Codified in Convolution

undress it

The school dress code is regularly challenged, contested, or taken to court by junior high and high school students around America itching to exercise the First Amendment, the only constitutional law that relevantly applies to school-related affairs. A favorite topic of grade school essays,  school dress code seems to be a topic of perpetual debate. It is apparent that I, among many others, am a participant in this heated argument.

For many students across the United States, personal expression often fails to be verbal and usually takes form on a screen tee. However, incendiary responses to Mark Keppel High School’s newly updated dress code for the 2011-2012 school year have incited much disagreement among the student body. Female students are irked at the “mid-thigh or below” regulation for shorts, and a male student has expressed outcry in particular via Facebook regarding the prohibiting of male students to dress in muscle shirts (male equivalent of a tank top). In an attempt to rouse the student body to take action via petition, he has drawn on values stated in the Declaration of Independence and has asserted that the dress code is “sexist.”

The school regulations are by no means extreme. Many high schools around America have incorporated uniforms or only allow a narrow set of garments in a limited number of colors. But when a school instills a “free dress” policy, some form of backlash from any attempt to incorporate a “dress code” on top of the free dress policy should be expected; students see it as a laughable contradiction – wearing anything you want, except you can’t wear anything you want. Evenhanded enforcement of dress code is also necessary to prevent ambiguity/dissent among student opinion.

With the most controversial court cases on school dress code usually about the text of a shirt/accessory (see here and here), it is a challenge to argue that students have a right to uphold their lawful ability to wear short shorts or male tank tops in defense of any sort of “expression.” The school asserts that such clothes are a “distraction to the learning process,” educational jargon to root out any undesired object/event that may occur on school campuses. One student calls the reasoning a ‘carte blanche,’ and it is indeed, for both students and staff. Shorts with a pant length of less than 10 inches and shirts that reveal male shoulders, apparently, will create a decline in academic achievement.

It is imperative to review official codifications on dress code in California schools when discussing the issue. Notably, students’ rights on free expression on attire are defended by the landmark 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which incorporated the 14th amendment’s statement that no “State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...”

California Education Code Section 35183 (CEC § 35183) explains the following on dress:

• "Gang-related apparel” is strictly forbidden.
• Uniform policies may be enforced under the judgments of each individual school “to facilitate and maintain an effective learning environment.”
• Administrators cannot ban club (“nationally recognized youth organization”) attire on meeting days.
• "Both students and staff of the primary, elementary, junior and senior high school campuses have the constitutional right to be safe and secure in their persons at school.”

Alhambra Unified School District’s District Board Policy Section 5132 states:

• "Students' clothing must not present a health or safety hazard or a distraction which would interfere with the educational process.”

Alhambra Unified School District’s “Appearance/Dress Standards” section in page 16 of the AUSD Handbook for Parents and Students 2011-2012 denotes several specific rules regarding dress, including:

• "Clothing shall be [of] appropriate size, not too large or small or revealing”
• "Light (not too dark or excessive) make-up is permitted for students in grades 7-8.”
• "No clothing revealing bare shoulders.”
• "Any clothing which disrupts the educational process is prohibited.”
• Minimum actions range from warnings and changing clothes; maximum action is suspension.

The section also notes that “students shall not be allowed to wear buttons, badges, clothing or other insignia which”:

• "Are obscene.”
• "Are libelous or slanderous.”
• "Incite students, express or advocate racial, ethnic, sexual or religious prejudice so as to contribute to conflict or … unlawful acts on school premises…”
• "Advertise alcohol, tobacco or drugs.”

