Morehouse College has added a new item to its dresscode, which prohibits students from wearing pajamas in public, sagging pants, and do-rags. The all-male, private college has now banned crossdressing. From CNN:
"We are talking about five students who are living a gay lifestyle that is leading them to dress a way we do not expect in Morehouse men," (vice president for student services Dr. William Bynum) said."All-male college cracks down on cross-dressing"
Before the school released the policy, Bynum said, he met with Morehouse Safe Space, the campus' gay organization.
"We talked about it and then they took a vote," he said. "Of the 27 people in the room, only three were against it."
Those breaking the policy will not be allowed to go to class unless they change. Chronic dress-code offenders could be suspended from the college.
RSS Feed
All male college, no cross-dressing?
What can a guy do to get a date?
I can't think of any reason to choose an all-male college that doesn't involve hatred of women.
They have some concrete reason for this rule, or are they just flexing their discriminatory muscles? I'm not really impressed.
the students did vote on it, and it's a private institution...
There go my hopes for being Homecoming Queen.
Heaven forbid they should have a dress code (no pun). As though they would be the first single sex or co-ed school to have and enforce one.
I thought transvestism had a fairly low correlation with male homosexuality?
What do the five cross dressing gays have to say about this?
Did they vote with the Veep in the room? Would a secret ballot have made a difference?
@Brainspore "I can't think of any reason to choose an all-male college that doesn't involve hatred of women."
So, I'm guessing you can't think of any reason to choose an all-female college that doesn't involve hatred of men?
It sounds like there was more to the "Appropriate attire" resolution than just cross dressing- the article also mentions "pajamas" and "saggy pants". It's the cross-dressing part of it that's stirring up the coals.
It sounds like the intent of the rule is genuinely to enforce a dress code, and not necessarily written explicitly to target the cross-dressers. (I'm not denying that they factored into the decision as to how to craft the rule, but there appears to be a bit more substance than just forcing gays to wear pink triangles or so on.)
B-spore: A single-sex school doesn't mean you hate members of the other sex, it means you have to travel further to find them and possibly hate them.
@Ito Kagehisa transvestites and cross-dressers may be two different catagories entirely. if you actually mean transgender that is.
if someone pays their money (to a college in this case) and expects and gets to dress a certain way, only to be told mid-way through, things are going to change (so to speak), well i'd have an issue with THAT part
" stuhfoo:
the students did vote on it, and it's a private institution..."
So what? What if they voted to lynch the janitor, would that be OK with you, too?
Agreed. Enforcing a dress code, establishing an official norm, seems to be the main idea... though it would be naive to ignore the idea that some people are specifically offended by cross-dressing males. As silly as I think this is, this is a private school and they can basically do what they want with their institution. This is one of the few times where I might think or say "If you don't like it, you should probably go elsewhere."
Even though this this decision may be new, I doubt the ideas behind it are. I have a feeling that the school is simply taking a stand on their ideals and ideas and, even though some of us may not agree, that is their right as a private establishment.
Perhaps they could have a couple of options with their school uniforms?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2158/2310544585_5311ee4de6.jpg
@styrofoam but if the issue is a dress *code* meaning a standard of style and neatness, cross-dressing shouldn't fall under that at all. there are malls full of stores targeted specifically to business/"appropriate" women's clothing, but the rule is equating *any* women's clothing worn by a man as inappropriate. to have a dress code, for example if it were a co-ed school they might be cracking down on girls wearing miniskirts to class, that's one thing. but including cross-dressing specifically as falling under the 'inappropriate' category seems, like you said, like it's not actually talking about a dress code anymore so much as the college just not wanting to see cross-dressers on campus.
"the students did vote on it, and it's a private institution..."
No they didn't.
27 members of an unrelated group voted on it. There is no mention of whether the five targeted students were part of that group, or even gay, and there is no explanation about why the SafeSpaces members were solely asked to deliberate on a transgender (or just plain ol' fashion) issue.
These silly people obviously have no respect for the ancient and honourable tradition of the wearing of drag in all-male institutions. Nothing funnier than a bunch of big burly rugby-players or paras in dancing around their handbags in dresses.
There's a time and a place for these things, and the dress code of any sensible institution should be nuanced enough to take that into account. If the tutors can wear gowns on formal occasions, then students should be able to do similar in the privacy of their dorms/digs/common rooms.
