Flint, Michigan has now joined the ranks of several other US states who have passed bylaws that make the the wearing of baggy, sagging, or low-riding pants illegal.
Police chief David Dicks said that wearing pants below the waist is a crime — a violation of the city’s disorderly conduct ordinance — and can give police probable cause to search saggers for other crimes, such as weapon or drug possession.
You could get 93 days to a year in jail and fines of up to $500 for wearing your pants low (a larger sentence than some sexual assault perpetrators are getting these days).
Now say what you want about agreeing or disagreeing with baggy pants, but believing that’s enough evidence to search people thinking they all must be thugs who commit crimes is just asking for racial profiling.
It’s no secret that youth in communities of colour are going to be the ones feeling the brunt of this racist, ludicrous law, and hey, why not since they are already incarcerated at soaringly higher rates than White youth?!
And trust me, I was equally as angry in my Catholic high school when they prohibited low-cut or belly shirts telling me I looked “promiscuous” and could “distract the boys’ education”. I actually believe in freedom of expression and think there are bigger battles we have to wage in this world.
Thankfully the ACLU has threatened to file suit against the city of Flint if this ordinance sticks and is asking citizens who are being targeted to come forward and tell their stories.


Digg
12 comments
Question:
If some democratic process was able to reveal that most people in your high school supported a dress code that included covering "la region belle-y", would you fight it in rebellion and freedom of expression or would you conform to the wishes of the people?
And I mean real democracy. Like what if students, teachers, admin, janitor, lunch lady they all voted, let's say, 80% in favor of no belly shirts.
Posted by Erin
August 6, 2008, 10:26 AM
That's not really democracy, that's the majority imposing their morals on the few. Democracy is supposed to protect the interests of those in the minority, even if that means them doing something most people disagree with. Providing the majority can't come up with a really good reason for restricting those people's freedom, that is.
Posted by Cate
August 6, 2008, 11:27 AM
So it's about rebelling against rules that one deems unfair or perceives as oppressive?
Posted by Erin
August 6, 2008, 11:40 AM
I'm always with Kate Bornstein on this one: You can do whatever you want, as long as it's "not mean." Words to live by.
Posted by Stacey May
August 6, 2008, 11:44 AM
What Cate said!
Posted by Jessica Yee
August 6, 2008, 11:48 AM
Sure, but what is the underlying idea? That it's about picking battles and rebelling against things you disagree with?
Posted by Erin
August 6, 2008, 11:56 AM
The underlying idea is people having rights over their own bodies. So whether it's braids, long hair, baggy pants, short skirts, they have those rights to self-determine since they belong to their own bodies.
We could sit here forever and say what if this and what if that, but to also echo Stacey May, as long as it's not hurting anyone, why bother the fuss?
How about focussing our energy on things like violence, poverty, ending war (both domestic and international!)
And just as a reminder, people wearing those nice suits and sporting "cleaned-up" appearances are responsible for some of the worst human attrocities in the history of the world.
Posted by Jessica
August 6, 2008, 12:20 PM
Erin: the basis of democracy is that it's not "rebellion" to challenge a rule or law. It's actually a protected right.
Posted by Cate
August 6, 2008, 12:30 PM
"Real democracy" protects the rights of minorities even when those rights make the majority uncomfortable. And declaring low-riding pants as offensive is pretty bizarre and racist all by itself. And as Jessica says, we have so many more important things to worry about...
Posted by Allison
August 6, 2008, 12:34 PM
Yeah, to be clear: the pants law is an easy "yikes."
I'm stuck because I don't get how it connects to high school rules and belly tops. I'm wondering if it is because I am comfortable with a no midriff rule. I don't have any inclination to share mine in that space. It's about where you draw your line I guess?
I would be angry about that brutal hair-length ban we talked about a little while ago, so I get the freedom of expression part. My line is not with stomachs, but hair I guess?
So I guess it really is about picking battles, which is what everyone is alluding to -- Michigan should have better things to worry about than outlawing baggy pants.
What threw me is that I also think there are better things to worry about than fighting a low/high cut shirt law in schools.
Again, it seems to come down to where your personal line happens to lie. Folks can cross it from either side, and this post had my (well-concealed) knickers in a twist because it got me from both.
Posted by Erin
August 6, 2008, 12:57 PM
Thanks Erin for all your comments, part of this democracy is sharing your perspective!
I put in that bit about high school midriffs bit because as my post is sharing my own perspective, it's all the same to me. As I said, whether it's braids, long hair, baggy pants, short skirts, people have rights over their own bodies, no matter what. Who really gets to decide what is right or wrong, or appropriate? How can you tell me what I can or cannot wear? And why?
Sometimes I really think we all need to think outside the box a little more.
And I'm not posting things to make people worry necessarily. I'm putting the information out there as information, to educate and start discussion. People will do with it what they want.
A beautiful democracy is made up of varying opinions. If it were all one way, where we couldn't have belly shirts, long hair, or baggy pants, or freedom of expression for that matter, it would be called a dictatorship.
Posted by Jessica
August 6, 2008, 1:10 PM
Cool. Guess it's just one of those days ripe for navel-gazing. ;-)
Posted by Erin
August 6, 2008, 1:50 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.