I'm surprised the Principal is still employed out there.Talk
about a failure of leadership! There have been multiple problems like this from
that school, hitting the news. What gives out there, folks?
I'm surprised the Principal wasn't present at one of the biggest
events of the school year.
Voice of Reason & sportsfan21 AMEN! AMEN & AMEN !!!!!!
WOW! The pictures on the facebook link in the article "HS Homecoming
Massacre" of the girls in California are stunning. I realize that those are
typical dresses in California but my goodness. I think the white dress in the
center is actually a lingerie piece. The woman looked gorgeous in it and thats
the very problem...I'm sorry but its tough to keep your thoughts clean when
you see a woman in that white lingerie...er, I mean dress. I would challenge
any red-blooded man to look at that photo and keep his thoughts straight.
My first impression is that the dresses were OK. But after listening to Voice
of Reason I agree with his principle of modesty. Why don't the boys show
up in tuxedo tanktops and tuxedo shorts. Girls are showing up in something as
revealing. Why doesn't our fashion permit that for the men?The
reason is because men are aroused by the visual. Men like to look at women. It
gives them a buzz. Fashion is encouraging women to dress so they can be looked
at. We are going along with a cultural custom that objectifies women.
What was the requirement for the boys attire? Wasn't this the
same school who sent home a student wearing a perfectly acceptable shirt, short
sleeve sweater and dress shoes last year?
Knee caps are ruining everything!
The oppression of women in Utah continues its backsliding to the 1950s...
Paranoia of "progressivism" has launched Utah into a deliberate
VOR: Priesthood authority is not relevant to a conversation regarding what
should happen on a secular level. Never has been; never will be. Since your
LDS church gives so much lip service to the idea that a person (gay) can
withstand "temptation", I would say that boys who see an attractive girl
should also be able to withstand temptation. It is not your place to set
standards for society. It is for you to set standards in your own home. Please
get that straight. In a democracy, the minority should still have rights. If
you don't agree now, you will the first time that 50.00001% percent of a
group tries to take away your freedom to choose based on subjective values.Sportsfan21: The word "near" leaves room for interpretation. It
simply does.If girls find it impossible to find an
"appropriate" dress without traveling far and wide, the standard has
been set too high. Parents who wish for more conservative standards are free to
choose to implement them. It is not the place of secular organizations to cater
to the most religiously conservative people in a group.
It's good to have standards. If a school has standards that a parent feels
are too "lax", that parent can apply more strict standards. Trust me I
know. My mom and dad both quite enjoyed being a pain in my butt about these
things while I was in High School. No, I don't anticipate putting my
daughter through the same, but there will be limits. Conversely, if a
school applies standards that go beyond what a large percentage of parents would
choose, those parents' rights have been compromised. PUBLIC schools funded
with tax dollars need to be more liberal. That doesn't mean individual
parents have to be liberal. But when in doubt, more choices; not fewer. As a
general rule, this is how we create societies where people get along and
don't resent eachother. In short, standards regarding
"morals" need to be applied to a lower common denominator. Not the
lowest. But lower. I know this offends people who love to get all pious about
how the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but it is what is fair. We
don't all share the same standards. Please deal with it.
Absolutely ridiculous. "LDS standards are for all not just
LDS." Let's just put them in clothes to their ankles in Pennsylvania
since there is an Amish population there. There will always be stricter or more
loose standards somewhere. It's a public school. It isn't BYU. I find
it crazy that this is all put on the girls. Near the knee means not mini. I hope
the families are able to financial reimbursement for the dress and the tickets.
Girls brought dresses, they changed the standards. Families should not be put
out. They could have written knee length or longer before the dance. And that I
would fight that as a parent. This is homecoming, how long are the cheerleaders
skirts? Not strapless means there is something holding up the dress. So any
strap would be fine. LDS or more conservative dress students may exceed the
standards. The dress was fine with their parents. Maybe
there should be no school dances? Maybe couples should just dress formal and
have a nice meal and go dancing, like adults. Without so much intrusion from
Wonder,Thank you for the kind response.Please consider
this-Modesty is no more cultural than truth. What is true (such as
the Word of Wisdom) doesn't change based on where you are from. Setting
aside revealed truth for an occasion or social convenience isn't right.
