I went to private school through 8th grade. Not some private boarding school and not Catholic school. I went to a small Lutheran Missouri Synod school. I had great teachers, we learned about Jesus, and our sports teams wrecked every single Lutheran school team in the state in basketball and soccer (looking at you St. John’s Buckley).
For most of my tenure at the school, my dad was on the school board or the school board chairman. He was part of the group that was responsible for implementing and also relaxing the dress code. I remember when uniforms were being discussed and I remember not caring all that much. Some of my friends in Catholic school had to wear them and it didn’t seem that bad to me.
Despite not having any uniforms, it seemed like our dress code was just as restrictive. Even though it was 18 or 20 years ago, I remember that logos could only be two inches by two inches. An oddly specific size that, frankly, was bizarre to a lot of us that liked to wear graphic t-shirts. I don’t exactly recall the rest of the code, but I think it was with the expectation that girls’ skirts had to be a certain length and that low-rise pants were unfavorable. It was much more restrictive for girls.
It didn’t really seem like a big deal to me and, honestly, I hadn’t thought about that dress code until yesterday when I read that St. Thomas More’s high school dress code was revised to “ensure modesty.”
It’s not really surprising that a parochial school wants to limit expression regarding students’ outfits and would like their students to dress modestly. Heck, I bet most parents of high schoolers want their kids to dress modestly. That’s a completely reasonable expectation for minors.
The new policy, though, requires girls to wear leggings, tights, or panty hose if they want to wear a skirt to school. I’m not an expert in female fashion, but asking girls to wear nylons or panty hose under a skirt when it’s 90 degrees outside seems like torture. I’m not sure if boys have to wear compression pants or not when they wear shorts, but it seems like an archaic policy.
Principal Ryan Bustle said that the decision was made after an entire year of ongoing research. To the naked eye, this “research” seems to be grounded in the biases against young girls for what they choose to wear. This patriarchal oversight into what young women wear is nuts.
We’ve seen and heard countless times in the media about times when young women are asked to “cover up” because they’re distracting young boys. It happens a few times a year, usually involving length of dresses at school dances.
The insane thing about this is that many of the people helping to make these decisions are men. Men who were at one time an adolescent young man. They should know that many (most?) heterosexual young men in high school are distracted by young women regardless of what they’re wearing. Young men are going to be distracted by young women regardless of whether or not they’re wearing a skirt that shows some leg or a burlap sack from the Depression-era. It’s hormones, not optics.
Teaching women that it’s THEIR FAULT for the raging hormones of young men has far reaching implications that go well beyond paying attention to Algebra 2 at 3pm. What it does, in actuality, is contribute to the patriarchal rape culture that society needs to eliminate.
Blaming girls for distracting boys in the classroom is on par with questioning a rape victim by asking, “what were you wearing?” At the very least, that line of thinking contributes to that line of questioning.
In the past year there has been a spotlight on campus rape culture and the lack of respect towards women by professional athletes. That culture starts at a young age, and when we start blaming “distractions” on young women for what they wear, we contribute to the end result of blaming women for awful outcomes.
If you’ve been on Facebook or read the news recently you’ve probably seen that one of the most well-known athletes in Illinois, Patrick Kane, is under investigation for rape. Immediately, without any facts known, people began to question the victim — What was she wearing? Was she all over him? Is she just looking for a handout? Did she bait him?
Those questions are brought on by a culture that is taught that young women are the cause of their own problems. Instead of teaching proper boundaries and respect of young women, we try to cover them up. We’re taught that being distracted by a young woman’s legs or shoulders or bra straps are her fault — regardless of whether or not her intent was to be sexualized (Pro tip: Fellas, it’s almost never her intent.). That, right there, is what helps to perpetuate the victim blaming rape culture.
St. Thomas More having a dress code isn’t the issue. A private school is well within its right to have a dress code. But a reductive one in which young women are targeted for “modesty” is when that dress code turns into an awful idea.
Have a dress code, STM. But make sure that the rules are for the right reasons. If you’re worried about boys being distracted, teach them to be better men.
Top photo courtesy of St. Thomas More’s website.