As someone on the other side of the desk, I can attest to the very real ways that student attire can be truly disruptive to a learning enviroment, and in that I understand the administration feeling a need to in someway construct some parameters that help create an environment conducive to learning.

Have debated this with siblings, one of whom is a Morehouse grad and very much in support of the dress code, and one of the points that I have made is that colleges across the board are facing issues, most in the disciplinary range, that most do not have the infrastructure to deal with. The infrastructure does not exist because in the past such codes (both dress and behavioral) have been unwritten and yet uniformally understood and enacted. Colleges are now having to devise the regulations to try to curtail behaviors that, very honestly, did not exist on such a broad scale even 10, 15 years ago. They are not always going to do this perfectly in the first attempt. I would not be surprised to see this policy fine-tuned both in language and in implementation in the future.

Heck, my public high school (back in the 80s...LOL) had more dress rules that we understood than most places now.

I also agree with the bolded.

Back to the saggy pants tho...I have just been one of many that is of the opinion that saggy jeans are one of the most inappropiate displays of dress that any person of any race could wear and come outside in.

It's bad when a law has to be passed to tell someone that no one else wants to see your boxers!!

This kind of comes back to what I was just saying. You more or less had 'unspoken' rules about what to do, where certain things were and weren't allowed on campus. But nowadays, people iinsist on having EVERYTHING in writing in order to know what is being said and done is legit and on the table, so my guess is these rules are being put into place because of that.

Ok, point taken. To me, i read that particular rule as "you need to present yourself the way society expects a heterosexual male to dress." im not trying to box anyone in on the basis of their clothes, as i know lots of straight dudes who carry purses/totebags and IMO, wear what looks good on you. It just seems to me that if a student decided to wear a tunic and ballet flats, regardless of how he thinks it defines his masculinity or orientation, the institution is within bounds to disagree and enforce otherwise.

I don't think they should have put the no crossdressing part in with the "dress professionally, no saggy jeans" part - IMO they are two very different issues and people are doing them for two very different reasons. Plopping them all in the same code just muddies the waters about why this is being done.

DS - you asked about men's-style clothing. I don't know how Spelman could say no to it since it's become pretty culturally accepted. Vogue and other magazines have featured women in suits and fedoras - or grungy flannel & Docs - but I've never seen GQ do a housedress layout.

And FWIW, I would totally wear a strand of pearls to a club with beat up jeans and motorcycle boots, because I'm a punk like that. :)

Point taken but I think there is still a large part of of society where saggy jeans is not considered appropiate.

And while yes, certain styles may be seen in magazines, doesn't always translate into being a professional in the workforce, not unless that is what your job calls for.

This is what I meant about not mixing the two together. You just did it. :) Spelman could hardly ban something like this as I think it would be acceptable in most workplaces. But it's definitely on the "menswear" tip.

I think the guys wearing dresses to class have ZERO to do with the guys wearing XXXXXXXXXXXL white t shirts and saggy jeans to class. It's two completely different matters and should have been addressed as such. Because, theoretically, a transvestite can be in full dress and look perfectly appropriate in an office situation. As long as you don't know she's got some junk under that Tahari suit.

I think that still may depend on what the transvestite is wearing ;)

I don't know about you, but I rock my Jesus piece at all times, son.

Bonus points if it's got black diamonds, to go with your "all black everything. "

LOL. I actually have seen people with the blinged out Jesus pieces at church. The priest just gave them a dirty look during the sermon.

Time will tell....
 

After having read all of the articles, I have to say that I am for the dress code. I attended a private high school (over 10 years go) which of course had a strict dress code. While men in womens clothing was not something that ever occured on our campus, I'm quite sure it would have been deemed not acceptable. Not because of a homophobic administration, but because of the rules that each student simply has to abide. IMO, you cannot expect a group of 17 to 20 something males to truly understand why it would be important to leave your lax attire for the appropriate occasion. I truly believe that 10 years from now, they will all look back and appreciate that they were given direction and guidance that prepared them for awaited them beyond those walls. Self expression and individuality are perfectly acceptable (as previouisly mentioned) but there is a time and a place.

In reference to Dr. King and his statement regarding Men (or people) being judged by there content/character rather than skin color, I hardly think he was referring to sagging jeans or anything of the sort. He was speaking specfically regarding the racisim that he and other African Americans were experiencing at that time.

Cross dressing, while I do not support any type of discrimination on any levels I have to say that I also believe it is inappropriate for class. If a transgender woman is seeking or planning to have gender reassignment then they obviously would not be a candidate for Morehouse College. Otherwise I have to say that I'd support it whole heartedly. Just my opinion....

Screw you all, down with Morehouse!

lol

Yes, but what is racism if not judging a person or discriminating against them just because of their outward appearance. I don't know what the term would be, but judging somebody by what subculture they follow seems little different to me.

Screw you too, Senusret!!! :D

:confused:

actually...I find this interesting...the gay community at Morehouse itself voted to allow this rule to pass:

Couple this knee-jerk response with Morehouse's recent firing of an employee who made fun of that fabulous gay wedding, and we're not sure what to think of the school's feelings towards the gays. (Morehouse's Bynum insists the policy change came after he met with Morehouse Safe Space, the campus' gay organization, which voted to OK the policy change. "Of the 27 people in the room, only three were against it.")

link

Racism defined....
 

Racism is defined as....

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

We have to be extremely careful with the words we choose to prove a point or opinion. So as you can see when we get right down to it, its apples and oranges...this has nothing to do with racism or discrimination (which is what Dr. King was speaking of) it merely a tactic to urge our young men to strive for perfection if not more than...Something I'm quite sure Dr. King would have not only supported but taken part in and with pride....