"Oh yeah? Well, your good manners and dignity offend ME!"

Sometimes I receive terrific comments to posts via e-mail, and sometimes I decide to make them Comments of the Day. And sometimes I decide to do that and forget, like I did with this comment, from Neil Penny, in response to my July 26 post about Dollywood forcing a patron to cover the mild political message on her T-shirt that “might offend some.” Neil’s comment was about the anecdote included in my post, relating how the dress code at my college was brought down by a concerted effort to comply with its letter rather than its spirit, and how the subsequent loss of decorum in the dining hall was regarded my many students, including me, as a diminishment of the experience.  Here is that lost “Comment of the Day”—my apologies to Neil for the delay:

“I’m confused as to why you and your fellows couldn’t have continued the dinner dress-code informally.  In fact, wouldn’t that have made it all the more considerate and special, as it was no longer being enforced by way of administrative fiat?  Your argument here seems akin to the broken window analogy and, similarly, seems to assume people are automatons who will simply do as they see others do.  Yes, bad examples can lead to further bad examples, but it doesn’t necessarily represent a softening of standards or a lowering of the proverbial bar.  Arguing otherwise only removes personal responsibility from the equation altogether as they’re simply imitating the behaviors of others.

“What’s more, I fail to understand how refusing to dress myself in accordance with subjective rules of fashion and propriety for the sake of other people’s piece of mind makes me more or less ethical.  What I wear has no direct bearing on those around me save for the fact that they’re all forced to bear witness to it; thus, the only real harm seems to be that it might hurt their sensibilities.  Dressing comfortably should be one’s primary concern instead of worrying what others are going to think of my selections.”

“Though you’ve once again argued for the right of the offender to wear the objectionable clothing, you nonetheless continue to suggest the Golden Rule would seem to urge them to be more considerate.  However, why apply it so rigidly?  Couldn’t I just as easily argue that the Golden Rule should be interpreted as “I won’t be offended by your shirt if you’re not offended with mine” ? It seems to me a much more equitable application of the principle as it doesn’t place any sort of negative requirements anyone (except NOT to get offended).  After all, it would seem the offendee more than the offender is at fault as they’re the one making it an issue in the first place.”

I’m going to respond here.

On the first point, I agree: those of us who liked the dress code could have fought it, and continued to wear jackets and ties. Some students did. They rapidly acquired the reputation of being dorks, or worse, Young Republicans—which, interestingly, most of them were. Once wearing T-shirts and jeans became the social norm, a jacket and tie was as out of place in the dining hall as casual dress had been before. I have a liking for lost causes, but that one seemed pointless. This was the Sixties. Nobody was even shaving, and students were shutting down classes and taking over buildings. It wasn’t the time to argue about more dignity in the Freshman Dining Hall.

As to the second point: it’s a choice, really, but a choice that involves ethical principles, such as respect,consideration, empathy, caring, and dignity. I firmly believe that kids who shout in the CVS, and people who don’t bathe and smell like goats in the seat next to me in the airport, and 260 pound men who wear sleeveless shirts and 50 year-old women who make me look at their bare midriff hanging over their short-shorts, causing my gorge to rise, would be acting more ethically, and showing self-respect as well as respect for their fellow citizens and surroundings, if they did not choose to be walking pollution.

I’ve heard the argument before that in matters of civility, the Golden Rule applies both ways: “Why don’t you show consideration for me by appreciating my belching, profanity, car radio music played at ear-splitting levels, and T-shirt featuring a cartoon of Barack Obama as the leader in “Planet of the Apes”?  The reason that doesn’t work is that the result guarantees a nose-dive into squalor.

The question is, who and what is out of place? We are not unconnected atoms: a critical mass becomes a structure, and a culture. