I spent an hour and a half of my midterm-studying time on Wednesday engaging in a debate on the new dress code at the historically black male college, Morehouse. Read what's included in the "11 expectations" of students and weep:
No caps, do-rags and/or hoods in classrooms, the cafeteria, or other indoor venues
No sun glasses worn in class or at formal programs
No jeans at major programs, as well as no sagging pants on campus
No clothing with derogatory or lewd messages either in words or pictures
No wearing of clothing usually worn by women (dresses, tops, tunics, purses, pumps, etc.) on the Morehouse campus or at college-sponsored events.
While I have never been an attendee, I have spent some time at black colleges and universities as an organizer. And the class stratification that goes on is intense. With respect to the dress code, it's not my wish to get a view of anyone's coin slot on my way to Public Management (re: sagging pants). And there is no doubt that my quality of life goes down when I see men advertising sexist pictures of women that display their sexuality and nothing else (re: derogatory or lewd...).
However, it seems to me that Morehouse is instituting a de facto
uniform that normalizes and privileges the upper-class,
gender-conforming, cissexual, heterosexual, black male who has an array
of suits, neck ties, slacks and other fixtures of that life.
A part of me wants to go out on a limb and say that maybe some of the decision-makers enacted this policy because they know a thing or two about the disadvantages black men continue to face in this culture. They may have seen this paternalistic measure as saving black men from themselves. Maybe they saw this policy as a shortcut to social justice. Perhaps it is too lofty to bring black males into full equality by advocating for a world where they could truly be valued for their intellect despite their class or gender presentation. Morehouse has chosen to advocate for an exterior presentation that privileges men bound for corporate America and negates the future organizers and Steve Jobses. They have simply ignored the fact that college students -- with their mounting loan debt and shrinking discretionary income -- have decreased access to this uniform they've institutionalized.
But this goes beyond classism. The policy is blatantly discriminatory against trans folks and gender non-conforming men. This policy is about sacrificing one brand of black male to uphold another. This is about silencing a demographic of black males that these privileged, elitist, Morehouse men desperately need to learn from. And I can't for the life of me understand how a community that could write a collective anthology on marginalization and oppression could be unapologetic about doling it out to their own. Everyone should have a basic right to be who they are, especially at college--a time of growth, development and identity formation. The administrators at Morehouse should be ashamed of themselves.
Related:
Morehouse College's "Appropriate Attire Policy."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Morehouse bans casual clothes and women's clothing!!??!!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16654
I agree completely, and not only that but lets look at it from the standpoint of what makes a woman's top so different from a mans? Does this mean they can't wear shirts with a v-neck? or board shorts since those could be considered burmuda shorts? where are they going to draw the line about this? Are any of the students going to know what parts of their wardrobe they are not going to be allowed to wear? I think that this is insane. My college doesn't even have a dress code so this kind of thing- telling adults what they can and cannot wear- it just seems completely foreign to me
In my experience it *is* "completely foreign." I had a friend who went to a school very similar to Morehouse. I asked him about the restrictive dress code once and he was very adamantly for it, feeling that it was absolutely necessary. He didn't get into more detail than that, but he would brook no debate as to relaxing said dress code.
We didn't ever discuss the wearing of transgender clothing, as it was not a restriction I was aware of.
Oh yes, the behavior of "teh brown" is quite foreign. Nothing like this occurs outside of primarily black environments. Eww! Something definitely must be done about this. Where is a great white savior when you need one.
I don't think that's what they meant...
I didn't mean it to seem like that at all, and my statement had nothing to do with the fact that it is a predominantly black college. I just have never heard of a college that required a dress code (outside of a culinary institute or a medical school) so the entire concept seems weird to me
The conservative school I graduated from had a strict policy on Sundays that female students would not be admitted to the cafeteria if they were not wearing a skirt or dress and male students would not be admitted without a tie... the assumption was that if you were coming to lunch from church this is how you would be dressed already. There were other codes of dress that were enforced as well... so it's not that uncommon.
