TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Hernando Today

Sagging Pants: Ban Tantamount To Racial Profiling

ADVERTISEMENT

By JOHN HERBERT

From Where I Sit

Published: January 29, 2008

It's sad to see that some members of Florida's Legislature aren't focusing on more weighty projects. They want to call in the taxpayer-funded fashion police to regulate how much a teenager's pants may sag before deciding the violation is worthy of a school suspension, a fine or even a brief jail sentence.
There's a risk the legislature will be tackling this very issue when it meets in March. It should stick to education, health care or road building, instead.
Sure, fashions can be carried to extremes that offend the gut conservative values of our more mature, middle class population. The provocative styles usually run out in the sand, though.
We saw the so-called "zoot suit" self-destruct a couple of generations ago. A high-fashion model named "Twiggy" inspired young girls for a while, until we ridiculed the anorexic look. Abnormally long hair was "in" among many men of all ages during the "Beatles" generation. Pragmatism eventually ruled.
The extremes came and went, seldom with government interference. Society judged the zoot suit as slovenly, anorexic skin-and-bones pitiful and long hair a pain to keep clean. Peer pressure also played a role in ending most deviations rather quickly. Occasionally, authorities had to summon sufficient courage to confront the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and actually ban the most outrageous clothing styles.
Most recently, with a nod toward post-9/11 security, daring teenage fashion statements have been trumped by school uniforms or uniform dress codes.
In Europe, particularly, officials recognized fashion deviations as fads and made their own ad-hoc adjustments for the duration. On a continent with universal military training, long-haired conscripts reporting for artillery training were simply issued hairnets as a safety precaution.
Nature ultimately took its course with most outlandish styles. Stark realities took over. Teenagers would grow into adult men and women with families to support. But, who in his (or her) right mind would risk hiring someone dressed as a disrespectful social deviate, one that probably couldn't even earn a high-school diploma?
Young adults searching for a steady job could no longer look or act outrageous, dress for protest rather than a 9-5 grind, or possibly not conform. Schools are expected to graduate students more or less prepared for the job market. Teaching the 3 R's is one thing; schools also advise how to groom for a job interview.
That's the parents' job, critics might protest. It was, maybe 50 years ago, when the woman's sole job was to be a homemaker and to raise her kids. We can't expect the same today; both parents often hold jobs. They're either too well-educated or too needy, or both, to stay home all day and send the kids off to class conservatively spick and span.
In some extreme cases, involving drugs or alcohol, for example, the parents just don't care how their children look or how they're dressed for school. Cities or states have little choice but to step into the fashion void. That's nothing new; the state often raises and properly clothes children in their charge.
In short, if the parents won't, or can't, take the time or show enough interest to ensure that their school-age children are sufficiently tidy for the classroom, society takes over the parental role. The question is whether the state should do the job, or whether individual school systems can control the picture.
That's a good enough solution in New Jersey, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas and elsewhere that dress code issues have been ceded to the locals. Just because the "loser" pants statement supposedly originated in Florida prisons, it's not necessary for the state to intervene. City and county schools can handle it just fine.
Pretty much on cue, the ACLU objects to anti-sagging pants dress codes — for two reasons. The way you wear your clothes is a matter of Constitutionally-protected free expression, contends the agency. To that, I note that indecent exposure has been illegal since at least the Middle Ages.
The ACLU also argues that a ban on sagging pants would be tantamount to racial profiling. The ACLU doesn't know what it's talking about. It apparently hasn't stationed an observer outside the Wal-Mart on Rt. 50 recently; the majority of teenagers swaggering through the parking lot dressed like thugs are white.
Let's face it; the sagging pants style is obnoxious. We may have had to tolerate that infamous "plumbers' crack" for years, but most of your underwear, too? Let's hope this, too, will pass.

A regular columnist for Hernando Today, John Herbert lives in Spring Hill.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT