Lemme see ya grillz....Not in this Texas school district

[KYSportsWriter]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060711/ap_on_fe_st/grillz_earlobes

School district in Texas bans grillz and the "art" of gauging the ears.

 

[bigpern23]

I know schools are allowed to impose dress codes, but doesn't this go beyond that a bit? How do "grillz" or gauging distract students or endanger them? I don't see how they affect any students' ability to learn and I disagree with the decision to ban them. Seems like an uptight school board if you ask me.

 

[Armchair_QB]

"We're preparing them for the work force, and in the work force there are rules."

Pretty good point if you ask me.

 

[JR]

"We're preparing them for the work force, and in the work force there are rules."

Pretty good point if you ask me.

There's no generic "work force" and it's not the job of the schools to inculcate kids with the values of corporate America. They'll find that stuff out soon enough and then they can decide if they want to play or not.

It's the same old tired stuff that's been going on since my oldest sister was in high school in the late 50's. Guys were banned from growing beards and wearing jeans. And then in the sixties it was the fight over girls not having to wear dresses or skirts.

Some little bureaucrat waving his ****.

 

[Armchair_QB]

If I'm interviewing two people for a job and they are of equal ability but one of them has more piercings than a pin cushion, guess which one I'm going to hire.

 

[JR]

If I'm interviewing two people for a job and they are of equal ability but one of them has more piercings than a pin cushion, guess which one I'm going to hire.

And probably if the pierced person was measurably more qualified you'd take the safe route and hire the "normal" one anyway. Just so you don't feel uncomfortable.

Right?

 

[Armchair_QB]

If I'm interviewing two people for a job and they are of equal ability but one of them has more piercings than a pin cushion, guess which one I'm going to hire.

And probably if the pierced person was measurably more qualified you'd take the safe route and hire the "normal" one anyway. Just so you don't feel uncomfortable.

Right?

I"m sorry, where did I use the word normal?

I'm going to hire the best person for the job. If you're tatt'd or pierced to high heaven, and it's visible, you aren't the best person for the position I'm trying to fill. And that's got nothing to do with race, gender or orientation. If you look like a carny, expect to be treated like a carny.

 

[Gold]

"We're preparing them for the work force, and in the work force there are rules."

Pretty good point if you ask me.

Except there are different rules for working on Wall Street compared to working in an autobody shop. There are also different rules within a profession - a male doctor working from 9 to 5 might be expected to wear a tie while at a hospital or in their office because of expectations as a professional, but that probably wouldn't be the case on weekends and certainly wouldn't be the case in an emergency room or surgery. And if somebody is really good at the job, they probably could stay in their pajamas and work from a computer terminal for a Wall Street firm.

I understand what armchair qb is saying about equal ability, but the problem with basing a job selection on that is there is usually a difference with skills and if not, the type of personality which would fit a particular job or situation - if you leave it to clothes or appearance, I would suggest that a manager isn't making a real effort and is taking a lazy way out.

However, if there is some sort of health hazard or risk, the school should ban the things.

 

[bigpern23]

Who said the kid with the grillz or gauges or tats wants to work for you anyway?

It's up to the person to decide who they are going to be and they have to live with those decisions. They are free to do so at their own peril. It's not up to a high school to tell them who they should be. It's up to the high school to teach them that the decisions they make now may (or may not) have consequences for them down the road. And then let them make their own decisions.

I'm going to make a stereotype here, but it's based on personal observation. The people I've known who have gauged their ears fall into two categories: artists and/or stoners. Neither is going to be applying for jobs on Wall Street anytime soon. And the artists generally have had few, if any, problems with employers about how they look. It's more about what they create.

There are, obviously, other types of people who will gauge their ears or wear grillz. They may or may not run into employers who won't hire them based on their looks. And that's something they will have to deal with. It's not up to the school to tell them they can't do it.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

I'm going to hire the best person for the job. If you're tatt'd or pierced to high heaven, and it's visible, you aren't the best person for the position I'm trying to fill. And that's got nothing to do with race, gender or orientation. If you look like a carny, expect to be treated like a carny.

So which are they, equally qualified as you originally posited or not equally qualified?

 

[JR]

If I'm interviewing two people for a job and they are of equal ability but one of them has more piercings than a pin cushion, guess which one I'm going to hire.

And probably if the pierced person was measurably more qualified you'd take the safe route and hire the "normal" one anyway. Just so you don't feel uncomfortable.

Right?

I"m sorry, where did I use the word normal?

I'm going to hire the best person for the job. If you're tatt'd or pierced to high heaven, and it's visible, you aren't the best person for the position I'm trying to fill. And that's got nothing to do with race, gender or orientation. If you look like a carny, expect to be treated like a carny.

You didn't. That's why I used parentheses.