I agree with you Rose - Morehouse is definitely privileging one view of black masculinity over any other. I understand the mindset - I work for a nonprofit organization whose clientele is mostly black and Latino youth, and we are always telling our clients to pull their pants up, take off their hats, etc. Unfortunately in our society, young black men still face numerous prejudices, and if they dress in t-shirts, do-rags and sagging jeans people will probably stereotype them as poor, ghetto, dangerous, and/or gang members. By conforming to the suit and tie, middle-class professional look, Morehouse is attempting to counter this stereotype - which doesn't do anything to change the underlying stereotypes, just helps to neatly categorize black men into the good and bad ones.
The issue of banning women's clothing is a slightly different one, but it still relates to the idea of defining black masculinity - and saying very clearly that non-gender conforming/transgendered individuals are not welcome. Again, this probably relates to the idea that black men have it hard enough in the society - by wearing women's clothing they're just making it harder on themselves and their peers. It indicates a terrible lack of understanding of transgender/gender non-conforming individuals - and it's especially upsetting to read that, when Morehouse's GLBT organization voted on the policy, the vast majority approved it (so much for that "T", huh?). I understand that Morehouse wants to present a positive image of black men in a society that is still very racist, but this isn't the way to do that.
The issue of banning women's clothing is a slightly different one, but it still relates to the idea of defining black masculinity
Not the mention the fact that they're putting "feminine clothing" in the same catagory as "offensive/lewd clothing".
I don't understand the problem. These are standards of conduct that are widely prevalent in every arena of adult life. A school is a professional, adult environment and should be respected as such. If I showed up to work with sagging pants, pajamas, or inappropriate/offensive clothing I would expect my employer to promptly send me home to change. They have every right to do so simply because my attendace is completely to my disgression. I could simply find another job/ school if it was such a big deal to me. In a perfect world adults could dress however they wish, and indeed, during their free time they can. However, a college is meant to prepare you for the work force and I belive it only serves to disadvantage these kids to send the message that this hyper-casual style of dress is acceptable in a professional setting. Unlike race or sex, which is an unmaleable fact of one's existsnce and thus is morally wrong to discriminate against, being free to dress however you wish is NOT an inherent right.
I don't understand the problem. These are standards of conduct that are widely prevalent in every arena of adult life. A school is a professional, adult environment and should be respected as such. If I showed up to work with sagging pants, pajamas, or inappropriate/offensive clothing I would expect my employer to promptly send me home to change. They have every right to do so simply because my attendace is completely to my disgression. I could simply find another job/ school if it was such a big deal to me. In a perfect world adults could dress however they wish, and indeed, during their free time they can. However, a college is meant to prepare you for the work force and I belive it only serves to disadvantage these kids to send the message that this hyper-casual style of dress is acceptable in a professional setting. Unlike race or sex, which is an unmaleable fact of one's existsnce and thus is morally wrong to discriminate against, being free to dress however you wish is NOT an inherent right.
I don't understand the problem. These are standards of conduct that are widely prevalent in every arena of adult life. A school is a professional, adult environment and should be respected as such. If I showed up to work with sagging pants, pajamas, or inappropriate/offensive clothing I would expect my employer to promptly send me home to change. They have every right to do so simply because my attendace is completely to my disgression. I could simply find another job/ school if it was such a big deal to me. In a perfect world adults could dress however they wish, and indeed, during their free time they can. However, a college is meant to prepare you for the work force and I belive it only serves to disadvantage these kids to send the message that this hyper-casual style of dress is acceptable in a professional setting. Unlike race or sex, which is an unmaleable fact of one's existsnce and thus is morally wrong to discriminate against, being free to dress however you wish is NOT an inherent right.
I don't understand the problem. These are standards of conduct that are widely prevalent in every arena of adult life. A school is a professional, adult environment and should be respected as such. If I showed up to work with sagging pants, pajamas, or inappropriate/offensive clothing I would expect my employer to promptly send me home to change. They have every right to do so simply because my attendace is completely to my disgression. I could simply find another job/ school if it was such a big deal to me. In a perfect world adults could dress however they wish, and indeed, during their free time they can. However, a college is meant to prepare you for the work force and I belive it only serves to disadvantage these kids to send the message that this hyper-casual style of dress is acceptable in a professional setting. Unlike race or sex, which is an unmaleable fact of one's existsnce and thus is morally wrong to discriminate against, being free to dress however you wish is NOT an inherent right.
