Print
Email
New dress code shrouds a lack of academic and financial vision that threatens the foundation of the college’s pedigree.
The conversation regarding the new dress-code policy at Morehouse College has been hijacked by a vociferous gang of socially conservative black pundits: some of them simply politically misguided, others merely proud homophobes; a few of them the ideological love-children of Ward Connerly and Bill Cosby. In the short week and a half since I became the first writer to report the news of Morehouse’s new policy, the college has become the subject of an intensifying national debate regarding the role that style plays in producing (or constraining) black male substance.
By now, there is no need to explain what went “down” at Morehouse. You already know. But while you may have already heard the details of Morehouse’s new “no grills or purses” policy, it’s quite possible that you have yet to hear an impassioned defense of grillz and purses in the spirit of Morehouse’s most illustrious progenitors.
There are those who have argued that it is inappropriate to incite a national public dialogue about what’s happening at a private, independently funded college. In the blogosphere, there have been comments in recent days such as “What goes on at Morehouse is a private affair between its students, alumni and administrators. There is nothing illegal about a private school enforcing a dress code. Any student who is unhappy with the dress code has the liberty to leave.”
These voices are misguided and unsophisticated. Morehouse College is much more than simply a “private institution;” it is a black cultural pillar. In other words, the institution we call “Morehouse” is quite similar to the institution we call “the black church.” One does not have to be a member of these institutions in order to be affected by what goes on within their walls. Given Morehouse’s stature as a historical pillar, all African-American men (not just those who are students or alumni of the institution) have an ethical obligation to contribute to this national dialogue about the politics of the college’s policies—especially in instances where it promotes a climate of rampant anti-ghetto-culture classism and femiphobia.
The bourgeois classism and femiphobia embedded in Morehouse’s policy are symptomatic of a stubborn refusal on behalf of African Americans to have open discussions about 1) the sizable presence of gay men within our community, including (and perhaps especially) at institutions like Morehouse and 2) the continued popularity of black urban culture on the stylistic sensibilities of our black male youth.
The idea that young black men on college campuses are so developmentally arrested that the only way that they can distinguish between what to wear in the classroom vs. what to wear in "corporate America" is by prohibiting them from wearing sagging jeans at all times, is not only absolutely ridiculous, it’s also quite racist. Young black men are all too familiar with having our cultural fashions and stylistics pathologized as deviant, criminal or dysfunctional. It is thus painfully ironic that an administration such as Morehouse—run by and for black men—would promote a policy that implies that baggy jeans are a visual marker of anti-achievement.
Moreover, simply being a private college does not give Morehouse the ethical license to engage in fascist tactics. The vast majority of the nation’s top institutions (ranging from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to Yale University) do not depend on dress codes to “make sure” that their students are intelligent enough to deduce that walking into a medical school interview with gold teeth might not make for a stellar first impression. Instead, these institutions realize that even in the most challenging of intellectual environments, students should be allowed to express themselves on campus freely, in whatever clothing suits their interests.
Turning Morehouse College into a playground of men with cardigans and bow ties will not substantively increase the institution’s rapidly declining graduation rates (at last check, only 64 percent of Morehouse men graduate within six years). Nor will it help to reverse the college’s long-standing inability to attract superstar black faculty in the humanities or social sciences. (I doubt that a new undergraduate “dress code” would be appealing to the likes of Bell Hooks or Cornel West.) Nor will it beef up the resources that one would expect to find on the campus of a purportedly “elite” college (such as better library holdings, laboratories or facilities).
So the question becomes: What’s really behind this decision?
Morehouse College is at a crossroads, and it’s one that has nothing to do with cross-dressing. The institution is suffering from a financial and vision mismanagement crisis that threatens to rock the foundation of the college’s pedigree. The administration has failed repeatedly to substantively raise the college’s meek endowment (currently only at $117 million, a far cry from Spelman College’s $291 million and Howard’s comparatively colossal $490 million). Moreover, the administration has still not effectively come up with a strategy for raising the college’s national ranking (Both Spelman and Howard have recently ascended into U.S. News & World Report’s coveted “Tier 1” classification, while Morehouse lags behind in “Tier 3,” one rank above the lowest possible designation.)
Thus, the college’s decision to regulate the fashion trends of its undergrad student body is nothing short of a lazy attempt to shift the focus away from a failing administration that has had a less-than-stellar “job performance” in the crucial arenas of endowment, rank and matriculation. The administration’s buffoonish emphasis on attire instead of actual academic achievement is perhaps precisely why the college finds itself in the unfortunate situation it has inherited. Prohibiting feminine clothing and “ghetto gear” is simply an easy way of refusing to get down to the more serious, nitty-gritty work of revitalizing Morehouse’s scholastic legacy.
