opinion piece
June 20, 2022
A sharply divided Fourth Circuit rules that schoolgirls don’t have to wear skirts. The country remains divided on fashion and chivalry.
Those of you who have ever had an argument with a parent or child about what to wear will stand in solidarity with the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit who split 10-6 last week on whether to require female students to wear skirts. at a charter school.
It wasn’t even such a simple division: there were five separate written opinions. When it comes to fashion, everyone has an opinion.
The rulings in Peltier v. Charter Day School are 103 pages long and I won’t try to summarize them because I’m too lazy and I don’t want to mess them up. But if you haven’t already, here are some highlights.
First of all, the long list of amici supporting children who don’t want to wear skirts is impressive. Aside from typical players like the ACLU, they include the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Problems, and the Society for Research on Adolescence. Clearly, this problem has been infuriating a lot of people.
I thought it was strange until I read the first sentence of the majority opinion: “Charter Day School (CDS), a public charter school in North Carolina, requires female students to wear skirts to school due to the opinion that girls are ‘fragile vessels’ deserving of ‘gentle’ treatment by boys”.
Why will girls be mistreated if they wear pants? Or confused with children? Or will the kids be so grossed out by the sight of legs that they’ll keep their distance?
Aren’t women harassed no matter what they wear?
The boys, by the way, have to wear shorts or pants. Be on the lookout for litigation from kids who want to wear kilts.
It gets weirder, or maybe more southern. After a parent complained about the policy, the school’s owner responded with a statement that the school’s trustees and supporters “were determined to preserve chivalry and respect between women and men.” youth at this school of choice. For example, the young men were to hold the door open for the young women and carry an umbrella, in case one was needed. Ma’am and sir would be the preferred forms of address.”
Imagine if this happened in any school.
And then there is this from one of the dissenters: “To many people, dress codes represent an ideal of chivalry that is not condescending to women, but appreciative and respectful of them. … ‘Chivalry’ refers to the age of chivalry, defined as ‘the brave, honorable and courteous character attributed to the ideal knight… What knights bestowed on their ladies right at the end of a tournament has become the bouquet of roses spread on stage at the end of an opera”.
The art and physical education classes at this school must be intense.
For what it’s worth… Four of the five Fourth Circuit judges sided with the anti-skirt majority. The fifth was appointed by a certain former insurrectional president.
The maverick who loves chivalry was appointed a circuit judge in 1984 by Ronald Reagan.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Threatening dream? The Karen are getting out of hand.
I have seen many discrimination lawsuits over the years, but one filed in federal court in Illinois last week may be one of the strangest. An African-American man named Terrance Hines sued United Airlines after the flight he was on to Los Angeles was stopped prematurely in Denver so he could be kicked off the plane.
Why?
Well, at least according to the complaint, Hines had no idea why he’d been sleeping. Denver police officers at the airport didn’t know either. A United Airlines employee eventually let him know that “a Caucasian woman in her 50s” he was sitting with complained that he had leaned on her. Apparently, she didn’t know it was possible to wake him up.
Hines was not only kicked off the flight, but United, according to the lawsuit, refused to give him a refund and banned him from future flights. I guess he’s not so unhappy with the ban part.
There was other significant harm that you don’t see in your everyday discrimination lawsuit. It appears that Hines was going to Los Angeles to buy a French bulldog puppy from a breeder for $10,000.
He didn’t get the puppy.
That alone should be worth some serious damage.
Subscribe to this column
Do you want to receive new opinion articles directly in your inbox? Subscribe below.
Source: www.courthousenews.com