I know I am late to the table coming with this, but there was something eating at me about this policy ... and it has finally occurred to me what it is.
Schools want students to wear "professional" clothing as part of training them for their careers (which many students do whether the college requires it or not)? What about the fact that not all professions require the same "uniform" for work. For instance I know many pre-med/pre-vet/pre-dental/pre-nursing type students who wear scrubs to school. Would that be disallowed under Morehouse's policy? These clothes look awfully "casual", but if they are disallowed, then Morehouse is not encouraging professional dress but actively discouraging it.
In fact, teaching biochemistry and chemistry, I always have a student or two who shows up in scrubs simply because they have an internship right after class and that is how they are expected to show up at their internship. If a student is wearing "banned" clothing because he doesn't want to have to change before a "pre-professional" internship, what will happen? Will Morehouse discipline a student for not dressing in a "professional" manner even though the student is dressed the way he is for "professional" reasons?
Sorry about the overposts. I have no idea how that happened!
What constitutes a "cap"? Would a kippah (or the equivalent article worn by Muslim males) be considered a cap? Some of them are very cap like.
I haven't been able to find the original source, but this article appears to have a reproduction of Moorehouse's "Appropriate Attire Policy". The item regarding hats etc. is as follows:
1. No caps, do-rags and/or hoods in classrooms, the cafeteria, or other indoor venues. This policy item does not apply to headgear considered as a part of religious or cultural dress.
So that's something at least.
I agree with abayless. I don't think this is a big problem. I think Morehouse is trying to get black males to reject the "thug as fashionable" image. This is a stereotype that many males-black and white-feel that it is cool to conform to. When white guys dress this way, it may be viewed as fashion or as a youthful phase. But for black males, it maybe wrongfully interpretted as evidence that they are, indeed, "thugs." Yes, it does stifle self-expression to some extent, but I think Morehouse is trying to get the guys to dress in a way that will result in successful outcomes--when they are dressed in ways that does not detract from their intelligence, their "true" individuality is apparent.
The trans issueis a somewhat different matter. As stated above, a trans person may simply chooe another university. On the other hand, even trans males don't have to sacrifice being trans to fit the dress code. Anyone can wear polo shirts, basic button shirts, khakis, basic neutral (gray, tan, brown, black) dress slacks, etc. Trans males, like women, have all those more neutal options. I'm a woman and I wear very basic clothes to work. My more over-the-top feminine attire is saved for after work.
Keep in mind, all gender is a performance, for men, women, trans, etc. and at work, as well as at school, sometimes the performance of "worker" trumps the performance of gender.
BTW, I had a friend a long time ago that attended a very conservative,religious college. he and his friend tried all kinds of ways of sneaking around the dress code (hiding too-long hair in the collars of shirts etc). My question for him was-Why do you attend a college that is not aligned with your personal values/ This would apply to Morehouse as well. And we can't assume that all trans would have a problem with the dress code if Morehouse offers opportunities that outweigh the dress code issue.
People don't always have complete choice about what college they attend. Some students have parents who require them to attend a certain college in order to receive parental financial support--and since it is almost impossible in the U.S. to receive financial aid to cover the shortfall if your parents are unwilling or unable to provide as much money as the college says they should provide, most such students have to obey their parents. Other students choose their college based on which one offers them a financial aid package that is workable for them. It's not simply a matter of choosing whatever college you want, not for a lot of students. So the "if you don't like this college's practices, find another college" argument is not valid.
"People don't always have complete choice about what college they attend."
