As sure as the sun rises in the east there is one thing that comes around every so often in public school: dress codes and whiny students who don't like them. The AJC recently devoted way too much ink to the issue spotlighting 10-year old Falyn Handley and her fifth grade cohort Ruby Segerman styling selections from their vast collection of leggings, the fashion faux pas du jour. Logic has never been commonly associated with 10-year olds and Falyn sets the stage, beginning with "my leggings are your problem":
One good point was raised at the APS meeting: maybe the schools have some things to address that are more important. The need for education was clearly on display.
"I do not believe that clothing is a distraction. It is just the reaction that matters. I should not be punished for other people’s behavior. I am not a distraction.”Those are some skilz, slickly laying out an article of faith as a matter of fact, seamlessly transitioning to deflection. But then Ruby offers a logical chop block calling the play back:
“I don’t believe that leggings are a distraction. I would be very annoyed and embarrassed to be called a distraction.”The faith-fact conflation remains intact but Ruby invokes the pot-kettle paradox. If being "distracted" is a reaction owned by the distracted and not the distractor then maybe, just maybe, you own your own annoyance and embarrassment.
One good point was raised at the APS meeting: maybe the schools have some things to address that are more important. The need for education was clearly on display.
Posts