If we are to correspond with the administration’s actions with the following local and regional codes, MKHS is actually being too lenient on dress code, with disproportionate time and effort invested on the most visible violations of short length and such. Some accusations, statements, and facts:

• The writer has observed a student wearing a shirt from Mexico tourism hotspot Puerto Vallarta evidently advocating alcohol consumption. The administration has not taken any action.
• The writer has worn a shirt on campus with the text and logo of Dutch beer Heineken on numerous occasions. The administration has not taken any action. note: The writer does not advocate underage alcohol consumption in any way, shape, or form.
• The writer has observed a student with a pin on his backpack stating “that’s what she said,” which could be logically argued as being able to “incite … sexual prejudice.” The administration has not taken any action.
• Peers have explained that larger-bodied students are being discriminated against: between a thinner female student and her larger counterpart, both wearing shorts breaking the dress code, the larger figure has a higher chance of being “caught” by “narcs” (student services staff) who will force them to change into PE shorts, usually. 
• The male student mentioned above again cites gender discrimination against men in regards to wearing clothes with bare shoulders: females students are allowed to wear tank tops, while male students are given little leeway on the issue.
• The administration seems to be conducting minimal enforcement of sagging jeans which fail to “conceal undergarments at all times” (AUSD Handbook).
• Because Hi-Y and Tri-Hi-Y clubs in the WSGV YMCA have been disbanded, MKHS administration now has the authority to ban all ‘social club’ attire on school campus. Due to negligent amount of questionable behavior, the administration has taken little or no action on the issue.
• A male student who was told to change out of his sleeveless shirt has explained that the administration’s implied reasoning was the student’s excess body hair.
• Girls that wear spandex leggings under code-breaking shorts are still required to change out of the shorts.

These observations and codifications should allow the reader to draw a few conclusions about the attitudes of the school on dress:

• Female revealing of bare shoulders do not “distract from the learning process,” but is distracting when shoulder-revealing garments are worn by men.
• BMI is a determining factor in incriminating the female student on her legitimacy to wear shorts
• T-shirt designs advocating or advertising alcohol are less dire an issue than tank tops or shorts
• Women who wear skin-revealing shorts are a bigger impedance to the “learning process” then men who reveal their underwear
• Social conservatism is a deciding factor in whether the learning process is disrupted.

Besides the overtly subjective matter of dress code enforcement in MKHS, there are other factors that render the enforcement illogical:

• Male muscle shirts, female tank tops, and short shorts do not violate any other students’ “constitutional right to be safe and secure in their persons at school” (CEC § 35183)
• Nor do they “present a health or safety hazard or a distraction which would interfere with the educational process.” API scores have seen steady improvement for the last few years, concurrent with the short shorts fashion trend.

However, some existing codes do make the administration’s imposing of negative consequences on violations of said dress legitimate, as students cannot wear clothing that is “not too large or small or revealing,” which implies the bare shoulders statement. Nebulous statements such as "Any clothing which disrupts the educational process is prohibited” leave much space for a school to make their own decisions restricting dress and much more rationale for a student to challenge the logic behind any decision on dress code. Other codes, such as permission for “students in grades 7-8” to use “light makeup,” demonstrate gaping loopholes in district policy that can be exploited by both students and staff.

The MKHS administration seems to be appropriately doing its job of rule enforcement, but it apparently holds a double standard regarding dress code regulation: some rules are strictly enforced, more serious violations are left unchecked, and the same rules are not being enforced justly and correctly. These actions will prove detrimental in the administration’s efforts to build trust with the student body, a vital relationship that should best be symbiotic. Many a student may ask, is this the right way to repay us for the steady climb in API scores?

SAT Vocabulary:

1. Apparent – adj. easily understood
2. Incendiary - n. chemical or person who starts a fire-literally or figuratively.
3. Instill – v. to infuse
4. Ambiguity – adj. having a double meaning.
5. Dissent – n. disagreement
6. Denote - v. to designate by word or mark.
7. Lenient – adj. not harsh
8. Nebulous – adj. vaguely defined, cloudy
9. Detrimental – adj. causing damage, depreciation, or loss.