Moreover, the sexual politics of Morehouse’s dress code not only sends out a disheartening message to the legions of feminine or gender non-conforming black boys who one day hope to attend “The House” (long ago, I was one of them), it also promulgates an openly hostile climate toward current students on Morehouse’s campus who have an alternative vision of what a “Morehouse man” actually looks like. The policy is not so much “homophobic” (indeed, many gay men do not wear women’s clothing, therefore it is unfair to assume that the policy is directed toward gay men at large) as much as it is “femiphobic” (an attempt to vilify the subset of gay men who choose to express themselves in women’s clothing).
But perhaps most disturbingly, the new dress-code policy at Morehouse College is a stunning retrenchment of the prophetic vision once made famous by the institution’s most distinguished alumnus: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.. It was Dr. King, of course, who prophesied the dawn of a political landscape where men would be judged first and foremost by the “content of their character” rather than by the superficial trappings of color (or, by extension, clothing). Morehouse’s dress-code policy is nothing short of a reversal of the ethical sensibility of Dr. King, who warned us repeatedly about the ruse of the exterior (color, gender, etc.) over the more substantive interior (intelligence, character, integrity). Perhaps this administration might rethink its policy in relationship to the man who most Americans see as the true embodiment of the institution’s political promise.
As African-American men, we all “belong” to Morehouse College, and Morehouse belongs to us. Doing the work of transforming the politics of sexuality and class within the black community is no easy task. But perhaps the best place to begin is in the halls of our “house.”
Frank Leon Roberts is a Ford Foundation Dissertation Fellow in American Studies. He writes at frankrobertsonline.
Comments
منتديات صدفة
الاسلامي
الصوتيات والمرئيات الإسلامية
القسم العام
الحوار العام
الترحيب والتعارف
أخبار عامه وجرائم واثارة
همس القوافي
الخواطر والنثر
القصص والروايات
منتديات صدفة - صدفة - صدفه
English Forum
المدارس والجامعات
الاسرة والطفل
عالم المرأة والأناقة
الموضة والأزياء
المكياج والعناية بشعر
العروس ومستلزماتها
أهداف الدوري السعودي
أهداف الدوريات والبطولات العالمية
اخبار الشركات (stc - mobily - zain )
دروس التصميم
العاب Playstation 3
العاب Xbox360
العاب PC
العاب psp
عالم الرجل
الديكور والاثاث
عالم حواء للطبخ
الصحة والطب
هوليوود و بوليوود
مسلسلات كوري و ياباني
مشاهير العرب
المسلسلات التركيه
يارا الفني
الانمي وافلام الكرتون
الرياضه العالميه والعربيه
الدوري السعودي
السيارات و المحركات
مكتبة الأهداف
برامج كمبيوتر
الجوال والبلوتوث
التصميم والإبداع
دورة صدفه لتعليم الفوتوشوب
ماسنجر توبيكات رموز صور مسنجر
الالعاب الالكترونية
الألعاب والمسابقات.
فله وناسه
السياحة والسفر
عجائب وغرائب الصور
عالم بنت
منتديات عالم بنت
فعاليات و مسابقات عالم بنت
قسم العالم العام
ناقش وشارك [لا
للنقل]
أخوه في الاسلام
أهلا بمن حل ضيفا علينا
سكرابز
سكرابز - عالم بنت
تصاميمنا وابداعاتنا
تصاميم
تصميم
فوتوشوب
حقيبة المصمم
البوم صور التصاميم
دروس الفوتوشوب والايميج ردي
عالم حواء
عالم مائدتك
عالم الطب و الصحه
عالم الديكور
عالم الصور المنوعه
عالم القصص و الروايات
العاب بنات
مسنجر-صور مسنجر-توبيكات-مسن
ام ام اس - وسائط - كل مايخص الجوال
توبيكات
توبيك
ماسنجر
صور للتصميم
صور بنات للتصميم
سكرابز قلوب
سكرابز 2009
فساتين 2009
فساتين 2010
I think that putting "phobia" next to a word is a clever way of making the reader or listener feel that an action is without justification or logic. I may use that in the future.
All in All I feel that this argument is an example of how some people oversimplify life and its outcomes by emphasizing its core inputs, while disregarding less significant but still important factors. There are also people on the other side of the argument who over emphasize symbolic representations of outcomes, while disregarding the core inputs.
So I agree with the writer that more impactful changes need to be implemented. But I also share the view that the appearance of students on campus posed reputation risk that could ultimately result in faltering support for those who are attracted to and expecting products of the institution to exude a certain "mystique" or "aura".
