Kilt controversy nearly keeps johnston county teen from attending his prom

[Jack Daw]

AGAIN?! Don't school admins keep up with 'current' events?

[Father Bill]

If I understand this correctly, there was no "school admin." My understanding is that this was a dance put on by a group of parents of strong religious belief who based on those beliefs, chose to teach their children themselves rather than send them to any school.

No admin. No supervision of the education. Perhaps good or poor education. Depends on the parents in each situation.

Sad to me.

[Jock Scot]

I really cannot see what the fuss is about. People have decided that they are going to hold a dance, quite sensibly they have made some attire requirements that many would find useful. They may be disappointing to some of us, but in reality those requirements are perfectly reasonable and certainly not draconian. Its really a situation that any host faces and like any sensible host they have given dress guidance. It is down to the guest to accept that guidance or, don't go. It is that simple, oh and two more things. One, don't bleat about it. Two, lay on your own do!

[The Q]

Since the regulations state pants for boys and dresses for girls, then in Europe they would be prosecuted under sex discrimination regulations.
Last year at a school in Suffolk UK, in a heat wave, the regulations were long trousers or Skirts and the school could not be persuaded to allow Shorts, so at least one boy went in his sisters Skirt! and they couldn't stop him.

[MacKenzie]

Depends on the parents in each situation.

Most certainly. I have cousins that are home schooling their three children. I would put them up against any fomally schooled kids, public or private. Another acquantance, on the other hand, isn't doing their children any favors by home schooling.

... certainly not draconian.

Funny. Yesterday after making the OP I went to the site and read the "etiquette agreement". 'Draconian' is the first word that popped into my head.

Anyhow, I think they were confronted with a situation they hadn't planned for and, out of ignorance, took the safe route.

Edit: I see the article has been edited to include a statement from Praise Prom. Ignorance isn't the issue any more, so I'll go with narrow-minded.

[Tobus]

Oh man, I almost dread this time of year because I know this same subject is going to come up. It's always the same tale: kid tries to wear a kilt to the prom and is rejected, so he raises a big stink about it with the media and the internet. Internet people express outrage over cultural discrimination, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Rinse, wait a year, and repeat.

This really boils down the same issue, time after time. Kilts are not a common or universally-accepted form of male dress here in the Americas, despite the desires of those of us who do wear kilts. Some people do recognise its cultural significance, but on the whole it is seen as strange or eccentric. Given all the shenanigans that high school kids pull on prom night, coming to the prom in a kilt will automatically raise red flags on the part of the staff or chaperones. And because their job is to ensure that the kids don't go nuts, they will say "no" to anything that's unusual. Even if the kid had a perfectly sound reason for wearing it.

But these kids should have the common sense to know that kilts will be pushing the boundaries of dress codes (and all proms have dress codes). They can't exactly feign outrage when they are turned away at the door. And if they do have the sense to ask ahead of time, and are told "no", they should respect it. It's a life lesson, and an important one. There are times for free expression and individualism, and there are times for decorum. They need to learn the difference, and I fear our modern society has failed kids in that respect. They raise them to believe that any sort of rules on conformity is bad, or discriminatory. This has led to a generation of kids who don't understand societal protocols.

Anyway, I noticed this quote in the article:

"I want to be proud of where I'm from," said Leix.

Is he from the Scottish Highlands? Or is he an American of Scottish descent? The article doesn't say. It said the kilt was his late grandfather's, which I think is pretty cool. But not much else on the background. Not that it really matters.

[IsaacW]

I think a couple large points here are that kilts were not necessarily in violation of any dress code. Other articles mention that there was confusion and they did not know how to handle the situation as pants were not "required." It states : "You may enjoy wearing a tuxedo, but it is not necessary for this event. Dress pants,shirt, and tie are perfectly acceptable. Avoid jeans, shorts, sagging pants, or t-shirts

Basically it states that dressing nicely is what is wanted and gives suggestions. The only "avoidable" items are jeans, shorts, sagging pants, and t-shirts. The chaperones, not knowing how to handle this, simply considered it a dress and then stated that the length was too short for an acceptable dress.

The other important point that should be noted is that the "prom" stated that they will not change their dress code for the future.

IW

[Tobus]

Yes, that's a recurring theme also. People assume that because kilts are not explicitly mentioned as being disallowed, the only interpretation must be that they are acceptable. This, IMHO, is an intentional misreading of the intent.

The wording of the rules is such that it is pretty clear that they want boys to wear nice pants. They say a tuxedo is allowed, but not necessary. Dress pants are an acceptable substitute. Items to be avoided are shorts, jeans, etc. It's unfortunate that they should have to go into legalese by stating their "to be avoided" list as "including, but not limited to...", but apparently that's what it's going to take. Somebody is going to keep trying to skirt the rules (no pun intended) to the point where the rules will have to be drafted by an attorney.

The really sad part of this is that it makes kilts an item of contention, which casts a negative pall over kilts in general.

[Arnot]

Yes, that's a recurring theme also. People assume that because kilts are not explicitly mentioned as being disallowed, the only interpretation must be that they are acceptable. This, IMHO, is an intentional misreading of the intent.

Another way of looking at it is that someone is reading into what is actually stated in the dress code. After 22 years in the Army, I know about following rules and regulations, protocol, and wearing the right thing at the right time. I was always fine with that. I have, however, seen it many times where if someone doesn't like something they will read into a rule/reg and make it suit their purpose.

[IsaacW]

As someone that works in schools and has spent too much time on prom as an adult, I would tend to think that trousers were not the intention of the dress code but simply the assumed garment (you mean there is something else for men???). The true intention is simply to have the "students" dress up and not be inappropriate (showing too much body etc.). If the young man was dressed up (which photos show), I would assume this was fine. This was a prom. Proms that I have been involved in or hear of around here rarely (almost NEVER) have any sort of dress code but rather suggest nicer clothing.

Anyway, if they did not want a kilt there, I guess that is their choice. This said, I do not agree with or like this choice.