People don't always have a complete choice about where they work, either, but if you get a job at a fast food place and they tell you to wear a uniform, you wear the uniform - you have to deal with what you've got. My work requires me to wear office clothing (which in the UK is a little more strict than what you're used to in the States, I know, I've seen my parent's workplaces over there) - if I choose not to wear it, I either get another job or I sign on unemployment. So although you present a valid point that "find another college" may not be possible, I still don't see why that then becomes some kind of excuse to wear what you want. In the real world people wear what they're required to.
It's all well and good if they want to educate students about what's appropriate in a working environment, or even if they want students to dress a certain way to come to class. But a lot of these rules carry the stipulation of "on campus". So if a guy's wearing a hoodie (or loose jeans, or eyeliner) to walk to the student union, or in his free time, or in his room, he's breaking the rules.
In any case, there are plenty of less extreme ways to teach students about work attire. Most college have workshops and classes on how to dress for a job interview. Some professors at my college required that students dress professionally to give presentations. They could have done any of these, without making some overreaching rule that effectively tells student how to dress in their free time. They didn't, and that says to me that they had some motivation beyond simply educating students about professional attire - they're not just saying that "this is how you dress when you have a job", they're saying that "this is how better people dress."
Wow, never thought I'd see a HBC post here, thanks Rose.
Make no doubt about it Morehouse--and most HBCs--are a paternalistic environment. In fact, with some justification, they view that as part of their historical mission. So in general the dress code is of a piece with that, and it is entirely unproblematic. Morehouse is very much about getting ahead--and for the 99.99% of us who aren't Steve Jobs--wearing ties & slacks is a matter of corporate life. Heck, even Bill Gates wears a tie, and I don't think ties hurt activists either. MLK, of course, was a Morehouse alumn and ties didn't seem to restrict his activism at all.
Honestly, the only thing about the whole deal that bothers me is the transgender piece. Seems to me that if you identify as a woman, you should be able to wear women's clothes. Of course I suppose they'd make the argument that in that case you shouldn't attend an all male, private school.
Usually anything that would place undue restrictions on trans people is something that I would fight against. But more to the point for me is that Moorehouse is an all MALE school. I can't help but think that attending this school given a desire to identify as female would have been a poor choice even without the dress code. In a co-Ed college, this singling out would be completely out of line. However, I see it as a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation. If you are trying to identify as female, I would probably recommend going to an all-female or co-ed college. I believe Moorehouse is taking a stance that excludes women ( and thus the trans ) as par it's orginal intent.
Not everyone who wears traditionally female clothing identifies as female, though. They could not identify with any gender, or identify as male but want to break gender boundaries, or simply express their gender identity in a non-normative way. I can understand wanting to promote a less casual, more professional atmosphere (though I disagree with that as well, especially in an academic context) but a student's gender presentation is nobody's business.
I know of a male student who was suspended (and ended up getting into legal trouble besides), ostensibly for wearing a skirt to school. The situation was resolved before any trial occurred, but the lawyer defending the kid, being a true Scotsman, planned to wear a kilt to trial.
That's awful. I knew a kid in high school who used to occasionally wear skirts to school just to make a point. He never got into any trouble that I know of, but then again, his school had a much more relaxed dress code than mine did.
Wearing a kilt to the trial would have been a pretty awesome example of how arbitrary our notions of "male" and "female" dress are, though. Not to mention being pretty damn stylish.
I think someone's gender identity is no one's business. I think gender presentation is a different matter however. Your gender identity is no one's business but your own, but gender presentation may need to be negotiated in certain instances. Institutions don't have to hold themselves hostage to people who simply want to make a statement, or standout, or be a distraction, or even just be different.
In general I disapprove of dress codes. Still, we still live in a society however and institutions are entitled to create & enforce dress codes. This is much more the case in a private institution, where the individual chooses to go there, than a public institution supported by everyone's tax dollars. Students who strongly disagree can find public schools with looser rules (which are probably cheaper), or choose gender neutral clothing.
But those saggy jeans are a part of someone's identity, they feel comfortable in those jeans. If you dont want to see coin slot it could easily be argued that seeing what you wish not to see as far as the body or body parts of other people is the price you pay for living in a community in leiu of isolation. Freedom means not forcing others to look, dress or speak in a manner thats less aesthitically offensive to you.
