Administrators plead zero tolerance when they suspend a kindergarten student for bringing a Lego minifigure gun to school because he violated the school's weapon policy. It's a perverse mix of laziness and personal vendetta with the ratio of the two varying between situations. It sounds like the situation with Michelle Cline is largely a matter of personal vendetta.As a father, I am increasingly frustrated with local public schools. My oldest daughter graduated from an online public school and we could not have been more pleased with the program. She graduated with a diploma as opposed to a GED and she did not have to deal with the administrative idiocy and peer bullying that she was subjected to while attending the local public school.
The only way that schools are ever going to figure out that zero tolerance is unacceptable will be for parents to start holding the school districts and the individual administrators responsible in a court of law. I say this as someone who detests frivolous litigation because hitting these people in their pocketbooks is the only way we will ever be able to get their attention. If this young lady looses a single scholarship over this, she should take the school district and Michelle Cline to task and sue them for every penny of the scholarship.
Vincent wrote: ""Zero Tolerance" in schools has been an increasing problem for quite a while now. Hardly a week goes by that I don't read a story about a child or teenager being suspended, expelled, or even arrest..."Vincent, I have often thought to myself, if I were to ever have kids, what would I do when it comes time for them to go to school? Frankly, I'm not impressed with the public school atmosphere, and as for private schools, they are exceedingly expensive (and having never gone to one, I don't know what the atmosphere is like). I have heard that the NYC system is actually incredibly different from a lot of states, and I actually support the way things are run up there, and so I am speaking in terms of only Texas' public schools. I like hearing that your daughter attended an online university and that she (and you) had very positive results. That has been added to a list of options if I do have children!
You're right. Rigid interpretation of the school rules (especially to such extremes) is one part laziness and two parts personal vendetta. Again, I think it comes down to how easy it is to enforce rules, rather than use common sense or critical thinking. It's as though schools feel like they can't back up common sense and can only back up school rules, so they adhere to them. Then, the rules become the boss in extreme and twisted ways.
I agree that Summer could possibly litigate if she loses her scholarships, though I am hoping that any university would see right through all of this, especially with the publicity it has gained.
I have researched the issue. If you go to the Schools own website, The lead image is of a girl with an off the shoulder dress mentioning her scholastic achievements.
Numerous other pictures of girls in classrooms and hallways, even teachers are wearing noticeably more revealing tops.
If you could add some pictures here, you should add screen shots of those. It makes no sense!
Also, go to google maps and read the reviews for the school written BEFORE this event. Many are kids complaining of intense bullying.
The bullying is reported, however the school officials seem to do little or nothing to address the problem.