Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe recently signed a bill that bans students from wearing baggy clothes to school.
According to Yahoo News, Florida is considering passing a similar bill.
Specifically, the bill prohibits clothing that exposes “underwear, buttocks or the breast of a female.”
At first glance, this law doesn’t seem so bad. Plenty of private schools already have dress codes in place and (besides the fact that all those kids hate themselves for it) there hasn’t been a problem.
My high school had a dress code that for guys that boiled down to wearing a collared shirt.
It didn’t matter what kind, if it had graphics or words on it or even what I wore underneath it.
Many schools have similar policies, so this bill really isn’t exceptional, except that it targets an entire state’s public school system.
But then the wording kicks in. It’s the wording that really gets to me on this one.
The first thing outlawed is clothing that exposes “underwear.”
Well, that seems like a good idea to me. I mean, we’re not all Anna Kournikova here. So, for everyone in Arkansas who doesn’t look like her, this is probably a good thing. My closest contact with a bra was that time in sixth grade when my guy friend brought his older sister’s bra to school and we all took turns trying to unclasp it, but doesn’t a bra count as underwear?
Ladies, you know all those times when that strappy shirt you’re wearing gives a peak at your bra-strap?
Well, according to the wording of this bill, that shirt is off-limits. It’s exposing underwear and that’s indecent.
Alright, you’re probably saying to yourself right now that the spirit of the bill doesn’t really mean bra-straps; it’s meant to address the bigger issue.
Clearly there’s nothing wrong with banning clothing that exposes the buttocks. But what about that last part: the whole “breast of a female” thing?
I will be the last to complain when I see the “breast of a female,” but I see where the bill is coming from.
Prohibiting any sort of cleavage from being evident would surely make kids more innocent, or promote learning or something.
But why only females?
Does this mean us guys are free to wave our “manboobs” around with pride, while girls are forced to watch with jealousy?
That sounds sexist. I, for one, am all for feminism. I believe girls should join us in the boob waving. Most interestingly, the bill doesn’t specify what the punishment is for breaking these laws. It might be something mild, like being sent home to change, or it may lead to suspension.
There are those who think that a cheer-leading outfit is indecent.
Actually, many of the clothes worn in extracurricular sports could be seen as indecent for one reason or another.
The girls at my high school who played water polo felt the swimsuits were too small, tight and revealing.
But that year we had high attendance at all the games. Practices too, actually.
The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) has spoken out against the bill, claiming it’s targeting black males.
Whether the bill is racist or not depends on its intent.
The argument could also be made that it’s stifling teen expression at a state level, by limiting their clothing options.
When you have a bill that doesn’t even define its punishments, it becomes too subjective.
If it was meant specifically to address black males, then having an arbitrary punishment doesn’t sound like the way to go.
Regardless of how you feel on the issue, the bill clearly has flaws. Until specific sanctions are made for violating it, it shouldn’t be enforced at all.
If Florida is looking at doing something similar, then the whole state will be in for a change.
I just hope they leave the Anna Kournikovas of the world alone.
Richard Solomon can be reached at richard.solomon@spartans.ut.edu.