However Morehouse is an exclusive school. It is not teh onyl school in the area nor the only school with high standards. Just as a person has the discretion of choosing one school over another and having their own criteria for what each school entails- schools have their own often exclusionary policies.
It's a LITTLE weird to contrast this to most all-female colleges, which are pretty much the absolute gender-twisty-est places on earth outside of a Thai ladyboy brothel. Obviously this fits into big issues re: advancing power to feminism and women vs. bunker-like mentalities for traditionally masculine identities/institutions/forces. But note how women's colleges are possibly the safest places on earth for masculine-presenting women; I can recall a time when Columbia and Barnard had to navigate a very tricky road with a student who had enrolled at Barnard, where most first-years have two roomates (and this one did), and this born-female student decided his gender presentation was more accurately male. Huge problems for his roomates, among other things... Anyway, you can't just transfer from Barnard to Columbia at will (cue snide back-door comments) and there was a whole GPA analysis reapplication thing before this student was moved into Columbia dorms.
Status as a student was ambiguous, but they really did bend over backwards to make this student find a comfortable place on campus. And then think of all the aggressively butch women who may even present as male and stay at womens' schools nonetheless. Maybe it's a result of the fact that if you're as aggressive about enforcing femininity as Morehouse is at enforcing masculinity, then you don't bother sending your daughter to college at all? What's the word on women presenting as butch at the womens' HBCs?
It's true that if you don't like the dress code, you can simply choose another school. But one can still have a personal opinion on the policy that's being enacted. And while I think Morehouse is fully within their moral rights to enact this policy, I personally disagree with the decision they've made.
I'm typically against any dress code unless it's a matter of practicality or safety. It makes perfect sense to ban workers from dressing in a way that could cause a safety hazard. But I find it petty and childish to enforce dress codes for the sole reason of enforcing ones own personal aesthetic preferences.
What makes baggy pants and an oversized t-shirt less "professional" attire than slacks and a button shirt? In my opinion, nothing whatsoever. People wear whatever clothes they do because they happen to think the clothes look good. The black people who wear baggy pants do so because they think it looks good. It's a matter of taste, and in my opinion it's rather silly to mandate that a member of a given group or organization dress according to the decision makers personal fashion preferences.
But do people who wear baggy clothing really do it because it looks good, or do they do it because everyone else in their community, as well as their cultural influences do it? When almost everyone in your age group in your neighborhood dresses the same, is it still about expressing yourself? Or is it as much about fitting in as wearing business attire is in the professional world?
"What makes baggy pants and an oversized t-shirt less "professional" attire than slacks and a button shirt?"
Moreover, even if we do regard that attire as professional, there are plenty of well-dressed "leaders" whose actions amount to nothing more than that of high paid hustlers claiming to be about racial uplift while a) being self-serving or b) merely advancing the agendas of the status quo.
The entire notion that somehow dressing a certain way actually means anything substantive with regard to becoming an EFFECTIVE black leader rings shallow and devoid of any real analysis of what's going on in the world.
"No wearing of clothing usually worn by women"
But women wear all types of clothes. Does that mean they have to go naked?
Yes.
"No wearing of clothing usually worn by women"
But women wear all types of clothes. Does that mean they have to go naked?
You know who's being excluded out of this very important conversation about race and gender? Black men.
Once again, here we are, a bunch of privileged, non-African-American men (I am a man, however), talking about black masculinity without having the slightest idea of how black men are viewed in our culture, or the challenges of being black and a man in America.
This is isn't a "what about the men" response - but rather, a calling for us to include race into this conversation - and for each of us to examine our own prejudices, whether intentional or otherwise, against black men.
It's about time, we as a feminist community, bring men and people with none-white experiences, into our movement. This is not because feminism shouldn't be women-centered, but because the injustices of sexism are, often times, caused by other injustices we've contributed to, but have overlooked.
I agree with the point that these policies clearly do not take into consideration trans students. That aside...
I think abayless is absolutely correct that these are completely reasonable standards of dress for contemporary society.
