Why? Why does it matter, especially for professors? Why is it that conservatives are only conservative when it suits them? -- surely it is not liberals pushing these laws. But there is nothing conservative about forcing people into someone's conception of acceptable drss -- there need to be some standards, but a wide berth ought to be granted to adult professionals.
It seems to me that the hands-off system tends to find a pretty good equilibrium among professionals and dress at work.
However, if that fails, there is something conservative about encouraging people by one way or another into dressing, well, conservatively. It's not very libertarian, but libertarian and conservative are not the same thing.
Amazing. An honest comment on professional dress standards gets met with accusations of runaway conservatism. I didn't really understand the comment anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Why is it that conservatives are only conservative when it suits them? HUH?? But there is nothing conservative about forcing people into someone's conception of acceptable drss-- Double HUH??
Right, but true conservatives have always opposed government compulsion of adult behavior when that behavior is not demonstrably harming the public good. Not liking to look at tatoos or nose rings does not harm the common good. In other woirds, what has failed? There is nothing at all conservative about the aspects of the nanny state that alleged conservatives embrace, as in this case.
By the definitions given here, obviously this is going to break down into whether or not tatoos and facial piercings and revealing clothes in some way hinder the effectiveness of public employees at their jobs. Conservatives would most likely argue "yes," because a large portion of the public that has to deal with these employees expect some level of civility, professionalism, and respect in those dealings. A nose ring doesn't neccessarily preclude an individual from being civil, professional, and respectful, obviously, but there are trends and perceptions there. Put it this way: if I walk into a post office or DMV or whatever and had to choose between dealing with a public servant who is clean-cut and one who is not, I'm going clean-cut.
I don't look at this like a nanny state thing so much as an employer making a dress code for its employees, especially because the dress code does not involve the spending of any tax money. Plus, this is a local initiative, not a federal one, which I imagine most true conservatives would appreciate.
But of course this all stems back to Paul's "teachers and professors" comment. So either Paul is backing off from his statement in saying "what Tom said," which has nothing to do with what he said, or we are avoiding the question that Paul, not I, initially raised, which is imposing dress codes on teachers and professors.
Yes, I also think the law as being passed is dumb and unecessary (more in a minute). But my issue was with the assertion that we need to impose such rules on professors. Or to put it another way, I question whether Paul has any freaking right in the world to judge the way I dress, my colleagues, dress, and impose his will on that. I'd take my chances in asserting that we do not have an explosion of tattoed, nose-ringed, or otherwise inappropriately dressed professors. Or put it this way: I can not think of a single one in my experiences as an undergrad, in my MA program, in my PhD program, at my first job, at my current job, or at a single institution where I have had a fellowship. Maybe Paul has more and deeper experiences in academia than I do, and in his experiences, professors are running amok wearing distracting ass chaps and genital piercings. But I tend to doubt it. Now the public schools -- we know those are dens of sin and iniquity where anything goes, so Paul can legislate away with regard to that! Lord knows teachers are irresponsible and need people to tell them how to dress. The evidence is everywhere! Oh, wait . . .
So I will assert that it is very un-conservative to utilize resources combatting problems that do not exist. And that even local government has better things to do than worry that shallow customers will bankrupt the DMV by refusing to renew their licenses because of the highly offending presence of the guy behind the counter with an eyebrow piercing. (By the way, I've dealt with public servants in all of the places I have lived since high school: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, DC, Minnesota, and Texas and cannot think of one place where there was serial inappropriateness that would have required even local legislation. I guess my sample is just not big enough and that this is an epidemic. AN EPIDEMIC!!!)
DCAT You're funny. You should take your Bill Maher sense of humor and make a career in comedy.
I find it disturbuing that you are so charged up about a story that a county is addressing the problem of slovenly and unprofessional dress among its employees and a suggestion that those same standards be adopted for professional educators. I also never used the words 'dress code'; neither did the article. I wonder if you put this kind of energy into arguing against REAL local and federal regulations that affect people's lives much more than some simple local dress standards.
I had professors and I see teachers dressed like complete slobs while teaching. A rule made at the local level regulating the dress of professionals wouldn't hurt you or any of your colleagues. (Despite your claim of creeping fascism.) This was not a fascist call for federal dress codes. Simply an opinion about what I think is appropriate for classroom instruction.
11 comments:
Now if we could just apply the same to teachers and professors...
