When standards are outlawed, only outlaws will have standards.
Kelli Davis, 18, had her senior class photo taken in a tuxedo top and bow-tie outfit provided for boys rather than the gown-like drape and pearls provided for girls. The school’s principal decided it could not appear in the yearbook because she didn’t follow the dress code.
Kelli, a straight-A student with no discipline problems, is a lesbian. She said she was uncomfortable to have her chest exposed in the photo.
“Because that’s me, you know. That represents me. The drape does not,” Davis said. “They’re not accepting me. That’s the whole reason we’re here.”
Here’s the photo of Kelli Davis that so mightily offended:
Clay School Superintendent David Owens denies it’s about her sexual orientation, just about a student not following the rules.
“There’s a dress code to follow—a dress code expected for senior pictures in the yearbook, and she chose not to follow them. It’s just that simple,” Owens said.
Here’s a prom dress “made by a Texas company that has advertised it successfully in teen magazines like YM and Seventeen.” While not an accurate depiction of the senior girls’ drape, it’s presumably closer to the æsthetic that Owens finds simply acceptable and Davis finds unacceptably uncomfortable:
Others applauded [Principal Sam] Ward’s decision, including Karen Gordon, who said, “When uniformity is compromised, then authority no longer holds.”
All I have to say to that is damn. If your authority is compromised by a girl in a tux, you’re in a bad, bad way.
(Mad props to yearbook editor Keri Sewell, by the way, who was fired for refusing to remove the photo.)
Commenting is closed for this article.
"When uniformity is compromised, then authority no longer holds."
Good Christ, but these people are so horribly fearful! What must it be like to walk around in a constant state of besiegement, always worrying that the ground may crumble beneath you and reveal some crazy shit like a young girl refusing to wear a dress, a cartoon character promoting tolerance, or someone who objects to a war? Is there no refuge for these poor right-wing orphans of the liberal storm?
Great post, badly marred by the stupid "prom dress" photo. As several media outfits pointed out, that model is wearing the dress backwards; those are supposed to be straps running across the back.
Granted, I've not been following the media trends on this one with a fine-toothed comb, but the consensus is that's wishful thinking on the part of "several media outfits":
From the Go Fug Yourself thread. Not the most authoritative source, granted; maybe we need to call in Snopes?
Whichever: I continue to be glad in my heart at our utter lack of cable television hereabouts.
Why couldn't she wear something wholesome
and all-American, like a prom dress inspired
by the battle flag of a country that declared
war on the USA?
I am referring, natch, to the delightful
young woman who showed up in a sparkly
gown modeled after the Stars 'n' Bars of
the CSA, and was briefly the media darlin'
of people who I would rather not think
too hard about.
"Gown-like drape"...!?!
Drapes aren't the easiest things to pull off, you know. Just ask Scarlett O'Hara.
Anyhow, all this young woman had to do was accessorize her tux with a pair of polished jackboots, and I'm sure Der Principal would have given her a pass...
Via Jesus General,...
The prinicple's just upset that he can't threaten to hold her back at the end of the year and extort sex from her and her luscious lesbian partners as the means of getting by.
This is how he fights back.
No threesome, no graduation photo.
MYOB'
.
MYOB? You've got some crazy on your face, there. Might want to look into that.
(Context is everything; recontextualization moreso. Whether I'm right about the prom dress or not, edgy bleak bitter humor or no, Patrick is not without his point. As usual. I just don't usually draw enough attention to throw it into such sharp relief.)