And why would a tattoed or pierced person not be the best person if he/she had better qualifications and/or more experience for the job in question?

On second thought, the guy would probably decide he doesn't want to work for you anyway.

 

[Armchair_QB]

I'm going to hire the best person for the job. If you're tatt'd or pierced to high heaven, and it's visible, you aren't the best person for the position I'm trying to fill. And that's got nothing to do with race, gender or orientation. If you look like a carny, expect to be treated like a carny.

So which are they, equally qualified as you originally posited or not equally qualified?

If they're equally qualified I'm hiring the person who doesn't look like a carny.

If they aren't equally qualified the carny better be Stephen ****ing Hawking if he or she wants to get the job.

I could give a **** if you've got piercings or tatts all over your body. But if they're above the neck and they aren't earrings, you're out of luck.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

I'm going to hire the best person for the job. If you're tatt'd or pierced to high heaven, and it's visible, you aren't the best person for the position I'm trying to fill. And that's got nothing to do with race, gender or orientation. If you look like a carny, expect to be treated like a carny.

So which are they, equally qualified as you originally posited or not equally qualified?

If they're equally qualified I'm hiring the person who doesn't look like a carny.

If they aren't equally qualified the carny better be Stephen ****ing Hawking if he or she wants to get the job.

I could give a **** if you've got piercings or tatts all over your body. But if they're above the neck and they aren't earrings, you're out of luck.

So if the person's whose looks you don't like isn't as smart as Stephen Hawking, you'll hire an inferior worker.

Gotcha.

 

[bigpern23]

Even if you're a record executive looking to sign a new act?

Or the CEO of a graphic design company trying to land a hot new artistic talent?

Or a casting director looking to hire someone for your new film about an up-and-coming rapper?

Or an autoshop owner looking for someone who knows his/her way around an engine?

Or a magazine publisher who found a great photographer who happens to "look like a carnie?"

The point is, there there are plenty of jobs on this planet where outward appearance has little to do with one's job performance (in fact, most have nothing to do with it, but I will stipulate that the standards of appearance are different on Wall Street than even in a press box). The school is not "preparing" these kids for anything by not allowing them to wear grillz. They're stifling the kids' personal expression.

 

[Armchair_QB]

I'm not in any of those businesses. I'd probably have a different opinion if I was.

My issue is that freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from consequences. They aren't the same thing and and too many people don't understand that. Whether they realize it or not, and they probably don't, the school district is making that point.

 

[Mutah]

They're there to ****ing learn math, English, science, art. Not a fashion show. Leave the ****ing 'grillz' at home.

And I question the whole 'individualism' line of thought. They're wearing them because 'everyone has them.' That's not individualism. That's being a trend *****. I oughtta know. There's a pair of parachute pants in my closet.

 

[westcoastvol]

Did somebody say "grillz?!?"

 

[JR]

I'm not in any of those businesses. I'd probably have a different opinion if I was.

My issue is that freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from consequences. They aren't the same thing and and too many people don't understand that. Whether they realize it or not, and they probably don't, the school district is making that point.

I'd just as soon the schools do what they're supposed to do--teach kids how to think--then tut tutting like some spinster aunt over how the kids are dressed. It's none of their business.

 

[Armchair_QB]

I'm not in any of those businesses. I'd probably have a different opinion if I was.

My issue is that freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from consequences. They aren't the same thing and and too many people don't understand that. Whether they realize it or not, and they probably don't, the school district is making that point.

I'd just as soon the schools do what they're supposed to do--teach kids how to think--then tut tutting like some spinster aunt over how the kids are dressed. It's none of their business.

Schools are already doing a lot of things that "aren't their business" because there are so many ****ty parents out there. They're expected to be mom and dad because mom and dad are too busy to be bothered with little things like raising their children.

 

[bigpern23]

They're there to ****ing learn math, English, science, art. Not a fashion show. Leave the ****ing 'grillz' at home.

And I question the whole 'individualism' line of thought. They're wearing them because 'everyone has them.' That's not individualism. That's being a trend *****. I oughtta know. There's a pair of parachute pants in my closet.

You're right. They're there to learn math, English, etc. Why does the school care if they do it with gauges in their ears?

The individualism thing is a separate entity in that, unless kids are making their own clothes, sneakers, etc., there really is no individualism. They're buying a mass produced product and wearing it. Hell, you see Goth clothes on sale at the Mall.

However, it's still a form of expression. Even if others are expressing the same thing, that look appeals to that kid and he or she shouldn't be told they can't look how they want, providing it isn't harming them or others.

To me, dress codes are dicey issue to begin with (is a short skirt too distracting to allow others to learn?). But to say that grillz or gauges in any way hinder the learning process is asinine and to say the school is teaching the kids lessons by banning them is even more asinine (all they're really saying is the First Amendment isn't as important as we'd like you to believe).