CLEAVAGE COVERUP
School rules for modesty
‘‘We have told our students that if they bring a partner to the ball they are personally responsible for that partner’s behaviour.’’
Family First has congratulated an Auckland school on setting a dress code for its upcoming school ball, and says students who don’t agree should stay home.
National director Bob McCoskrie said that Auckland’s St Dominic’s School was ‘‘completely appropriate and within their rights’’ in enforcing high standards in their students’ dress code.
The Catholic girls’ school has been the subject of an online petition calling on it to rethink its nocleavage, no-backless-dresses code for their school ball.
‘‘Dressing modestly is a good thing and it is completely appropriate for schools to be promoting this expectation at a function for teenagers,’’ McCoskrie said.
He contrasted the move with a Bay of Plenty high school’s decision to give out condoms and safe sex advice in a school ball package back in 2010.
St Dominic’s Catholic College principal Carol Coddington said the rules were not severe, and no girls had been told they could not wear their chosen dresses because they violate the ball’s dress code.
The petition said the rules were ‘‘shocking, sexist and extremely outdated’’.
But Coddington said a photo being used to represent a banned dress was ‘‘misrepresenting’’ the actual case.
‘‘The age of most of our students is under 18 years old. The rules we put around the ball reflect that and the school’s responsibility for its students,’’ she said.
However, she did not deny that some of the rules the petition took issue with had been put in place.
According to the petition, the school’s rules state that: A split in a dress must not come above the knee; the back of the dress cannot go below the armpit; the dress must not reveal any cleavage; and students cannot remove their shoes during the ball.
The petition, which was not started by a current student at the school, said the rules were sexist because they sexualised girls’ bodies and made them feel ashamed for showing skin.
It said many students had already bought their ball gowns before they were informed of the rules.
‘‘Girls who have already purchased dresses (as many have and the rules only came out a month and a half before the ball date) have been told they can show a picture to the associate principal in order to get it approved – many of which have been told are ‘too exposed’ for showing too much back or cleavage and have therefore wasted their money,’’ it said.
But Coddington said that was wrong; no girls had been told by senior management that they could not wear dresses they had already bought.
One girl who had not bought her dress yet had been told it may need to be slightly altered, she said.
For the first time this year St Dominic’s added cocktail-length dresses and appropriate pant suits to the dress code.
Coddington also took issue with the petition’s suggestion that girls had been told they needed to be in a serious relationship with any ball partners.
‘‘What we have told our students is that if they bring a partner to the ball they are personally responsible for that partner’s behaviour. If that is inappropriate, they will both be asked to leave.’’
The school was not aware of, and did not support, any pre- or post-ball parties, Coddington said.
Katrina Casey, head of the Ministry of Education’s enablement and support sector, said each school was responsible for its own dress codes.
Parents or students who were unclear about a school’s dress code should discuss it with the school’s principal, she said.