Caught Strait Between: Contemporary Findings on National Identity in the Republic of China

For Emma – adapted from an argumentative dialogue

Do we fight war with weapons or words? In my last post, I described the abysmal foreign policy the United States incorporates to defend itself against foreign “threats.” I noted that the American government has successfully rendered its people to believe that constitution-infringing acts like the USA PATRIOT Act are necessary to defend ourselves and our national sovereignty. A populace that does not question its leadership fails to challenge it – that is the ultimate goal of any government that seeks to control. ‘Control,’ in this case, means the ability of your people to do as you (the administration) say.

This time, I ask, how does a state wage war? In particular, I will investigate the state of national identity and ideology in the Republic of China and how political causes have been able to provide highly nationalistic – yet high quality – education to its students in the last decade under the rule of now jailed president Chen Shui-bian. A brief review of the social consequences of such actions on today’s youth will also be described.

Taiwan’s Personality Crisis

It is without saying that the Republic of China (abbrev. ROC; Chinese, 中華民國), better known as “Taiwan” to foreigners, has long been in an ideological struggle with itself to determine its place in the world. The root of the problem lies in controversial nature of cross-strait relations (海峽兩岸關係) between the ‘two Chinas’; with both parties claiming ownership of each other and neither party admitting legitimacy, the rest of the world has also experienced much difficulty to recognize which China is legitimate. Only twenty-three sovereign states – most of them minor island countries – recognize the ROC as a legitimate government, while most countries, including the United States, have adopted a de facto relations policy with the island entity.

Any writing, scholarly or un-scholarly, on Taiwan seems to demand a historical explanation for the current state of affairs. This is indeed necessary. Following the outbreak of the Second World War, the fledgling Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Nationalist Party (KMT) ceased fighting to form a bittersweet coalition against the threat of the Japanese Empire. Immediately after V-J Day, cooperation was dropped and fighting between the two fundamentally socialist political parties resumed for four more bloody years of conflict. Communist leader Mao Zedong’s force of go-for-broke, diehard soldiers managed to root out the Nationalists, but instead of absorbing them into the new People’s Republic of China (abbrev. PRC; Chinese, 中华人民共和国) 1949, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek fled to the island of Taiwan, which had just been relinquished from years of Japanese rule. He declared that Taipei be the provisional capital of the ROC; he still believed he owned all of mainland China, forming the basis for the modern diplomatic situation and the “Two Chinas” issue. With the postwar establishment of the United Nations, the ROC, a founding member, was recognized as the legitimate representative of China. However, with passing of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 forty years ago, the ROC was expelled and replaced by the PRC, making it much more difficult for the ROC to represent itself as a sovereign state or anything otherwise. The UN’s absence of an explanation of what the ROC actually is has made their status an open-ended question.

Current issues with Taiwan’s self-determination and national identity exist. In the 2008 Beijing Olympics, athletes representing the ROC were instead titled as from “Chinese Taipei.” (As it turns out, this is because of an IOC mandate that forced Taiwan to represent itself as something other than the “Republic of China.”) China’s claim over the island (and a smattering of other territories) would make the PRC the third largest country in the world, but American rankings that determine Taiwan to be an independent state put the United States in the third spot instead.

Forging an Identity

In the midst of such limbo in self-identity, aggressive and persistent measures have been taken to construct national identity, especially one respective to that of the PRC. From the days of Chiang Kai-Shek, nationalist ideologies have been implemented to eliminate remnants of Japanese culture in Taiwan. The ROC uniquely instates its own “Minguo Calendar” (Chinese: 民國紀元) that corresponds to the year the ROC was founded, 1911. (This year marks the 100th anniversary of the ROC; likewise, the passing of a century on the calendar.) During a 30-year period of diplomatic freeze between the PRC and ROC between 1949 and 1979, the Nationalist Party loosened its socialist stance and eventually adopted a center-right, more conservative position. At the same time, the ROC looked to the United States of America for ideological influences and rapidly became ‘Westernized’ and ‘Americanized,’ although only recently has the KMT allowed an opposition party to arise – the Democratic Progressive Party (abbrev. DPP; Chinese, 民主進步黨).

