The last time I wrote a column about how much I despised school dress codes was when my daughter, Clementine, was in her first year of middle school and was “dress-coded” for wearing a shirt with blue trim on the sleeves. Because apparently the “Blue Sleeve Trim Gang” was in town, and boy, if there’s anyone you don’t want to mess with, it’s them. Anyway, the school dress-coded her, I complained, and then, a few years later, the school closed its doors. I’m not saying I had anything to do with it, but, the fact is that I’m still around and the school isn’t. Something that Clementine’s current school might want to take into account, since now, in her senior year of high school, she has been dress-coded again.
For showing her shoulders. (Seriously, only Michelle Obama gets more grief for her arms than Clementine does.) And even though it is the same part of her anatomy that caused Clementine to be called to the office both times (well, the first time at least—since she was working as an office aide technically she was already in the office when the second incident happened), the reasoning behind the two incidents could not be more different. The first time was in a misguided effort to stop Clementine from inadvertently showing any allegiance to her gang. The second time was to stop her from inadvertently showing any allegiance to her gender.
You can see the problem here, right? Because while she never actually belonged to any gang, and could quit one if she did, there’s really nothing that she can do about being a girl. At least not non-surgically.
The bottom line is that school dress codes, as they are written concerning “revealing clothing,” are completely and utterly sexist. Always. Not “usually,” not “often” and not “possibly” sexist, but always sexist. Don’t believe me? When was the last time you heard of a boy being dress-coded for wearing revealing clothing? (And don’t give me that “What about the ban on saggy pants?” because since part of that fashion is to have your underwear showing, nothing is revealed. That’s a ban on clothing that is either gang-related or unprofessional, not one that is based on showing too much skin. Because if showing too much crack was really the problem then no school in America would ever be able to hire a plumber.)
The other way you know it’s sexist is because the ban on girls revealing reveal “too much skin” is always followed up with the complaint that by doing so they are causing a distraction to their male peers. “If you wear that skirt, the boys won’t be able to pay attention.” For the sake of my word count we’re just going to ignore how that statement is not only sexist, but hetero-normative. But we’re not going to ignore how it makes it clear that a boy’s right to an education trumps a girl’s.
Here’s an idea: perhaps the next time a boy is distracted by a girl’s arms (or, depending on the culture, her hair, feet, face or existence), instead of the school removing the girl from the classroom (and privileging the boy’s right to an education above the girl’s), maybe the school should take this teachable moment for what it is and actually teach the students that we all have the right to an education, just as we all have the right to be treated with dignity and respect.
Who knows? Maybe if schools started teaching this lesson now then the next generation will be able to focus on real issues in the classroom (like, I dunno, math and history and all that good stuff), and we’ll all be smarter and happier for it.
No matter how distractingly nice our arms may be.