When Dress Codes Are More Than A Fashion Statement
In yesterday’s Essentials I pointed to a story in the Styles section of The New York Times, reg. required, that picked up a thread related to the ongoing discussion around exploring sexual orientation and gendered identity at a young age: gender bending dress codes in high school. The piece does a really great job unpacking the issues around safety, self-expression and distraction, but what struck me most was the insight towards the generational divide between students and older, more conservative members of the administration. From the article:
All this is too much for some educators, who say high school should not be a public stage to work out private identity issues. School, they say, is a rigorous academic and social training ground for the world of adults and employment.
“It’s hard enough to get kids to concentrate on an algorithm — even without Jimmy sitting there in lipstick and fake eyelashes,” said Kay Hymowitz, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
This resistance reminded me of the debate around language that was touched on in the earlier Times Magazine piece on coming out in middle school with faculty members expressing reservations about regulating the derogatory phrase “that’s so gay.” The reasoning was that an explanation of the slur would open up further discussions with students they felt were too young. In the case of schools that lay down a flat out crossdressing ban “no boys dressing as girls” and vice-versa a similarly difficult conversation is being avoided — one that asks whether a student is actually dressed inappropriately (i.e., ostentatiously, provocatively or dangerously) or making an innocuous, alternative style choice that may reflect a wide range of motivations from a curiosity about “guyliner” to fully identifying as the opposite gender, a choice that would eventually play out in the world of “adults and employment.”
Of course, conflict and general nervousness over dress codes isn’t new. When I was in high school, a few years after Columbine, there was definitely negative attention directed towards a clique of goth kids for their hair and dress. A few students even claimed to feel intimidated. Although in that scenario the roles of bullies/bullied are less clear cut than in the case of cross dressing and gender play, the same question of safety and the school’s role in providing it remains. In both cases, it’s hard not to ask if clothing can really be held up as the catalyst for these tragic episodes so much as the difference (whether difference = “gay”, “emo” or “goth”) they represent and would exist regardless of attire.
What we’re seeing is high school and middle school becoming a space, like college, where this type of exploration around gender and sexual orientations happens. And while there is potential for backlash here and discrimination and bullying of gay and lesbian teens or teens mistakenly labeled as such still persist, there is also more tolerance, GSAs (Gay Straight Alliances) and a higher degree of gay and lesbian visibility in teen-targeted media than ever before. So even while schools may not be able to fully enforce acceptance among all students or the faculty, they can encourage and enable students to inspire that sentiment by fostering an environment where these resources and associations are accessible.
Sorta Related
Morehouse College’s Gay Travesty [The Daily Beast]