Shame on My Alma Mater Pt. 2
I decided to go back to McDevitt’s Facebook post to check out the comments and someone (I’m assuming a parent) had actually posted a picture of the original dress code for prom, and to quote her:
#1. For “Ladies”, there are 19 lines of rules, with long sentences, lots of CAPS & some italics: lots of “MUST” & “NOT”.
#2. For “Gentlemen”, there are 10 ones of text, no full sentences, no all caps, & only one use of italics. The tone is much less disapproving / scolding.
To be fair to the school for a moment, there are more varieties of dresses than there are suits, in general. But religious institutions always put the burden of not being temptresses on women, not on men for their behavior.
via Facebook/Eva H.
To argue the point and beat the dead horse even further, nothing about Aniya Wolf’s attire violated the dress code. She was in a tuxedo, and unless you live under a rock and somehow have never seen a tuxedo before, you know what that looks like: dress pants, dress socks, dress shoes, a button-down shirt with cuff-links (optional), a blazer, and a bow-tie. Assuming that she wore this properly, which she did:
via Facebook/Aniya Wolf, pictured on the right
Unless a rule was implemented in which a woman’s hands, face, and hair were deemed offensive, Miss Wolf was well within the guidelines of the dress code. I’ll wait and see if a copy of the email turns up stating (reportedly) hours before the event that the administration restricted her clothing choices to dresses.
It might also be significant to note that the rules were handed out on 13 April when prom was on 6 May. For those of you doing the math, that’s less than 4 weeks, at which point it would be too late to pick out a dress (as I’m sure all the Dress Barns and similar retailers would have been sold out of all but the worst dresses), as well as make the proper alterations to meet the requirements of the rules.
To address the people who say “she could have gone to a different school”, think about when you’re saying this. She has attended Bishop McDevitt for 3 years now. She has worn the same uniform for those three years: slacks and a polo/Oxford shirt bearing the McD logo. Juniors and Seniors are the only ones admitted to prom, barring the invitation by an upperclassmen to an underclassmen. In other words, she had not had the opportunity to “test the waters” of the limits of the dress code (or likely even knew what the dress code was) before a month to three months ago.
We also have to assume that she has otherwise faced no problems before this because she (as were many other students including those during my attendance) was able to wear this uniform. She was also able to wear a suit to the winter formal. She was getting an education which her mother presumably valued, or else she wouldn’t still be attending. She also has no control over which school she attends because she is a minor. She can influence where she goes, but she otherwise has no control over her enrollment.
But moving on.
As I previously wrote, clothing has no bearing on morality. Sexual orientation and gender identity has no bearing on morality. Clothing also has no bearing on the truth (whether you believe in “truth” or “Truth”). You know what does? Actions. Convictions. Beliefs. Values. If your beliefs–in this case, Catholicism–make you discriminate based on subject matter that has no moral indicator (like clothing, education, race, sexual activity), then your sense of morality has been skewed for the worse.
Judging by the dress code, the young women’s virtues (or purity or modesty or virginity or hymen, depending on your bluntness) were valued more than their autonomy. Yes, had any students been harmed while under the ever-watchful eye of the administration, the responsibility would have fallen on them. But in this case, no harm was caused, and based on John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, the only time authority/power/force should ever be exercised on another human being is to prevent harm, or at least prevent the most amount of harm to occur.
The manifest purpose of a school, regardless of whether it is public, sectarian, or home is to provide an education. The latent purpose is to develop one’s identity which will be carried throughout life. In this case, Bishop McDevitt did neither. If anything, it suppressed the identity of an individual, and, despite the outpouring of support from both the student body and people the world over, the school made her feel ashamed of herself. As I’ve written before, it made her feel like a mistake.
Schools also teach us what to value, if not why we value it. As a modern society, we should be taught to value equality, acceptance, and love if nothing else. Facilities of primary and secondary education (that is, K-12) should remain a safe space for its students, and prepare them for their life ahead. Bishop McDevitt failed in its purpose to do this, not just for Aniya, but for the rest of its students. It set the precedent of discrimination based on sexual orientation, based on clothing, based on presumably traditional (read: religious and/or conservative) values. It showed that instead of protecting and supporting its students unconditionally, it will pick and choose who to support and uphold based on arbitrary criteria that ultimately cannot be helped. Worse, it taught younger students who may not have been exposed to any kind of politics (governmental, gender, religious, or otherwise) to discriminate against those that are marginally different from us.
Once again, Alma Mater is the Latin for “nurturing mother.” This is neither nurturing nor caring, but rather harmful if not outright destructive. Bishop McDevitt states that it “cherished”, “accepted”, and “loved” its students, but this is far from cherishing, loving, or accepting. Regardless of what its beliefs were, the simple resolution among the administration, Aniya, and her mother would have simply been to allow her to attend an event during the formative years of her life. It would have garnered less news, less negative reputation (if you visit its Facebook page, Bishop McDevitt now stands at 2.3 of 5 stars), and less national/international attention.
Despite all that I’ve written, I’m not angry. I’m just sad and disappointed. But in happier news, congratulations, York City, for being progressive and “practicing acceptance and love” and inviting Aniya to your prom.
Shame on My Alma Mater
Well, my high school made internet news as well as the local news the other day. For Bishop McDevitt High School (in Harrisburg, PA and not Wyncote, PA), prom presumably celebrated Friday 6 May. I say presumably because all the pictures came up immediately that night and the day after, and also because the story broke that night on the local ABC channel (ABC 27).