The DPP is the largest “green” party in the ROC – “green” parties support Taiwanese independence, while the “blue” faction (KMT) takes a more progressive approach of cooperation with China. Since its inception in the late 80s, the party and the series of smaller parties (forming the Pan-Green Coalition) have simply been a collective opposition force; its existence merely justifies a level of democracy and political competition in Taiwan – another way to differentiate the ROC from single-party state PRC. Their radical views earned them little support from a majority of Taiwanese. For a decade after their establishment in 1986, the DPP had no method to ascend any members to presidential positions due to the lack of democratic elections. Their role in volatile Taiwanese politics seemed limited to participation in the raunchy unicameral Legislative Yuan (Chinese: 立法院).

In the next few years (1990s), the DPP would gain steam in the Legislative Yuan and create increasingly violent spectacles on televised sessions of legislative meetings, a normal sight in Taiwanese politics. When the first-ever democratic elections were held in the ROC on 1996, the DPP failed to defeat longtime KMT incumbent Lee Teng-Hui, a Taiwanese native who was eventually expelled from the KMT for his overemphasis on localizing culture and support of an independent Taiwan, despite championing economic and democratic reforms as president for twelve years. Lee’s ideologies ironically conformed more to the platform of the DPP.

The 2000 ROC Presidential election and its verdict would prove to turn a new chapter in the search for identity, which for years has teeter-tottered between Chinese nationalism and “Taiwanization” – Taiwanese nationalism (this theme will prove important). The DPP marginalized its political platform to accept the status quo regarding Taiwan’s international status, while a rift in the KMT and the political mudslinging during campaigning allowed DPP candidate Chen Shui-bian to win the election with only about one third of the popular vote, most of which came from southern counties/cities such as Tainan County, Kaohsiung, and Pingtung County; the population in southern Taiwan is typically regarded as lower-class than the more educated population in the north, which features sizeable populations of college graduates in major metropolitan areas such as Hsinchu and Taipei.

Soon after President Chen was sworn in, he ignored the platform (screw the platform) and swore by a fast-and-furious, aggressive campaign of Taiwanization. Signs that featured “China” or “Republic of China” were strongly suggested or mandated to be replaced with “Taiwan”. Localization of culture and “desinicization,” the elimination of Chinese cultural elements, were stressed throughout. Evidence and naming of organizations or entities with Chiang Kai-shek were removed or replaced. Taiwanese nationalism and the Taiwanese identity soon became the prevailing concept of the island entity, with the ruling DPP ultimately supporting the total independence of Taiwan and stronger partnerships with Western ally United States. A propaganda campaign of some sort was necessary to perpetuate the idea that Taiwanese nationalism is righteous and appropriate. The most powerful and lasting propaganda campaign, as it turns out, lies in how one educates the posterity of a state.

Blue Sky, White Sun, and a Wholly Red Earth -青天, 白日, 滿地紅

Lee Teng-hui, a native Taiwanese, was strongly nationalistic and favored Taiwanization, but nobody on the entire island knew what to expect when a radically nationalist party took the reins of the entire state. Chen’s education reforms were not profoundly sweeping – he simply accelerated the development of already nationalist curriculums that were being implemented. It was rumored that Chen altered political maps to feature Taiwan prominently and above Mainland China, a bold, but not impossible, move. Heavy emphasis was placed on Taiwanese history and local Taiwanese culture, and history of the Chinese on the mainland – including over 4000 years of imperial history and beyond – became grossly underrepresented as a result. Students were required to memorize (the characteristic of any East Asian education) names, location, and geography of Taiwan in its entirety – the island’s area is only slightly larger than Maryland state. Students also learn and memorize the National Anthem and the National Flag Anthem – the latter being the equivalent of the Pledge of Allegiance. Through their locally nationalistic study of history, Taiwanese youth are strongly informed that their country – which very status is disputed – is the best on Earth. Taiwan is flawless. China, Japan, Korea, even America – they are all flawed. Forget self-determination!