Why? Why does it matter, especially for professors? Why is it that conservatives are only conservative when it suits them? -- surely it is not liberals pushing these laws. But there is nothing conservative about forcing people into someone's conception of acceptable drss -- there need to be some standards, but a wide berth ought to be granted to adult professionals.
dcat
It seems to me that the hands-off system tends to find a pretty good equilibrium among professionals and dress at work.
However, if that fails, there is something conservative about encouraging people by one way or another into dressing, well, conservatively. It's not very libertarian, but libertarian and conservative are not the same thing.
what Tom said
Amazing. An honest comment on professional dress standards gets met with accusations of runaway conservatism. I didn't really understand the comment anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Why is it that conservatives are only conservative when it suits them? HUH??
But there is nothing conservative about forcing people into someone's conception of acceptable drss-- Double HUH??
Right, but true conservatives have always opposed government compulsion of adult behavior when that behavior is not demonstrably harming the public good. Not liking to look at tatoos or nose rings does not harm the common good. In other woirds, what has failed? There is nothing at all conservative about the aspects of the nanny state that alleged conservatives embrace, as in this case.
dcat
By the definitions given here, obviously this is going to break down into whether or not tatoos and facial piercings and revealing clothes in some way hinder the effectiveness of public employees at their jobs. Conservatives would most likely argue "yes," because a large portion of the public that has to deal with these employees expect some level of civility, professionalism, and respect in those dealings. A nose ring doesn't neccessarily preclude an individual from being civil, professional, and respectful, obviously, but there are trends and perceptions there. Put it this way: if I walk into a post office or DMV or whatever and had to choose between dealing with a public servant who is clean-cut and one who is not, I'm going clean-cut.
I don't look at this like a nanny state thing so much as an employer making a dress code for its employees, especially because the dress code does not involve the spending of any tax money. Plus, this is a local initiative, not a federal one, which I imagine most true conservatives would appreciate.
What Tom said...
But of course this all stems back to Paul's "teachers and professors" comment. So either Paul is backing off from his statement in saying "what Tom said," which has nothing to do with what he said, or we are avoiding the question that Paul, not I, initially raised, which is imposing dress codes on teachers and professors.
Yes, I also think the law as being passed is dumb and unecessary (more in a minute). But my issue was with the assertion that we need to impose such rules on professors. Or to put it another way, I question whether Paul has any freaking right in the world to judge the way I dress, my colleagues, dress, and impose his will on that. I'd take my chances in asserting that we do not have an explosion of tattoed, nose-ringed, or otherwise inappropriately dressed professors. Or put it this way: I can not think of a single one in my experiences as an undergrad, in my MA program, in my PhD program, at my first job, at my current job, or at a single institution where I have had a fellowship. Maybe Paul has more and deeper experiences in academia than I do, and in his experiences, professors are running amok wearing distracting ass chaps and genital piercings. But I tend to doubt it. Now the public schools -- we know those are dens of sin and iniquity where anything goes, so Paul can legislate away with regard to that! Lord knows teachers are irresponsible and need people to tell them how to dress. The evidence is everywhere! Oh, wait . . .
So I will assert that it is very un-conservative to utilize resources combatting problems that do not exist. And that even local government has better things to do than worry that shallow customers will bankrupt the DMV by refusing to renew their licenses because of the highly offending presence of the guy behind the counter with an eyebrow piercing. (By the way, I've dealt with public servants in all of the places I have lived since high school: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, DC, Minnesota, and Texas and cannot think of one place where there was serial inappropriateness that would have required even local legislation. I guess my sample is just not big enough and that this is an epidemic. AN EPIDEMIC!!!)
dcat
DCAT
You're funny. You should take your Bill Maher sense of humor and make a career in comedy.
I find it disturbuing that you are so charged up about a story that a county is addressing the problem of slovenly and unprofessional dress among its employees and a suggestion that those same standards be adopted for professional educators. I also never used the words 'dress code'; neither did the article. I wonder if you put this kind of energy into arguing against REAL local and federal regulations that affect people's lives much more than some simple local dress standards.
I had professors and I see teachers dressed like complete slobs while teaching. A rule made at the local level regulating the dress of professionals wouldn't hurt you or any of your colleagues. (Despite your claim of creeping fascism.) This was not a fascist call for federal dress codes. Simply an opinion about what I think is appropriate for classroom instruction.
I'm serious about that comedy thing. (Really)
Okay, so I missed the 'dress code' splashed on the article's title. my bad.
Post a Comment