Rose fails to distinguish the broad range of clothing between do-rags and suits. As I read them, these rules simply encourage students to wear jeans that fit properly and non-offensive t-shirts.
Is that really asking too much?
Since they already ban women, I don't see the problem with banning women's clothing.
Two questions, for thought at least, as there may not be an easy answer to them. Both of them involve a common theme, economics:
1) How much has the current economic recession affected Morehouse College overall, in particular donations, grant money, and various funding sources, including tuition? Has there been discussion if and how the economic recession has maybe disproportionally affected Morehouse students and their families? The answer may be too obvious or simple, of course the economic recession has negatively affected all of the above, and if so to what extent does the Morehouse administration think it has affected them?
The more that Morehouse has affected by economic pressures (or thinks and says it has, at least privately), especially if it has been affected more than other schools -- especially compared to public schools not so dependent on private funds but which are still competing with Morehouse somewhat for funds at least from the public at large not necessarily affiliated to with any campus -- the more pressure Morehouse may feel it is under to project a professional, donor-worthy image.
1) Has Morehouse ever had dress codes like this in recent memory? Not 50 years ago, but in maybe the last generation or two, like back to the 1970s? One can imagine some very colorful clothing choices, not to mention hairstyles, some students may have had back then and the impression it may have made on their parents. If rules like these have been proposed, fought over, and then relaxed a number of times, this may be a cyclical thing, an almost perennial battle as old as battles between "town and gown".
This might help explain the timing of these rules at least in this announcement, in mid-October, roughly around the time that (at least on most college campuses) homecoming and various mid-term social events occur which draw parents and alumni and affect their impressions of the campus and maybe willingness to donate.
One of the easiest and cheapest ways a school has to tell potential donors it is worth donating to is to tell students to clean up their act, especially freshmen, however clean their act may have been in the first place. Maybe to some extent anyway that's what is happening here.
I am OK with some of this dress code, but
not others. For instance, the part about
lewd messages on t-shirts. I also agree
with the part about baggy pants. As a
teacher, I fight this one all the time. I
don't want to see anyone's underwear, much
less any body parts. Some of my students'
pants are so baggy that they literally have
to hold them up when walking! What if the
school catches on fire? They'd burn up
because they'd trip over their pants and not
be able to get out of the building! Also,
many of these students wear really long
belts that hang down between their legs, an
attempt to show their sexual power. As a
female teacher, I find it uncomfortable to
attempt to teach students whose clothes
might fall off at any minute or who are
attempting to assert sexual control over
me and other females in the room by their
almost nudity and phallic symbol belts. Also,
is it really too much to ask for people not
to wear hats and sunglasses in a building?
Barring religious convictions of course. I
would like to be able to have a conversation
with my students, you know, make eye contact
and all that. Or at least make sure they
aren't in class high or sleeping. There are parts of my "identity" that I leave at home
when I come to work as a teacher. I love
short skirts and stilettos, but I leave
them at home out of respect for others. I
don't want to distract others, and I ask my
students to dress the same.
But the part about defining women's clothes
is definitely out of line. Trying to minimize
distractions is different from enforcing
patriarchical gender roles.
One comment to add to the economics-related post above, to what extent the economy and concerns about image and donors might play in this, it could help argue against the part of the dress code related to women's clothing. What little we see of transgendered students around Athens -- when they are noticed at all -- is that they look like, well, appropriately-dressed women. Not like drag queens, and not like prostitutes (the stereotype of prostitutes, anyway).
Sorry if any of the language in that last sentence is offensive to anyone, but where women's clothing is concerned, that might be what some donors in their -- well, prejudice may be concerned about. If that's the case, one has to wonder where they got it. It's not like transgendered black men are common in, what, music videos?
Anyway, as this is prejudice, it could only cause more difficulty with donors in the long run, especially younger donors who may have much more problem with the idea of a college they are donating to essentially discriminating against transgendered students than whatever minimal disruption they might cause, which if they cause any disruption at all it must be fairly minor and will diminish with time as they are more accepted in the college community. Atlanta has an outstanding history of tolerance and civil rights for every "minority" which Morehouse has shared in. If the administration were to set a precedent here of at least quietly tolerating, if not loudly defending the rights of transgendered students it should be something that the college should be proud to do, and would only have a helpful effect on donations, especially in the long run.
