kodan50 on 31/8/2008 at 03:13
So, who is it then that decides what is a correct outfit to wear? If it's not appropriate to wear in school, then why are they wearing it out in the fields? What is the difference? This whole thing makes me sick. It should be the parents responsibility to properly manage the type of clothing the children are wearing, and keep their kids from wearing things that are excessively exposing. Dislike my view all you want. Kids shouldn't be exposing themselves to such a degree, athletes or cheerleader, or whatever...
Shug on 31/8/2008 at 05:02
Depends on what you consider 'exposing' yourself, as athletes running around in knee length dresses is possibly inconvenient
Kolya on 31/8/2008 at 08:13
The sexiest clothing I saw at school was a girl who held a presentation in a see-through dress without a bra underneath. I only remember it because I wrote about it in our final yearbook as the "defining experience of my school time".
I always thought the girl would become a singer or do something really extraordinary. But a few years back I saw her again when she was working as an apothecary. No see-through dress this time. :(
SubJeff on 31/8/2008 at 10:33
Quote Posted by Starrfall
If it's take the case or lose your job, would you go to bat for the short skirt cause?
It depends entirely on why I'd lose my job if I didn't take it. There are many cases where the law may say one thing but any normal person can clearly see that it's ridiculous. Laws are dead, you are alive.
Edit: I suppose for me the nearest thing I can think of is conscientious objection to abortion. In the UK, even if you are an Obs & Gynae doc you can refuse to take part in abortions. You cannot be fired for this, but you have to state your stance at some point and it's blanket - you cannot say "Oh, this one seems sensible but that one is silly."
Starrfall on 31/8/2008 at 15:12
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
It depends entirely on why I'd lose my job if I didn't take it. There are many cases where the law may say one thing but any normal person can clearly see that it's ridiculous. Laws are dead, you are alive.
Edit: I suppose for me the nearest thing I can think of is conscientious objection to abortion. In the UK, even if you are an Obs & Gynae doc you can refuse to take part in abortions. You cannot be fired for this, but you have to state your stance at some point and it's blanket - you cannot say "Oh, this one seems sensible but that one is silly."
I think I just don't think this issue is important enough to raise the question of blame when it comes to those who just facilitate the legal action. It may be a silly ban, but I don't think it touches enough on civil liberties or rights or moral to expect a lawyer to do anything but maybe roll their eyes at it and get the work done.
demagogue on 31/8/2008 at 15:29
By the way, I think we're getting the story backwards.
The strongest legal pressure on this issue is against having a dress-code, i.e., let students wear what they want. That's the civil right issue students (clients) push and lawyers line up for. The biggest pressure for a dress-code (anti-skirts) is coming from the schools by themselves wanting a dress code to keep discipline in the classroom (and other things like molding students into being good citizens, being democratic, etc) ... maybe some religious parents giving some pressure. I could imagine some administrators thinking about creating a "safe environment" with it, or again maybe some liberal parents, but my feeling is that that's really not the lion's share of what's pushing things like this. Just so we have our p's and q's straight.
On lawyers, no lawyer has to take a case he doesn't want. If a client can't find a single lawyer who will take his case, he's out of luck, and usually that's a very good thing (it means he has a stupid case; if it's because of lack of $, lawyers are required to do x-hours of pro bono work, but never for any specific case). That's one thing that really differs from medicine, I think. The system really encourages cases not happening or getting thrown out to not clog itself. But even when a lawyer takes a case, the two bed-rock fundamentals are (1) everybody understands the lawyer doesn't personally believe in the cause (or doesn't have to) and (2) the lawyer has to give 100% of his zeal for the case.
SubJeff on 31/8/2008 at 19:05
Quote Posted by Starrfall
I think I just don't think this issue is important enough to raise the question of blame when it comes to those who just facilitate the legal action. It may be a silly ban, but I don't think it touches enough on civil liberties or rights or moral to expect a lawyer to do anything but maybe roll their eyes at it and get the work done.
I agree with you in this particular case. My point is - where does it end? Is there a line or is there just some huge gray area? I suspect the latter.