Nothing replaces what is right.I want to stress- my point here
isn't criticizing others dress standards but defending the expectation of
higher standards from others as virtuous.1) The more lenient we get,
and the lower the standards go over time- the more the moral strength of young
men and women is threatened- the harder it becomes to do what is right. 2) Having a dress code is justifiable, even admirable when society
standards decline.3) What's revealed on morality is given for
the benefit of all mankind, not LDS members only. Nor is this imposing LDS
beliefs on others as school boards are democratically controlled.The
truth isn't overly strict, just something to strive for. Consider a ladder.
The top isn't harsh, perhaps just far from someone's location.
I'm not advocating "top or no deal", just moving in the right
Do what the Utah legislature would do...Do away with all dances!Problem solved.
If the referee in a football game didn't call someone out of bounds and his
excuse was "Well he was just a couple inches out of bounds," how well
with that go over with the fans? A second look at the photos (instant
replay)--none of the dresses came down to the knees. If the policy is that the
hem come down to the knees then the girls were in defiance of the rule and the
enforcers didn't have a choice but to tell them not to come in. But, we can
still blame the school because it is obvious that if the girls think they were
within the standards,the schools need to do a better job of teaching human
@ jzwillowsSo who made the rule you reference and was that rule carved in
stone? Adults ignore stupid rules like the one in Salt Lake City against no
idling. Kids will ignore stupid rules just like their parents.
Mormon, conservative and father of two girls: This was a FAIL.The
girls looked cute. Lighten up folks!!
@Rifleman,You quoted me for something I didn't say. That was
mk, NO they could NOT wear those dresses to ALL churches.
Reminds me of the time when we enrolled our son into BYU.The subject of
dress standards came up.It all sounded pretty clear, but then the
statement of the speaker made us laugh for quite a while.He said: *The
problem lies, into the fact that girls do not know where there knees are*.On the other hand, not knowing the exact wording of the dress code in
question, at this school, I must say that, what I read in the news article, may
be not that clear. One could say, it is very unclear !For instance,
"Dresses should be at or near knee length...."Near the knee, from
which direction ??"Strapless dresses are prohibited unless a
jacket or shawl is worn.... "What does strapless really mean, when
there IS a strap, but that strap is about 1/4 inch wide ???"'Plunging' necklines are prohibited."Uhmmm ... , how
far down can the *plunge* go ??What is really sad, is that this
dress code was *created* by *educators* ??I learned a long time ago,
from an LDS Leader:"Make sure that nobody misunderstands".
Re: LValfre CHICAGO, IL"One more reason to NOT let a Mormon near the
white house."This isn't about Mormons. They don't
even agree with the way this homecoming dance was batched. This story is about
the mindless zero tolerance mentality of public school officials nationwide who
act horrified if a 2nd grader comes to school with a PICTURE of a gun. And no, nothing in this story suggests that Mitt Romney or the Mormons
were behind it or agree with it.
@Sneaky Jimmy"Good bye Mitt. Wait until the MEDIA gets a hold of
this. One more reason to NOT let a Mormon near the white house. Do people in
Tooole even know how much damage they do to the image of Mormonism and the state
of Utah by these idiotic attempts to make people behave the way they think they
should."Although not a definitive reason for not being on
Romney's side, I do worry about a LDS follower running the country. As
this school situation shows, and many public policies in Utah such as weird
liquor laws and so on .... LDS in official positions don't do well
separating their beliefs with their policies. They tend to impose them on
everyone else ... and if you can't separate church and state for the people
at large .... you shouldn't be making rules or running the country.
Two year old kids know where their knees are. What's the matter with high
school kids that don't know where their own knees are? Just to be safe,
wear it a little below the knee and then there is no problem. The trouble is
that people keep pushing the limits until there is no limit. Then, some kids
just won't go to dances because so many of the girls are dressed
seductively. In some places, the decent kids are having their own alternative
dances with stricter dress standards. The school is in a no win situation. If
they enforce a dress code, they get complaints; if they don't have a dress
code, they get complaints. Solution, don't have a homecoming dance or let
someone else sponsor it.