It isn't the transgendered students anyway who are likely the greatest or most common examples of dress code violations under this new code. It might take a little education like through the campus media to explain to whoever might be concerned besides the rule-makers and supporters in the administration that transgendered students respect the privacy of cis male students, use separate bathrooms, etc. Surely Morehouse College has women's bathrooms somewhere, especially if you have any female teachers, at least as guests.
I've lived half my life in the USA and half in the UK (where I live now). When I moved over here I went to a local school where the uniform (yes, most schools have them here) consisted of black trousers, white shirt (long sleeves in winter, short sleeves in summer), a grey cardigan or jumper (sweater), black shoes (sensible flats, no boots and no black sneakers) and a black blazer with the school badge on it. We were also not permitted to wear make-up, dye our hair or wear jewelery (unless it was a religious requirement). In the UK if there is a college attached to the school you are usually required to wear this up until the age of 17 or 18 depending upon when you leave. After that the choice is mostly yours if you go to university, although all lecturers retain the right to send you packing if you wear something so outrageous it interferes with everyone else (e.g. offensive writing on a t-shirt). But over half the students here leave school and go straight into employment where (you guessed it) they are mostly required to wear a uniform or something conforming to whatever standards they decide in the workplace.
And I LOVE it!!
When I lived in the US clothing was important to a stupid extent, in my school kids could get beaten up over it, by the time I left, kids were getting shot over it. It just doesn't happen here, at least not to the extent it does there - how can it when everyone is wearing the same thing? I understand people feel that what they wear expresses who they are, but if it's to the detriment of everyone else (like the bullying caused by not having the right jeans, or the right sneakers) then that's bad! Uniforms are also a great leveler - how do you know if someone's poor if they dress the same as you? You DO, however, get a better idea when you see what clothes they can afford, and how many outfits they have. It was like a great weight lifted to not be concerned every day over what was going to go over my head and what people would think of me.
And as to the argument that a pair of trousers and a tie is classist, I'll just say this - decent jeans are more expensive than a cheap pair of slacks, sneakers are WAY more expensive than plain black shoes, and most hoodies/branded t-shirts are more expensive than plain shirts from Walmart, so you work it out!!
I am a graduate of Spelman College (the equally traditional school across the street from Morehouse). I have had the honor to have interacted with hundreds of Morehouse men - my brothers - over the years and I have asked some to respond so you may hear from them directly. I previously responded to a correspondingly uninformed and patronizing post on another site and have pasted it below. But, first I'd like to respond directly to a few comments here.
@Marc - cosign. There is a reason self-determination is a key principle of Kwanzaa
@Das - verging on the ridiculous, but kippahs are not banned. Let's not go there.
@susanstohelit In my 14 years in the nonprofit sector, I've witnessed some of the most egregious examples of patronizing. Self-Determination, anyone? Who are you to determine what is "the right way to go about doing it." when the school's GLBT community overwhelmingly supported it? Perhaps the error is drawing conclusions based on interaction with a group on a "clientele" basis and not as free, actualized people. Will some Morehouse students continue to wear dresses somewhere around Atlanta? Probably. But they've agreed to abide by the established norms of the school to which they applied for admission. And that is their decision - politically nuanced and totally their own.
@gadgetgal - cosign. The code really isn't new (see below) and in years past the students resembled more your campus than many here.
[pasted response]
Morehouse is not for everyone. And for the record, these are not entirely new rules. It is more a re-issurance/reaffirmation of the Morehouse character that has been in place for decades and had been slipping a little bowing to cultural forces not aligned with the Morehouse vision of black manhood.
When I attended Spelman in the 80s that *was* the dress code and it didn't need to be spelled out. Times change and some things needed to be examined anew and then articulated again with context. You are missing the context for all the "rules" you've denigrated.
