Title : Federal judge says a public charter school violated Equal Protection by requiring girls (and not boys) to wear skirts.
link : Federal judge says a public charter school violated Equal Protection by requiring girls (and not boys) to wear skirts.
Federal judge says a public charter school violated Equal Protection by requiring girls (and not boys) to wear skirts.
WaPo reports.Baker Mitchell, founder of the Roger Bacon Academy, which runs Charter Day School [in North Carolina]... explained in an email that the dress code, along with other policies, were meant to “preserve chivalry and respect among young women and men.” He cited societal concerns such as “teen pregnancies” and “casual sex” for the need to create a learning environment that “embodied traditional values.”...It is hard to see how requiring girls to wear skirts constrains sexual expression. It constrains all sorts of physical activities other than sex. It really facilitates sex, especially if sex includes looking up a girl's skirt and — to use the presidential locution — grabbing her by the pussy.
According to the decision, the skirt requirement forced girls to “pay constant attention to the positioning of their legs during class, distracting them from learning, and has led them to avoid certain activities altogether, such as climbing or playing sports during recess, all for fear of exposing their undergarments and being reprimanded by teachers or teased by boys.”
The school had defended its policy, saying it was based on “traditional values” and “is in place to instill discipline and keep order,” Howard summarized in his decision. “They argue that taking away the ‘visual cues’ of the skirts requirement would hinder respect between the two sexes.”...
“Defendants have shown no connection between these stated goals and the requirement that girls wear skirts,” [U.S. District Judge Malcolm Howard] wrote.
My schoolgirl days were spent entirely in skirts. It was required, and then we were sent to the vice principal's office for wearing the wrong length skirt. Especially me. I vividly remember sitting through the vice principal's lecture about the sexual suffering of boys when they were subjected to the presence of a girl in a miniskirt. I felt like he was sexually harassing me by talking about sex so intensely. He was making it sexual, imposing man-mind on me, when I, required to wear a skirt, simply insisted on wearing the skirt that was in fashion. Let me wear pants, and your sex problem is gone. Unless it's not. You dirty old man.
Now... that's enough 1966. Back to the present. The most interesting part of the North Carolina dispute is defending it in the name of chivalry. Chivalry is (to pick the most apt definition in the OED) "The brave, honourable, and courteous character attributed to the ideal knight; disinterested bravery, honour, and courtesy; chivalrousness." Wouldn't it be great if there were the choice to send your son to a charter school where they shaped him into a brave, honorable, courteous, ideal knight? But if it's a co-ed school, what are they offering the girls? I'd say having male classmates who are expected to behave like ideal knights is itself a great offer, but I assume the girls too would be called to bravery, honor, and courteousness.
Thus articles Federal judge says a public charter school violated Equal Protection by requiring girls (and not boys) to wear skirts.
that is all articles Federal judge says a public charter school violated Equal Protection by requiring girls (and not boys) to wear skirts. This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article Federal judge says a public charter school violated Equal Protection by requiring girls (and not boys) to wear skirts. with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2019/03/federal-judge-says-public-charter.html
0 Response to "Federal judge says a public charter school violated Equal Protection by requiring girls (and not boys) to wear skirts."
Post a Comment