This article reminds me of the rule that my mother had for me when I was growing
up. The rule was, the skirt had to "meet, greet, and say Hello to your
knees." When it was back to school time, and I would try on skirts that I
thought were okay, she would say something to the effect, "The skirt is
waving from a distance!", or "your knees and that skirt aren't
saying hello!"...Good memories. Miss you, Mom.
Good bye Mitt. Wait until the MEDIA gets a hold of this. One more reason to NOT
let a Mormon near the white house. Do people in Tooole even know how much damage
they do to the image of Mormonism and the state of Utah by these idiotic
attempts to make people behave the way they think they should. Just about every
poster had a better idea for handling the dance then the school administration.
Why is a public school this far infiltrated with LDS standards that it's
imposing it on the students like this? Public schools .. repeat PUBLIC schools
.. don't cater to any one religion's standards or beliefs. This is
Most everybody here on both sides of the issue are losing sight of the sad
commentary on society that we are seeing here.For those that were in
Highschool 15 years ago or more, think back to your school rules. People
understood what the proper clothing was for a formal dance. Rules stating what
styles were and were not acceptable were not needed.You should be
asking yourselves, how did we get to a point where schools have to create and
enforce rules governing what is and is not acceptable dress for a formal dance?
I think it is notable that the Homecoming Queen was not excepted from compliance
and put on leggings to be in compliance. She obviously understood the process.
Re: jzwillows willows, ca"Next year the students will take the rule
seriously - or they can wine and stay home."No, next year these
students won't whine and stay home because this "rule" will be
scrapped. If this were an LDS seminary social that rule would be acceptable
..... but it wasn't.Want to place a bet on whether these same
girls, wearing these same dresses, will be turned away from the school's
When I heard about this situation, I thought the girls must have been in very
short tight miniskirts. Its amazIng these girls were denied going to their
homecoming dance given that they were wearing the dresses being showed in these
pictures. Fundamentalism (FLDS, Taliban etc.) is a human trait that many are
susceptible to, not just those that are obvious fundamentalists.
jzwillows said it right. The rules were clear, the students just did what they
wanted. I think the part that is outrageous is that the principal caved in and
even apologized....and now they want to hold another dance (who pays for that?)
just so these rule breakers can go. How can people get so worked up about some
dresses and girls who won't play by the rules? Why do they get to call the
shots now? So wrong, I think.
If you thing those dresses are bad...come to a High School dance in AZ. I would
say they were very nice dresses.
One of the problems with this issue is that the dress code confusingly states
that "dresses for formal dances should be at or near knee length." The
problem with that is that formal wear is actually supposed to be a long gown.
Knee length dresses are not formal, they are informal "cocktail"
dresses. So, these girls were led to believe that they had to wear cocktail
dresses to the "formal" dance. Would they have worn longer dresses if
the writer of the dress code was more knowledgeable of fashion etiquette? Another problem is that it's hard to find appropriate dresses in
the shops. The majority of what's on the rack is skimpy. When I was in
school we had great choices. We could find dresses with sleeves (puffed, even),
full skirts; modest and flattering. Three words: Learn to sew.
As a mother of 4 daughters and living in Texas, I wish I could have found
dresses like these for my girls to wear. This is ridiculous for these kids to be
turned away from their homecoming! Really people lighten up! My daughters wore
strapless dresses to a couple of dances and they are all fine YW and have strong
values! Now I know why I'm thankful to be living out of state!
@A Voice of Reason -- Yes, I saw your post after I had already posted mine.
Sorry about the repeat after you had already responded to a similar post. Actually modesty is cultural. Modesty standards have changed dramatically in
the past 100 years. No, those dresses would not have been modest 100 years ago,
but neither would the most modest dress that went to that dance (most likely).