For those of you who don’t click the link (because I know most of you don’t), the story is that Aniya (“Ah-n-ya”) Wolf, a student at Bishop McDevitt High School and an “out” lesbian, was rejected from her high school prom because she had worn a suit. From the information I can gather, the dress code for the prom was administered 3 months beforehand, but there was no mention that Wolf could or couldn’t wear a suit to the prom.Wolf’s mother tried to appeal, but evidently failed. However, according to one (who shall remain anonymous for his safety) of my friends who went to the same high school, Miss Wolf had gone to the Snowflake (my high school’s winter formal) in a suit with no repercussions and without ejection from the dance.
Still, Miss Wolf arrived at prom in her suit and was promptly told that she would not be admitted, and, according to her, if she refused to leave, the police would escort her off the premise. This didn’t happen, or otherwise, it would be bigger news, and ABC27 had attempted to reach Bishop McDevitt for a statement, to which it responded that it had no comment at the time. However, the following evening, the administration issued the following statement:
Bishop McDevitt High School held its annual prom on Friday, May 6, 2016.
Without question, we love, respect and cherish all of our students.
The dress code for the prom specified girls must wear formal dresses. It also stated that students who failed to follow the dress code would not be admitted.
The full dress code policy was sent to parents about three months ago. A reminder was sent to all students on March 6. On Friday afternoon, when it was brought to the attention of the school administration that a female student was planning to wear a tuxedo, we contacted her mother in hopes we could resolve the situation.
It’s important to note that students who haven’t adhered to the dress code in past years haven’t been admitted to the prom.
Bishop McDevitt will continue to practice acceptance and love for all of our students. They are tremendous young men and women. We simply ask that they follow the rules that we have put into place.
It makes me sad that I’m writing about my school like this. I understood that, being a Catholic institution, that it was going to be conservative by most standards, but it was always kind, always helpful, if a little strict. I suppose, though, as a cis-hetero (if not white) male, it afforded me the advantages not given to my SAGA/LGBT brothers and sisters.
As my friend (whom I mentioned above) said, “For me, much of the rosy memories of high school are suddenly replaced with the memories of lgbt students at McDevitt being ignored when they were bullied, and senior year religion classes in which our teacher stood in front of the class and fed us intellectually dishonest and patently false statistics that not so softly suggested that lesbian and gay individuals, like a few in the actual class, were products of either child abuse, rape, or some other traumatic experience.”
My issue here isn’t that of the enforcement of the rules. It is a private institution independent of the state and therefore doesn’t necessarily have to follow discrimination laws (as horrendously unfortunate as that sounds). It has the right to enforce the rules as it wishes, and take the measures necessary to see them enforced.
My issue is with the rules themselves. The amount of clothing worn or not worn is not indicative of morality. If anything, it has more to do with the level of comfort and confidence an individual has. The type of clothing, again, has no bearing on one’s morality and ethics, and it is a far leap to assume that someone scantily clad has poor morals (for example, the child molesters of our society).
The amount or type of clothing also has no bearing on one’s sexual activity: as many people have pointed out, if women are raped wearing coats and boots, then the problem isn’t with the women, it’s with the men and our collective inability to teach men self-control, and our collective mindset of vilifying women simply for the fact that they are women. The rules based on clothing, especially in western society, are arbitrary. Women can wear clothing that identifies them as women, that accentuates their “assets” as women, but at the same time, we vilify, mock, humiliate, and otherwise destroy her confidence.
At the same time, we vilify, mock, and humiliate when women decide to cover up. We take them down and destroy them for daring to take control of their own bodies and to control what people see and how much. In short, we as a society are raping our young women, and get angry when they try to take back control. Miss Aniya Wolf tried to take back control and was immediately struck down because she was so audacious as to step outside of the boundaries of “the norm”. Add in the fact that she is a so-called “butch” lesbian and oh my God, someone call the cops because she isn’t normal.
There is nothing wrong with a woman in a suit. In fact, many women can pull off suits better than I can. There is also nothing wrong with a man in a dress. Once again, clothing does not dictate morality. It does not dictate one’s level of faith or religiosity. If the argument is based on modesty, then if she were not modest enough, not one girl at that prom (nor any other for that matter) would be “modest” enough.
Modesty is a socially constructed idea designed to keep our young women trapped underfoot, to keep them ignorant and uneducated about sex, to teach them that they are responsible for not only their so-called “purity” but their husbands’, their boyfriends’,their fiances’ as well. In other words, it relieves men of the responsibility for their sexual actions. In cases of rape, not only is the rapist punished, but the victim as well: by the legal system, by society, by friends, family, and peers. All by virtue of having her “virtue” taken.
It puts undue stress and pressure on them when as a society, we should be promoting knowledge and education, not ignorance and abstinence. We need to teach people that they’re human beings with sentience, not objects for pleasure, or outright animals who have no idea of consent. We should be teaching our young men that they have the ability to control their actions, not just that “evolution programmed” them that way. We need to teach them that no means no. We need to teach young women that they have the right to say no. That they are (or should be) empowered to make their own decisions, to dress how they wish, to be as sexually active as they wish, without fear of repercussion or judgment.
As for my school, I wanted to address that final statement: “Bishop McDevitt will continue to practice acceptance and love for all of our students. They are tremendous young men and women. We simply ask that they follow the rules that we have put into place.” By rejecting Miss Wolf’s choice to dress in a tuxedo to go to her prom, you rejected part of who she is. As she and her mother said multiple times, she has dressed like a boy since she was little. She felt comfortable and happy with the clothes she wore. She felt comfortable and happy in a suit she wore to Snowflake. She felt comfortable and happy with the slacks and Oxford shirt and tie, or the polo as required by the school uniform. In what way is this different from either of those examples?
By rejecting her clothing choices, you rejected her choice to express who she is and how she feels. You made her feel like “a mistake”. That isn’t acceptance. That isn’t love. Alma Mater means bounteous or nurturing mother. You were neither bounteous nor nurturing. You were discriminatory. You acted in bigotry. You were outright hateful.
Answers in Philosophy 