The mandated study of Taiwan and Mainland China through an intensely nationalistic perspective as a covert social propaganda campaign has proved effective. It should be strongly argued that the propaganda has brainwashed students from Tainan to Taipei. The strategy has given children an entity to strongly affiliate themselves with, but this collective solution to an identity crisis feels all-too-superficial – after all, adolescents usually undergo numerous crises in their search for self. Pupils are told by the government to antagonize Mainland China and its ruling scoundrels – the Communists, who took the entire area away from the Republic that righteously deserves it. All this is alluded to despite the KMT’s socialist ideology under Sun Yat-sen during the first third of the party’s existence. Although Taiwan has been extensively Westernized and Americanized in culture, economy and politics during the last half century, students may be oblivious to or refuse to believe that there are any traits of foreign culture in Taiwan, which should be labeled uniquely ‘Taiwanese’ and nothing else. Radical members of the DPP believe the Republic of China should be renamed the ‘Republic of Taiwan’; surely, some students may take up this viewpoint with positivity.

More incriminating evidence on the brainwashing of young Taiwanese students exists. Taiwanese students tend to hold more radical views in regards to China than their parents – they believe, after all, Taiwanese culture sprouted from the island itself. In an outstanding example of Orwellian ‘doublethink,’ Taiwanese are capable of acknowledging the fact that they hold Chinese heritage but assert that they are singly ‘Taiwanese’ – nothing else. Only two percent of Taiwanese are aboriginal; the other ninety-eight percent of residents bear original ancestry in mainland China, predominantly in neighboring Fujian Province. It is simply illogical that the requirement for students to be informed about Chinese history is near-nonexistent. Meanwhile, the definition of what ‘Taiwanese’ really means is nowhere to be found.

The difference between Taiwan’s manipulative textbooks against, say, the PRC or America’s slanted textbooks, is the nationalist nature of the curriculum. Blatant Taiwan-centering of textbooks that creates a narrow-minded worldview (apologies for writing ‘world’) does little to foster an attitude of international cooperation or friendly diplomacy. Few high school students in Taiwan that seek higher education look to the United States or elsewhere – their critical opinion of American cultural values and beliefs would prove unsettling. Students who attend international schools may to turn to the United States for college, only to receive a culture shock.

Textbook biasing, however, is no Taiwanese affair. No one-hundred percent objective history textbook has every found its way to any classroom desk anywhere in the world. China has long biased against the KMT in their history textbooks but has recently readjusted the bent on some crucial events such as the defeat of the Japanese in the Chinese Civil War. History textbooks in the US generally criticize communism and advocate market capitalism as the ideal political-economic system. General cultural standards in the US idealize the Founding Fathers, who were really nothing more than spearheading a rebellion in intellectual style – they were treading uncharted waters with a declaration of independence and not confidently strutting along with nationalism flowing out of their pockets. The overtly nationalistic history curriculum under President Chen, this pro-blue faction article suggests, is similar to a secessionist group – say, the Confederate States of America – educating a mainstream United States.

Chen Imprisoned, Taiwan Nationalistic

If you don’t believe the extent to which Taiwanese have been brainwashed from slanted history textbooks, take to the Internet. The first entry on Urban Dictionary for “Chen Shui-bian” describes a benevolent president who has done far more good than harm – a total contrast from his actual presidential run, which eventually earned him 19 years of imprisonment. Tone and other linguistic qualities suggest that the entry was written by a Taiwanese individual who strongly supports the green faction and is downright disillusioned in his evidence.

Nationalism is a powerful fighting force that can be described in far too many metaphors. Guns and F-16 fighter jets are not the only way to wage war; a domestic campaign of subtle propaganda, properly executed, is all it takes to muster up a force of nature, one that is willing to die for something they may not even have good reason to affiliate themselves with. The DPP’s eight-year stint was enough to effectively control the opinions of a whole generation of youth – the Nationalist Party, as its namesake suggests, has little intention to lessen the Taiwan-centralized curriculum too severely. You don’t need martial law to force anyone to do anything. You don’t need a bomb to take over the world. “Just give the education a reform.”