Perhaps the alternative fashion is simply a byproduct of a falling stock of intellectual capital (in students and professors); if that is the case, it remains important mask to this byproduct to maintain resources given based on the perception exceptional performance. Otherwise, a group of malignant perceptions and realities will together reinforce a cycle of decline. If a level of perception is maintained or revitalized, enough resources and time may be acquired to make structural and impactful improvements.
I think that putting "phobia" next to a word is a clever way of making the reader or listener feel that an action is without justification or logic. I may use that in the future.
All in All I feel that this argument is an example of how some people oversimplify life and its outcomes by emphasizing its core inputs, while disregarding less significant but still important factors. There are also people on the other side of the argument who over emphasize symbolic representations of outcomes, while disregarding the core inputs.
So I agree with the writer that more impactful changes need to be implemented. But I also share the view that the appearance of students on campus posed reputation risk that could ultimately result in faltering support for those who are attracted to and expecting products of the institution to exude a certain "mystique" or "aura".
Perhaps the alternative fashion is simply a byproduct of a falling stock of intellectual capital (in students and professors); if that is the case, it remains important mask to this byproduct to maintain resources given based on the perception exceptional performance. Otherwise, a group of malignant perceptions and realities will together reinforce a cycle of decline. If a level of perception is maintained or revitalized, enough resources and time may be acquired to make structural and impactful improvements.
Welcome to Shopping →→→ http://www.dudemalls.com
Best quality, Best reputation , Best services
With our advanced manufacturing, production lines and well-organized sales networks, we can provide many products, such as apparel, shoes, caps, handbags, etc.
Our goal is "the best quality, best reputation and best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.
HOT SELL Product Brand is below:
Nike Air Jordan(1-25)/Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk: $32
Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&F ……T-shirt:
Coach /Gucci/Lv/Ed Hardy/D&G/Fendi ……Handbag:$35
Christian Louboutin/Lv/Ed Hardy/Gucci/Coach/Lacoste/ Timbland……Shoe :$35
True Religion/Coogi/Evisu/Ed Hardy/Prada ……Jeans:$30
New era/Gucci/Ed hardy ……cap : $13
Okely/Coach/D&G/Fendi/Gucci/Armani ……sunglass : $15
Nike shoes: 32 $, True Religion jeans: 30 $, Ed Hardy, t-shirts: 12 $, NFL Jersey: 20 $, Boots UGG: 50 $
http://www.dudemalls.com/productlist.asp?id=s18 (JORDAN SHOES)
http://www.dudemalls.com/productlist.asp?id=s22 (ED HARDY)
http://www.dudemalls.com/productlist.asp?id=s69 (Handbag)
http://www.dudemalls.com/productlist.asp?id=s6 (TSHIRTS)
http://www.dudemalls.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 (Jacket)
http://www.dudemalls.com/productlist.asp?id=s77 (Hoody_m)
http://www.dudemalls.com/productlist.asp?id=s1 (NHL Jersey)
http://www.dudemalls.com/productlist.asp?id=s3 (NBA Jersey)
http://dudemalls.com/productlist.asp?id=n316 (Photoshop CS4)
Morehouse College is making headlines today for its controversial new dress code policy. It’s quite funny to talk about this issue. Anyway, private universities can more or less decide their own policies, which attract negative attention at times, such as dress code policy, and a recent stink began over the Morehouse College dress code. The Morehouse College dress code forbids a man to wear anything resembling women's clothing – although one wonders how it's a problem. The reason why that Morehouse College is one of the few men's colleges in the U.S., meaning no women attend. (Then why go?) The Morehouse College dress code isn't much of a scandal – it's just requiring students to take their appearance seriously.
If a higly respected private institution implements dress codes that prevents their students from wearing accessories that are not professional, are we really discussing the merit of that? is that even up for discussion? why isn't that just common sense?
such as academia, if you can't wear dresses in the boardroom/professional job sectors? Are you fighting for young men to have the liberty to wear dresses in all places besides Morehouse as well such as Boeing, the State Department, during residencies, in business developement, etc.? Is the writer making a case that male teachers should also have the right to wear dresses when they teach as well as gay faculty and staff at Morehouse and other institutions yearning for his advocacy so they can wear dresses on campus too? Who is yearning for this agency but childlike boys?
If the protest is not going to wage of the same argument against all other institutions of professional agency, why then should Morehouse singled out for being archaic if the world abides to the same rules of no dress wore by men in the stock sectors in Japan, the UK, and America, etc.
Is the writer fighting for the highest office to have the luxury of liberal dress in wearing a dress the option for our president and future presidents? If the protest only singles out Morehouse's supposed archaic mindset, then the writer must confront the entire majority of the world for it's upheld standards against men wearing dresses in focused environments.
