This Dress Code Stinks! The staff of the Pleasantville High Reporter would like to take a stand against what we believe is a draconian, free-speech-stifling measure: our new dress code, which was approved at the latest PTA meeting. We are almost adults, and we should be treated as such. This is an issue of respect, and the student body wishes we had been given a chance to speak for ourselves prior to this decision being made. The fact that we weren’t consulted at all says a lot about the administration’s opinion of its students, not to mention the parents’. If students were to get together and decide that our parents couldn’t wear blue jeans, there would be a huge fight. With the roles reversed, we have little recourse. It’s very frustrating. Were shirts with writing on them ever an issue to begin with? Outside of a few isolated incidents in school records, the latest of which occurred a little under a decade ago, we can’t find proof at all that says they were. In fact, the only paperwork we could find said the school is selling garments from a specific maker—Pleasantville Wordless Shirts—at a pretty good markup. The school doesn’t force us to wear the shirts or anything, but they push them on us quite a bit as good alternatives…and that makes this columnist wonder. The administration has been little help in our quest to get this all figured out. In fact, our editor requested to talk to the principal about it so many times he threatened punishment if she brought it up again. This is hardly a professional response to a disagreement, a pattern we’ve noticed in almost all instances related to this new dress code. If anything, our administrators came out swinging, taking the defensive before we even really complained. Why is this all so important? There are a few reasons. The first is that, as people with free speech rights, we want to wear whatever we want, provided it’s appropriate to display at school. Certainly nobody wearing a shirt with curse words all over it should be allowed in, but simple branding or logos with words? Banning those altogether is a bullheaded move. Secondly, and maybe more importantly, we want an open dialogue when any decision regarding our personal expression is made. This is only fair. It’s something people have fought for—and with good reason. Rules shouldn’t be made for rules’ sake (or, as we suspect, for selling shirts’ sake). We’d love to talk this out. If anyone capable of making an overturn decision wishes to hear our case, we’ll send delegates. Even if nothing changes, perhaps someone can offer us an explanation. In this situation, it’s hardly too much to ask for. We wonder why we should even have to ask at all.