SAT Vocabulary: (government/history-specific terms in italics)

1. infringing - v. trespass upon
2. populace - n. the common people
3. nationalist - political ideology that involves strong identification with a group of individuals with a political entity (usu. a nation)
4. de facto - in practice (but not in theory) (also see: de jure)
5. fledgling - n. a young bird; used to describe anything that is young
6. coalition - n. combination in a body or mass
7. relinquish - v. to give up using or having
8. self-determination - n. principle that nations have the right to choose their own sovereignty and political status freely
9. implement - v. to put into effect, to institute
10. inception - v, n. founding
11. collective - adj. Consisting of a number of persons or objects considered as gathered into a mass, or sum.
12. volatile - adj. changeable, unstable
13. unicameral - n. in government, composed of a single legislative body
14. incumbent - n. one who holds an office
15. mudslinging - n. negative campaigning
16. prominent - adj. conspicuous in position, character, or importance
17. mandate - n. a command; v. to require/make involuntary
18. affiliate - v. to relate; n. some auxiliary person or thing
19. aboriginal - adj. native peoples of a place
20. blatant - adj. offensively loud or clamorous; obvious
21. muster - n. to assemble, gather up
22. martial law - n, v. to impose military rule on an area, usu. in emergency or war

18 Weeks and Confused

I don’t label myself as a feminist, because I am not actively involved in any sort of activism pertaining to the movement, which has seen serious movements throughout the last century and especially during the post-war era. I like to call myself, however, a sort of feminist sympathizer. Indeed, the “feminist perspective” can be applied to anything, including academic disciplines in the social sciences such as sociology (where it is one of the more minor perspectives of research). Women are regarded as having more aesthetic talent and language ability (right-brained) of their left-brained, male counterparts; they are holders of “women’s intuition.” All jargon aside...

...There is an ongoing trend on Facebook that seeks to raise awareness for female-exclusive or female-predominant illnesses such as ovarian and breast cancer. With a feminist tinge, a woman is supposed to post a status update that corresponds to a set of esoteric instructions that in no way allude to any form of cancer, feminist ideology, or activist message – it’s simply fun and games, like most socialization on Facebook.

There is a sort of ulterior motive in the whole ordeal, which has included posting statuses about bra color, underwear color, fruits, purse placement, and most recently, length of faux pregnancy and craving corresponding to your birthday. To be objective, a status about the location of a women’s purse preceded by a provocative “I like it on the...” does nothing to raise awareness for any form of cancer or even gender equality itself. Instead, it drives men crazy and perpetuates sexism against men in a way – by making them clueless and uninformed about raising awareness for a serious problem and finding a solution to it. Women seem to find some sort of perverse satisfaction in leaving men in the dark, and it’s wrong, no matter which gender this is directed towards.

If women are going to eschew half the world’s population to raise awareness on a contemporary health issue, then there better be more masculinists in the world to defend the rights of men to be informed. Cures do not come from sensationalism on social networks, but from research funding. Why don’t we – as men and women – we fix our education system to create more competent scientists before we herald what we may crave on a given week of pregnancy? It doesn’t take women’s intuition to figure this one out.

SAT Vocabulary:

1. Aesthetic – adj. artistic, related to the appreciation of beauty
2. Intuition – n. Instinctive knowledge or feeling.
3. Jargon – n. Confused, unintelligible speech or highly technical speech
4. Esoteric –  (adj.) understood by only a select few
5. Allude – v. To refer incidentally, or by suggestion.
6. Ulterior – adj. Not so pertinent as something else to the matter spoken of
7. Faux – adj. fake
8. Perpetuate – v. To preserve from extinction or oblivion.
9. Perverse - adj. Unreasonable.
10. Eschew – v. to avoid
11. Competent – adj. qualified