There has been a buzz across college campuses and news media outlets for the last few days about Dear Old Morehouse College's new dress code for its 2,700 students, noting that "getting back to the legacy" of Morehouse is the driving force behind the college's new dress code.
The code, seemingly reflective of many public and private schools from elementary to high school, require men to "uphold the image of a strong black man", as one student stated in an article by the Atlanta Journal Constitution and is inclusive of, but not limited to:
* no caps, do-rags and/or hoods in classrooms, the cafeteria, or other indoor venues * no sun glasses worn in class or at formal programs * no jeans at major programs, as well as no sagging pants on campus * no clothing with derogatory or lewd messages either in words or pictures * no wearing of clothing usually worn by women (dresses, tops, tunics, purses, pumps, etc.) on the Morehouse campus or at college-sponsored events.
Seemingly, the "attack", (if you can call it that) is on the presence of homosexual males that are matriculating through the college; many of them have been ostracized for wearing women's clothing including high heels, dresses, etc to class. These men make the argument that their dress does not dictate their ability to be sound, productive members of their collegiate and social communities and that the restrictions are "homophobic" and are driving out a part of the Morehouse student body that should have the right to be as expressive with their individuality as a young man who chooses to dress with his pants below his backside.
While the dress code, in my opinion, is one of valid reason, serves a greater purpose, and is deemed necessary with the drastic change in the generational expectations of Black males entering the college's gates, I find that the bigger debate is this:
What does a "real Black man" look like? How does he dress? How much does his dress play a role in upholding or tearing down stereotypes of the Black male? Is there one archetype Black male which all Black men should strive to look or be like?
Why, essentially, when a standard is set that requires anyone to move beyond their own personal comfort, why must there be opposition?
The Black male has gone from slave, to indentured servant, to freed man (and I use that phrase loosely), to Uncle Tom, to Sambo, to a sexually charged brute, to a silly coon, and a host of other negative stereotypes that, in many ways, we have embraced, pimped, and created culturally accepted ways to integrate these stereotypes into our society. Now that a college founded to educate Black men, to remove these stereotypes, to empower and uplift the foundation of the Black community towards forward thinking and living has raised the standard, there’s backlash???
Where then should our Black men strive to be? Should we be so consumed with individuality that we cannot (and I know so many folks hate this word, but…) assimilate to the standard that has been set? If the “boss man” at Goldman Sachs asked us to do the same on our 9-5 then we’d jump to it. We’ll cut our locs, we’ll groom ourselves, we’ll suit and tie and do our “dance” as we collect that check. We won’t argue, we won’t fuss, and while we may have our own private conversations about how “the man” is keeping us down, we’ll continue to do that song and dance, live to the standard that has been set, and none of it will make the 5 o’clock news.
As a Spelman graduate, I am familiar with the type of student that walks our streets, into our gates, and sit down before professors seeking the opportunities to be better, do more, and prepare ourselves for a life that is reflective not only of being great contributors to our chosen fields, but learning all the while to uplift the communities that we come from. I am eager to see if Spelman will jump on board with this, for even our women have become lacksidasial with how we present ourselves on campus.
So where do we go from here? Will countless students protest or unenroll from the college? Will the age old question of “who or what sets the standard” ever be answered?
Let the debate begin…
Homophobic or not, Morehouse can insist on how their students present themselves as part of their institution. No different than a football uniform, doctor's scrubs, or an engineers safety goggles - appearance makes a difference.
ReplyDeleteThe real issue is why the blowback? VMI, Air Force Academy, Westpoint have a standard of dress too and I am certain that Atlanta has a variety of outlets for people to express their individual selves any way they want to in regard to dress.
Kudos to Morehouse and those who continue to work for the greater good. BTW - The Church Usher Board still dresses in black and white w/ white gloves!
While I have mixed feelings about the dress code, I generally support it. This idea that black folks who are not looking like Flava Flav or RuPaul are selling out, less black, or shuckin' for a Goldman Sachs "boss man" is ridiculous. Corporate America can be left out of the conversation. (Think about a working class black grandmomma from Gainsville, Georgia who does not want her grandson looking like the Ying Yang Twinz or Miss J as he walks across the stage accepting his Morehouse degree). Moreover, a white dude from Vassar with a mullet, Lynyrd Skynrd concert t-shirt, vans and wanglers, will not be a viable candidate at Sachs either. Is he shuckin' for "boss man" if he dresses differently? Would he be less white? Additionally, Morehouse's president has fiercely denounced homophobia and hate on campus, since last year. Even the majority of a gay student group, when consulted, supported the dress code.
ReplyDeleteI do have a problem with the constricted dress code, but reject these narrow, simplistic arguments that Morehouse is postulating a bougie, classist, homophobic policy that is, somehow, not true to "authentic" black culture.
I totally agree w/Morehouse administration! To note, I believe that a “real” black or any other man is one who operates according to God's original intent or design for the male species. A strong man pursues and fulfills God’s purpose for his life. Since Morehouse’s standard is to "uphold the image of a strong black man", allowing cross dressing is contrary to that goal. After all, it is a fact that women are physically if not emotionally the weaker sex. Therefore, any male who wants to identify with being a woman to include wearing makeup, pumps, skirts and being “soft” is weaker than a male who identifies with being a man. Allowing the former is 1.confusing and 2. Sends a mixed message to what being a man is really about. All other lax forms of dressing highlighted (Why wear pants if all others see is your draws?) screams irresponsibility, individuality versus team player, rebellious, disrespectful and, in some cases, criminal (Weed paraphernalia—are you a dealer or what?).
ReplyDeleteAs a woman, I can’t fashion myself to follow the lead of a man who wants to be like me. I need a man to lead me and our household with passion, fever, determination and promise. Doing so means he has to be emotionally stronger than me, protective, nurturing, aggressive/assertive, etc. in ways that as a female and a woman, I am not.
Think about it this way: What if President Obama decided to come out of the closet; divorce his wife, pick up a dude and dub him ‘girlfriend’ then cross dress in the White House? How respected would he be on an international platform to work and do business on behalf of the United States of America? He may as well tell Osama to come beat his sissified… Saying so, should the military allow cross dressing as a form of self expression (repealing the don’t ask don’t tell policy), America as a strong military power will wane in the eyes of the world. Why? Because a house divided against itself cannot stand. An aspect of putting the rule in place is to discourage individuality. The battlefield is not the place for self expression. While a college campus is open to self expression, private institutes have the right to determine boundaries.
Given our inalienable government and even Godly right to further define who we are through self expression, variations of manhood abound, but that doesn’t mean that all rules and regulations must change to accommodate what is a personal preference versus a birthright. Being born black, short, with red hair and blue eyes is quite different from being born male and choosing to identify with being female.
Instead of challenging policy or crying homophobia, Morehouse “men” who identify strongly with women should be allowed to enroll in SpelMEN where they’ll more readily fit in minus where and how they use the bathroom.
Do the right thing Morehouse!