This writer is a Ford Foundation Fellow? Mediocrity is eating meritocracy alive. This is a weak argument against Morehouse and civil society constraints.
After learning more about this dress code controversy I was suspicious that the dress code was really a guise to force the transvestites of Morehouse back into the closet -- as opposed to a rampant problem of sagging jeans, grilled out teeth and bare feet in the classrooms of Morehouse.
As I said earlier, I think a more intellectually honest approach would be not to admit transvestites if you think they can't properly represent Morehouse.
With regard to sagging, I can't get over the importance some people are placing on form over substance. I don't know what age group you work with as an educator, but even simply as a parent, we know that young people do silly things. By the same token we know that they grow, they mature and they change as a result of growth and maturity. Unfortunately sagging jeans is a fashion trend that many young men choose to follow. I personally think it looks silly and understand it originates from prison culture. I don't like it either. By the same token I don't see it as that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. I certainly would not expel an otherwise bright student who shows academic promise, simply because he's sagging. How is that helping black people? The sagger is the precise type of young black man I'd be working hard to keep in school rather then trying to alienate him from academia over something as inconsequential in the long run, as what's he's wearing.
IMO sagging is a young people's fad. I think young men, especially young men who are going to college, will grow out of sagging. It seems to me folks have elevated sagging to a federal offense. There are fashion trends in every generation that the elders despise and somehow we've made it through.
I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that any young man who sags definitely won't be among those who lead our community. You probably would say the same thing about any young man doing cocaine and smoking weed, but one of those young men grew up to be POTUS.
I'm surprised that an educator is so quick to write-off "certain" youngsters as destined to grow-up to be nobodies.
@FrankTalk-"Fewer prospective students will have an emotional attachment to an HBCU and be drawn to predominantly white schools with prettier campuses. Especially schools that don't impose a strict dress code."
In the case of Morehouse, many young men are bypassing it because of the cross-dressers leading it to be known, by some, as a college for gay black men, instead of the college of King. Call it homophobia if you will, but its reality.
AND, I hope you donate to your alma mater. It may well be that the reason the enrollment of Paul Quinn has dwindled has nothing to do with the dress code, but the lack of financial support it receives, thereby limiting its offerings and recruitment abilities.
As an educator and parent I can appreciate Morehouse's new dress code (note--dress codes are different from uniforms). Many of my students show up wearing undershirts, t-shirts with inappropriate words and, as the temperature rises, increasingly higher hem lines on shorts and skirt. We've all seen those prom pictures that surface every spring on the Internet of young ladies with dresses made of pasties and young men in 'tuxedos' covered in designer logos- and we all cringed. At what point do we begin to set and raise our standards? I see this dress code as no different from Howard (my alma mater) or FAMU's business schools requiring students to wear business attire. Morehouse is preparing the next generation of leaders for our community and the world.
Mr. Roberts--your liberty with King's vision omits the fact that he was ALWAYs dressed appropriately. There was a reason you never saw the smoker with a cigarette: he knew the importance of image and presentation.
Morehouse may well need to improve its academic and financial vision, however, the mention of well-knowns like bell hooks (she prefers the lower case) and Cornel West overlooks the many distinguished educators who continue to fill classrooms of institutions like Morehouse. A big name doesn't make a great teacher. In fact, I'm pretty certain Cornel West doesn't spend a lot of time in the classroom. Which is a reason he works at Princeton--he can teach a little; write, travel and interview a lot, and still be a tenured faculty member with full salary and benefits.
Additionally, you mention Morehouse's 'meek' endowment, which may be *only* $117 million (though US News and World Report has it at $128million), but you have omitted the fact that only 4 HBCU's have endowments of over 100 million--Howard, Spellman, Hampton and Morehouse. The endowments of institutions like Yale, Princeton and Harvard, founded centuries earlier or Vanderbilt, Duke and Stanford, founded by wealthy tycoons, will never be met by most institutions, particularly those who spent the first century of their existence supported by a few well-meaning and open-minded whites and a group of people disproportionately affected by poverty. Nearby Georgia State, which has nearly 30,000 students enrolled, has an endowment of $122million.
Let's be real. Morehouse is not discouraging the expression of African-American culture. Students were not told they could not wear African attire. Nor were they told they must dress in 'cardigans and bow ties.' No matter what anyone wants to yell about the right to expression, etc. the men who will lead our community will not be the ones with pants hanging off their butts, diamonds in their mouth or purses on their arms. Call it anti-ghetto elitism if you will, but tell me who wants to stay in or move to the ghetto?