Banning the wearing of pyjamas in public though. Wholly behind that. Thrash the filthy frenchified perverts raw! This isn't bleedin' "Brideshead Revisited" doncherknow.
Carry on Sergeant-Major.
If the dress code were at a co-ed school, they'd probably be bound by that- but with an all male college, they can say "dress code consists of pressed slacks, an ascot, and a tricorner hat."
If you're a transgender male that identifies as a female, I'm wondering at which point you decide that an all-male college might not be the right fit for you?
I'm being coldly insensitive and fascist, I'm sure. Private institution, the biggest issue I have with it is the change in rules mid-stream- But I have to imagine that you could get a polite note from the registrar's office to help you explain your reason of transfer out of an institution that you wish to no longer pay your money to. Rules are going to be updated and modified, and somebody's always going to be caught in the middle.
Let's start talking about all the people in pajamas and baggy pants that are affected at Morehouse as well. I fully support their rights to wear those items of clothing in public. If the school says they can't wear them to class, is that discrimination?
Another way of expressing the headline: "College that traditionally discriminates against women, now discriminates against crossdressers." ?
Brainspore: It's not as bad as all that; Morehouse is right across the street from Spelman College, the local HBC for women.
@Church:
So, I'm guessing you can't think of any reason to choose an all-female college that doesn't involve hatred of men?
Fear of sexual harassment or assault is a much more pressing concern among women than men. How many dudes are raped by women on college campuses every year?
@Teller:
B-spore: A single-sex school doesn't mean you hate members of the other sex, it means you have to travel further to find them and possibly hate them.
I'm sure that may be true, but as I said I can't think of another reason for a man to choose an all-male school. Perhaps someone will enlighten me?
Another way of expressing the headline: "College that traditionally discriminates against women, now discriminates against crossdressers." ?
You mean the same women that take classes their everyday? Or the multiple women (albeit rare) who have graduated from Morehouse College.
Everything I wanted to say about this has already been said, and much more eloquently, here:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/018402.html
And here's a snippet for those who are to lazy to follow the link to the awesome article:
"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."
Not surprising. All-male institutions have tended to be intensely paranoid about anything remotely resembling gayness. Admitadly, most of them have working way out of the 1800s, rather than back into them...
What about an extra fondness of men?
All-male institutions have tended to be intensely paranoid about anything remotely resembling gayness.
Given that it's an African-American college, the injunction against sagging pants and do-rags makes it look like they're generally trying to turn our Stepford Husbands.
B-spore: Can't answer for college. I went to an all-male high school. Not even a female teacher. My impressions: if you've ever played on a sports team, it's like that. Relaxed. Easy. Nobody had to watch what they said, not even the teachers. No showing off for the females. No opp-sex distractions in the classroom. It was less complicated. We swam naked in the pool. If you screwed up, you got chewed out and that was that. None of the embarrassment it would cause with females in the room. If you got into a fight, the teachers broke it up and announced that after school in the football field, everyone was invited to watch these two guys fight supervised. That cut down on fights. You made good, tight friends for life and after school, you went to the school where there were women and did that part of life. Again, that was a younger age than college. The best analogy I can think of: playing poker with just men or playing with men and women. That's the difference.
Yeah. . . but they probably aren't checking what kind of underwear you're wearing (and I'll bet at least one dean is wearing his wife's panties.)
OK, so I guess what you're saying is that an all-male school is a good situation for guys who are uncomfortable around women. Sounds like a fine line to me, but whatever.
This is what I never got: how does a guy learn to see women as his equals out in the real world if he's brought up to think of them as distracting, embarrassing "complications" (all your terms) during the formative years of his education?
B-spore: I suppose some guys who are nervous around women would find comfort in an all-male institution. But they won't like it if they're also nervous around men.
As to your second question, don't quite know how to answer it. School isn't life, just part of it. If any guy - educated coed or not - doesn't "see women as his equals", the women he meets will let him know. Then he can adjust his thinking if he wants to enjoy the charm of their company.
Ideally, no institution should ban cross-dressing, however... these cross-dressers decided to go to an all-male school and they're surprised that they're not more tolerant of gender issues??? The FOOLS!!!
Yeah, sort of like non-white people and folks with accents moving to Wyoming. They should know better. Right?
Here is a really, really obvious one:
Mommy and daddy are paying, and chose it for them?