Up until a certain point in time, women wore dresses to the floor. A dress to
the knees would have been immodest. Showing your elbows would have been
immodest. So yes, modesty standards do change depending on the culture of the
people. (That's why we don't have our women wear burquas even though
in some societies a woman who didn't wear one would be considered quite a
tramp. To us it is ridiculous to think that a man would be justified in
molesting a woman because she showed her face. To them a woman's face is
an unbearable temptation -- similar to the temptation that knees are to our boys
Speechless. I suppose that a strapless cantilever dress with a
hem line between the knee and the hip might have been a bit much. Hard to
understand, though, what the fuss was about with 3 of the 5 dresses --- or all 5
dresses, if sleeveless is not considered problematical. What was
the dress code at this event? Burkas? Nuns habits??Interesting
to know what sort of dress code the boys have to wear. Could they attend in a
The rule was that the dresses were to be to the knees. All of the dresses of the
girls in the photos are clearly above the knees. If the monitors missed a few so
what - they're human. So what's the problem - the students
weren't allowed to break the rule? Sounds like a bunch of pampered children
and coddling parents to me. Next year the students will take the rule seriously
- or they can wine and stay home.
At first I was sympathetic toward the girls who were turned away. Then I read
the dress code. It says "at or near the knee," which seems subjective
until you read the next line. "Slits should be no higher than the top of the
knee." I think it's pretty obvious that since slits shouldn't be
above the top of the knee, the length of any dress shouldn't either.
I'm not saying they were immodest and I would probably support a change to
the dress code, but it's not like this snuck up on anyone. They
could have saved themselves the heartache if they had simply read and followed
the rules rather than assume they wouldn't be enforced.
They could wear any of these dresses to church and nobody would say anything.
The school officials should be ashamed
I guess my first post was too long. Anyway, it's time to punt the vice and
virtue police and claim the freedom we put lip service to.
Wonder,I already clarified (more than amicably) that I was not
blaming young women for actions of young men.Although it still
remains true that adorning yourself in certain attire is still not appropriate
or justified by social acceptance. All I'm saying is that young women
SHOULDN'T ENCOURAGE such attraction by feeding it. If you can't even
give the very basic amount of credit that my statement deserves then your own
argument (as was KJB1s) is logically fallacious and a 'straw-man'
argument.By your argument we should also adopt the trends. Were
those dresses appropriate by the standards of modesty society accepted 100 years
ago? No. Does that mean that modesty changed all the sudden? Again, a clear and
definite 'No'. If we allow 'above the knee' then it will
only rise further (and already has really).'Above the
knee' isn't unreasonable or overly harsh. Only those who are guilty of
accepting what is immoral right find the truth to be hard. The truth is that
priesthood authorities (and the spirit also) speak to everyone, not just LDS
youth.The only way to challenge a standard of modesty is by having a
Modest standards for a dance in a public school is what I would expect from the
administration (as a parent). That said, a standard that says "near the
knee" is clearly too vague. I think the Principle at the high school is
trying to improve the process and is handling it in a reasonable fashion.
Everyone is learning something from the experience to help make the future
better. Anyone who has ever made a mistake, hopefully has learned something
from it and will try to not repeat the mistake going forward. Lets move on!
From the pictures I have seen, I do not think any of the dresses appear too
short or immodest. It would be different if they showed the girls' panties
as they walked away from you. I honestly think this situation is far too
extreme. I am actually pleased that shorter dresses are appropriate for school
dances because they are a great deal less expensive. I do approve, however, of
having a modest dress standard that is fairly enforced. Perhaps a pre-screening
would be helpful. Above all, a written statement of the dress code to be
followed needs to be sent to every parent so that their daughters are not put
through this unnecessary humiliation. I personally think that a dress that is
three inches or less above or the top of the knee is about right.
@A Voice of Reason -- Yes, and that's the reason that women are required to
wear burquas in some countries. At what point do we say that the responsibility
is the boy's not to attack (your analogy is a lion going after meat) a
woman because she's showing her knees. Should we require girls to wear
dresses to their ankles because a boy may be tempted by a calf? I am all for
dress standards at dances, but at a public high school, the standards do not
need to be For the Strength of Youth standards. Those dresses shouldn't
(and honestly most likely wouldn't) overly excite any boy and if they do, I
can't imagine what that poor young man does when he goes to a swimming pool
(or for that matter, walks down the street). Boys need to be held responsible
for their own behavior and not treated as if they are helpless.
