I say we all (those of us who think this is a moronic, discriminatory action) email the pricipal who originally made the decision.
The fact is, it said right in the article that there is no dress code for senior pictures. Yes, yes…I realize that being nude or something equally ridiculous is out of the question. But for a gal who just wants to remember her high school experience by expressing herself the way she chooses to (in formal wear, no less), I’d say this is a spiteful and backwards decision by Principal Ward.
“American society”? The whole of American society imposes a “girls have to wear drapes and pearls for yearbook photos” dress code? Not to go all cite-y, but, cite?
My yearbook used the photos that the photographer who came to the school took. No one wore pearls who didn’t want to.
This article also has an indierect quote that explains, “she was uncomfortable to have her chest exposed in the photo,” which I think puts another interesting spin on this fiasco; what alternative does Kelli Davis have to sanctioned clothing that makes her feel uncomfortably exposed? None, I suppose considering the board’s decision.
I don’t think a girl in a tux mocks the formality of the photo. The superintendent maintains that there is a “dresscode to follow…It’s just that simple” despite the fact that there is not. Nothing written. That alone should have be enough of an argument against excluding the photo. The very foundation of the superintendent’s claim is false.
Until this case came to press, I’d never heard the phrase “gown-like drape” or known that girls were expected to show chest in yearbook photos. Hell, where I grew up, most high schools had the same rules: dress shirt, tie, and jacket for boys; dark, solid-colored sweater for girls, with a single strand of pearls or a silver or gold chain if they wished to wear a necklace, and absolutely no cleavage showing. Most girls I knew wore a crewneck sweater; a few even wore a turtleneck. Most chose a black sweater and pearls. And all of us, boys and girls alike, wore our own clothes.
Most of our mothers had been photographed for their yearbooks in black sweaters and pearls, and our fathers in their best ties and jackets, just as we were. Tradition!
This is where you lose me. If the school provides the clothing for the yearbook photo then that is the dress code. Whether its written or not, its what people are supposed to wear. From the sound of the article no one got to pick their clothes. Everything was provided.
But then you have to wonder, what school provides senior picture clothes? I (and apparently a few other posters in this thread) have never heard of such a thing.
Man, is this ass-backwards. It’s the school that’s being inflexible, not the girl. Or at least they’re equally inflexible, but the girl is within her rights and the school is attempting to create rules afterward. And for no apparent reason, as seen by their difficulty in manufacturing one. Ignoring abuses of authority doesn’t make you an adult, it makes you a sheep. Just because the high-horse end of your post bugs me, there is only one thing required to graduate high school - grades - and Kelli Davis is doing great at that. If you want to make up some crap about maturity, there are tons of people who should still be in high school.
The company that took my senior picture in high school provided the guys with a fake tux thing that you could just throw on instead of going to all the trouble of coming to school decked out. This is probably the same idea.
As far as violating secret dresscodes goes, my brother attached a Battleship Potemkin pin to his jacket in his senior picture. If anybody at the school had looked closely and known what it meant, maybe that might’ve been a problem. But nobody noticed, including the ultimate authority (our mother) until I saw the picture myself and laughed and pointed it out. I think she threatened to make him re-take it, but considering he never smiles it’s still about the nicest picture of him we’ve got.
He’s a Communist. I don’t think he really would’ve had any trouble. One of the benefits of being a Communist these days is that nobody takes you seriously as a threat. I guess that’s a plus?
That is a good point that the code is implied by clothing provided, but she did wear what was provided. A tux top.
They did the same at my high school way back when. They had tux fronts, an off the shoulder shawl, or a robe and mortar board and a screen for changing where you would remove your shirt and put on the offerings.
You know, looking at that photo, I think I would have been in trouble in her school. You see, in my senior photo, I’m wearing a white jacket and a blue blouse with a bowtie. I also had short hair in those days, and I don’t think I would have been comfortable exposing my chest, although I would like some more information on this “drape and pearls” girls were expected to wear. If it were something students had to pay for, rather than something which was provided, I’m certain my parents would have thought it was ridiculous and refused to pay. We’re immigrants and I’m the oldest, so they really weren’t used to the various customs of American high schools and what kids were expected to buy, which is why I don’t have a yearbook from my sophomore year.
I feel sorry for any odd duck kids like me who’ve gone to that school. Attitudes like the principals do do very real damage. If what you’re hearing is, in effect, “conform or else!” in my experience two things can happen: one, you can wind up doing all you can to get as far out of town as possible, or two, if that’s not possible, you start looking at the only way out you have: death. I really did absorb the attitude that a worthless non-conformist like me didn’t deserve to live. Fortunately, I was able to change that with a lot of very good help.
By the way, I love Kelli’s parents’ response to the situation!
It is not anti-lesbian, if it were it would be something different like kicking her out of school or not allowing her photo in the yearbook in ‘normal’ dress. What she is doing is demanding special privileges for lesbians, which is anti-straight and can be considered anti-female.
The article stated that she is a self proclaimed lesbian, and she wanted to make a statement. The problem is this is not her forum to make such a statement
I graduated in '73, and I can’t honestly remember if we were told what we couldn’t wear. But there was no “uniform” that we had to put on, one just has to look at the pictures. The photographer who came to the school took the shots in whatever we showed up in, although most of them were fairly nice looking clothes. A lot of folks used this as a chance to have a portrait to pass on in the family.
Any slackers who didn’t care just didn’t show up to get their picture taken. It wasn’t absolutely required, although out of 472 in my class, only about 5%, maybe less, didn’t do it.
And oh, yeah, the principal was being an ass. That whole “drape and pearls” thing sounds ludicrous.
It is sex-discrimination, pure and simple.
If she had been religious and refused to wear the “girl’s” outfit because she considered it to be immodest, it would have been religious discrimination.
As it is, the picture looks formal, and dignified.
She has no piercing, no inappropriate haristyle, no slogans, no gay pride pin, nothing. She’s just wearing a tux collar instead of pearls and a shawl.
The newsflash for these people is that a man’s tux has been acceptable formal wear for a woman since Marlene Dietrich.
At my formal (I went to an all-girls school in Nothern Ireland), which was held in a hotel, funded by the students but attended by staff, we had 2 lesbian couples with both girls in tuxes, 1 couple with both girls in dresses, and one “couple” where my single lesbian friend wore a tux and her gay male “date” wore a bright pink suit and a gay pride t-shirt.
Everyone lived.
My “Class of 78” yearbook has a female dressed in a tux and her boyfriend at the time was wearing what the girls were. (the off the shoulder feather boa thing)
It still amuses me and brings back some fond memories of high school senior antics. We had fun, we were free spirited and our high school year book reflected that.
I don’t know what reports you’re looking at but I don’t think she is demanding anything.
And for the anti-straight argument, that is pure lunacy.
Where is the report that said she wanted to make a statement, the ones I have seen say sheisn’t. She doesn’t even think the decision was based on her sexual orientation.
The problem is that your post doesn’t hold any water.
Thanks for playing and better luck next time.
Women’s tuxes have been fashionable formal wear for decades for women, not just gay women. The principal, Moto and kanicbird are rather backward for assuming that tuxes are not appropriate formal wear for women, be those women be gay or not.