I know it's trite, and obviously there are plenty of other reasons for attending for different people, but it's probably less inaccurate and at least no more trite than "no women at school = students obviously hate women".
"You mean the same women that take classes their everyday? Or the multiple women (albeit rare) who have graduated from Morehouse College."
If it's rare for women to graduate from there, is that because few women want to, or because they discriminate against most women? I don't know how these things work honestly. There are plenty of alternatives, so I assume anyone discriminated against by Morehouse (females or cross-dressers) could find other places to get degrees, but that wouldn't stop it from being a kind of discrimination.
>>I'm sure that may be true, but as I said I can't think of another reason for a man to choose an all-male school. Perhaps someone will enlighten me?
Some schools are historically all-male having had sister-schools for female students. Morehouse is a prestigious historically black institution, that's reason enough for many to want to attend. Going to all-male schools is usually that simple since they're a rarity in the US.
>> Blahblah...private institution... blahblah... private... blah
Way to miss the point. No one said anything about legal action or a lawsuit. Embrace the wisdom of RTFA.
It remains an immortally* stupid thing to do in an institution that has generated people that have spoken out about oppression. It's immoral to suppress diversity among students you're gearing up to be community leaders.
*Yes, I meant immortal and not immoral: Is stupid, will always be stupid, forevermore.
"If you got into a fight, the teachers broke it up and announced that after school in a football field, everyone was invited to watch these guys fight supervised."
Great way to teach kids not to fight. I'd hate to see how those teachers would handle a gunfight. I seriously hope you're talking about a school from the fifties, and that the current teachers would get fired if they handled fights that way.
Does anyone else have a good argument in favor of segregating schools by gender? Or I should say, does anyone at all have a good argument in favor of it, since we've seen none yet on this thread?
The traditional argument was that without the distraction of the opposite sex, students would excel in their studies.
The dress-code is down on street and shabby clothes. I think the cross-dressers just need to get classier. A little black Chanel dress would set the tone just right.
(Mmm, reminds me of Sapphire, a crossdressing darling of casual university acquaintance, who looked great in a LBD)
Deidzoeb: Heh, not from the Fifties. Forgot to mention the combatants were given boxing gloves. So it wasn't quite a blood sport. Having to fight in front of a crowd was actually a pretty good deterrent against future fights. As for gunfights, it was a small parochial school in South Central LA, so all weapons were confiscated at the gate. Most assuredly this path for reducing fights would get a teacher fired today. Not to mention the lawsuits and possibility of a hate crime - since it was a mixed race, excuse me, diverse student body.
Well, I can think of good reasons parents or school officials would want a school to be gender-specific, but not good reasons why I think one should be myself.
For parents, and school administrators (especially those with a high society or religious bent) there is always the appeal of trying to uphold the students' morality by removing temptation. College age adults, though? The idea is understandable I suppose but fat lot of good it does. The only ones it will work on are the ones who already want to act that way. In the rest it'll just spur rebellion and disrespect of those in charge.
Realistically I think gender prejudices and concepts of gender roles had a lot to do with why such schools originally decided to segregate according to gender, as many such schools are very old indeed. As time passes, though, I think the reasons this remains an active practice have changed to the more practical reasons. There's also the simple matter of adhering to tradition, though whether that's good or bad is very much a debatable subject.
In further response to Brainspore's question I did think of another no-brainer reason why anyone would deliberately select to attend this specific all-male university, too:
That has obvious appeal, appeal people will be attracted to who likely attend despite the gender limitations rather than influenced by it.
Forgot to mention the combatants were given boxing gloves. So it wasn't quite a blood sport.
If you think that boxing with gloves isn't a bloodsport, you're watching the wrong fights.
Dammit, I meant to say "savage blood sport"?
I'd have to go back to the college history book but, I believe it was a matter of expedience, there was a need in healthcare(Morehouse ran a hospital at one time) I believe and morehouse stepped up to help women to fill that need. When the crisis abated the program ended.
Ah, Spelman, the sister college to Morehouse, is across the street. As well, CAU, a co-ed college, is a block away. There is also the Morehouse School of Medicine, which is also across the street. Then you have the city of Atlanta that has GA Tech, Emory, Agnes Scott, GA State...You get my drift. The college is not in isolation. Morehouse sits in what is called the Atlanta University Center. It's just a male college for men. Even gay men. But cross dressing...mmm.