KJB1,Perhaps the country things Oregon is trendy, hip, appealing, or
down to Earth. Maybe the popular opinion of the rest of this country and all
your peers matters to you. There are more truthful and uplifting things that
matter more to me.I will clarify something, but primarily for the
sake of anyone else who may read my comment, not to argue it with you.I've never said that women control men's actions, nor was it implied
in my statement. You inferred your own idea into my statement. Women have full
control over what they wear and adorn their body with. Men make their own
choices. But both can contribute to cause and effect. Denial of this is
irrational. Otherwise, you would be justified putting your children in a
lion's cage SOLELY based on being able to blame the lion and not
yourself.No amount of social beliefs, trends, peer pressure, or
perversion will negate the truth. I am a man. I have very real experience
regarding how clothing can attract males. No other opinions or personal
backgrounds lacking such experiences will ever negate my own experience. I have
spoken the truth.-with respect
Wow. A new low, and we're not talking hemline here. I hope some of these
young people get this stuff online nation wide. We're hyping all the good
things associated with this state these days; let's not forget the
utahliban. The world needs to know about them, too, and what motivates them.
"The less modest the clothing, the more tempting sexual desires are for
males." That's right, Voice. Why should men take responsibility for
their own feelings and actions? Blame the women instead, with their shoulder
and knees showing...Want to know why the rest of the country thinks
Utah is a punchline? Look no further.
The less modest the clothing, the more tempting sexual desires are for males.
This is a fact. The fashion industry makes a living off this fact so I do not
feel the need to dispute or argue it with anyone on here. People who think
dangling meat in front of a lion is perfectly safe are in NO way ignorant. They
are in denial! And when that denial gets bitten those who dangle are just as
accountable as those who wanted the meat to begin with. Think I'm horrible
for comparing women to meat? I'm doing to argue for their protection while
others voicing their beliefs online do it for humor, reality, and to further
their own justifications to feed their desires.The truth is, it is
inappropriate and risky business and the entirety of the human race (meaning
everyone with a sex drive) knows this to be true.Ridicule the modest
and call them pioneers all you want, but upright LDS High School males still
know that dresses which 'technically cover up' can still be immodest .
Those who mock moral standards are defending what helps to ruin lives. That
isn't overly harsh, it's reality.
Isn't is nice that one us arm chair quarterbacks can opine that "them
thar dresses is ok" or something along that line. Well, Golly Gomer! They
need you at that edumacation facility. Imagine...in just a minute you were able
to determine what the teachers couldn't. You are such the expert!Come on. The story is about miscommunication and power, not naked knees. Why
not just let the children decide what to wear on their own? And who needs
chaperones? These teens always make prudent decisions. Alcohol? Hey if it was
good enough for Jesus then why not at the school dance? Lighten up folks!What? Oh...you DO understand the need for rules and standards when
dealing with teens that teachers see 180 days out of the year and for more time
than most of their parents see them. Every year this story plays out somewhere
that this or that girl wasn't allowed into the dance because of her choice
in a dress. To the degree that the school poorly applied their own standards an
apology was issued. But there is no need to apologize for the existence of
@BYU Track StarYour comment is more than a little ironic considering
you're a BYU fan.
Umm... really? I am an LDS father of two daughters, and even I think this was
ridiculous. Lighten up, folks.
High school teacher here- These girls look lovely and it is a crying shame that
someone turned them away. The administrator in this situation should be ashamed
of what happened on his watch. Unbelievable.
Presumably they enforced these draconian rules to discourage teen promiscuity?
Which begs the question: if these supposedly scantily-clad teens were turned
away from a chaperoned school dance, where did they go and what did they do when
they got there?
Its nice that the religious (school) police are out in force in Tooele. Burkas
None of those dresses were inappropriate.
Perhaps the next dance theme should be "Pioneer Day" so all the girls
will come wearing prairie dresses and bonnets. The dresses looked
fine. Lighten up people.
I believe modesty is important but standards need to be applied fairly. If they
are going to be strict in enforcement there needs to be a pre-approval event in
the gym a week or so before the dance. A snapshot of the approved outfit would
protect against anyone switching to a less appropriate outfit just because their
name is on the list.Makes me wonder where the boys are in all this.
Any standards they have to live up to?