Is college dress code anti-gay?
October 31, 2009 by Carin FordPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Student Life
Morehouse College recently released a new dress code: No hats, hoods, do-rags, etc. in class. But did the all-male school cross the line when it banned students from wearing women’s clothing?
In addition to the previously mentioned items, students can’t wear sunglasses or offensive clothing in class. Also specifically forbidden are “decorative orthodontic appliances,” sagging pants, pajamas and bare feet.
But that’s not all. The dress code also bans ” … clothing associated with women’s garb (dresses, tops, tunics, purses, pumps, etc.) on the Morehouse campus or at College-sponsored events.”
The school’s vice president of student services, William Bynum, said, “We are talking about five students who are living a gay lifestyle that is leading them to dress in a way we do not expect in Morehouse men.”
So is the policy discriminating against gays?
The school’s gay organization, Morehouse Safe Space, doesn’t think so. It endorsed the measure by a vote of 24-3.
Yet some say the policy shows a narrow-mindedness not fitting for a school that counts Martin Luther King Jr. as one of its alumni.
On Twirlit.com, Jessica Madison wrote: “… it doesn’t look good for the school of Martin Luther King Jr. to be closing its doors to men trying to live their own dream as black and successful homosexual men, who just so happen like to sport a purse as well.”
Does the dress code go too far? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
Tags: Martin Luther King Jr., Morehouse College, William Bynum
Loading ...
November 4th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Perhaps (and folks may disagree), the issue goes back to the late black Baptist minister and ex-football star Reggie White, who told the Wisconsin legislature in 1998, that he was offended that the Civil Rights Movement and all the sacrifices that were made to level the playing field for racial minority opportunities in America was in his view, being a benefactor of those sacrifices, being immorally misapplied. The argument made EQUATING minorities comprised of those who have chosen to live the homosexual, bisexual, crossdressing, transgendered lifestyle along with the consequences resulting in social isolation from the majority heterosexual population (which lifestyle choice was in his view and for the majority of Americans, immoral) to discriminated-against racial minorities was offensive to the noble, moral cause of racial equality in America. It’s like the black pastor at the church where the controversial Miss California attended who said about himself that he was saved from his sins when he converted to Christianity and yet he still remains a black male. The fact that Morehouse’s on-campus gay organization approved their new comprehensive dress code speaks volumes as to the university’s fairness applied to all its student body. It’s usually the “outsider” objectors who get most of the airplay on sensitive issues that have already been fairly resolved on the inside, but of course, not to THEIR satisfaction. Three Cheers to Morehouse!!!
November 4th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
This site is putting up with incorrect, bigoted, and offensive comments that claim having gay genes and not fighting one’s nature is a “lifestyle choice” and “immoral”? Why is it wrong to discriminate against interracial couples (when their offspring are less healthy, scienticifally proven), but OK to discriminate against homosexual couples (who produce no offspring)?
Have you experienced destruction of your property because of the way you were born? Or have you been overlooked for or fired from a job for it? Were your friends beaten on a street corner for it?
November 5th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Offensive Comments. Do you have some reference that helps me understand your use of the term “gay genes” ? Thanks.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I’m not understanding Robert’s comments. This is not about “EQUATING” two different groups–this is about black men who like to wear women’s clothes. Academic jargon does not change this simple fact. Is the policy anti-gay? Although that is its intention, what kind of earrings a guy wears does not actually reveal his sexual orientation. That well-dressed man in pink pumps may be primping for Ms. Right. Until it’s proven that tight pantyhose can cut off circulation to the brain, I’m not seeing a reason for the regulation. Let Morehouse men dress themselves.