The dress code is not arbitrary nor is any of the other school traditions and ethos. They are aligned with a specific vision of achievement, leadership, cultural pride and African American manhood. This is not the school to wear pajamas to class or a dress to Chem lab. I support anyone's right to express themselves however they wish. But, I also support a private institution's right to assert their own character and values.
I love my Morehouse brothers -- Corporate drones, artists, activists, gay, straight, conservative, liberal, greenies, playas and preachers alike. They aren't perfect, may not even be the model for everyone, but they are in service to a vision of service, intelligence, dignity and responsibility and I respect that.
Thank you! I was thinking the same thing (about self-determination)! My college campus had a lot of rules regarding what you could wear in certain buildings and even where you could or could not walk on the grass (and it was public!). They were mostly enforced by peer pressure and tradition. People always ask, "What would they do if you broke the rules?" Well, I would kindly be told by a fellow student what the rule was and asked to obey it. I went to the college because I liked the traditions. I think the people at Morehouse should have the same say in what their traditions are, without outsiders trying to reshape the school into their idea of what a college should be.
I thought this was a pretty good analysis of the issue:
http://www.theroot.com/views/morehouse-s-crossroads-has-nothing-do-ghetto-gear-or-cross-dressing
"The bourgeois classism and femiphobia embedded in Morehouse’s policy are symptomatic of a stubborn refusal on behalf of African Americans to have open discussions about 1) the sizable presence of gay men within our community, including (and perhaps especially) at institutions like Morehouse and 2) the continued popularity of black urban culture on the stylistic sensibilities of our black male youth.
The idea that young black men on college campuses are so developmentally arrested that the only way that they can distinguish between what to wear in the classroom vs. what to wear in "corporate America" is by prohibiting them from wearing sagging jeans at all times, is not only absolutely ridiculous, it’s also quite racist. Young black men are all too familiar with having our cultural fashions and stylistics pathologized as deviant, criminal or dysfunctional. It is thus painfully ironic that an administration such as Morehouse—run by and for black men—would promote a policy that implies that baggy jeans are a visual marker of anti-achievement.
Moreover, simply being a private college does not give Morehouse the ethical license to engage in fascist tactics. The vast majority of the nation’s top institutions (ranging from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to Yale University) do not depend on dress codes to “make sure” that their students are intelligent enough to deduce that walking into a medical school interview with gold teeth might not make for a stellar first impression. Instead, these institutions realize that even in the most challenging of intellectual environments, students should be allowed to express themselves on campus freely, in whatever clothing suits their interests."
My issue with the "students should be allowed to express themselves freely" argument in regards to clothing is that men's clothing is often not about individual expression but rather all men looking the same, whether it's in a formal/dress environment where all men wear tuxedos, a business environment where all men wear suits with pretty much the same cut and a limited palette of colors or all men wearing saggy jeans and t-shirts.
While two women are not supposed to show up to an event wearing exactly the same thing, this is considered to be the desired state of affairs for men. Men are supposed to conform to a dress standard in all environments -- indeed men are supposed to be entirely interchangeable in looks and our looks are not supposed to matter in most aspects of our culture. This is just the flip side of our horrendous cultural meme that women are supposed to be pretty at all times and objects of gazing: that is a feminine role, so the masculine role is to be nondescript (look at cartoons of birds in which males are typically showy and females are not -- almost invariably you'll see a bird that any ornithologist would id as the male of the species gendered as female and the female gendered as male)
Perhaps this is something that we should as feminists be concerned about. But saying Morehouse should allow students the free expression to dress in whatever male "uniform" they want rather than restricting students to particular styles isn't asking for any real change. Whether men are dressing in uniform saggy pants and t-shirts or uniform banker-grey business suits, they are still "in uniform", so to speak, because that is how men's clothing works because nondescriptness is one way in which our society distinguishes between men and women-as-objects.
Jeans are prohibited at "major programs," but having formal or business casual attire for the occasional formal event requires at most one suit, tie, dress shirt, pair of slacks, etc. How many of the upper-class male students in the Ivy League have more than one suit?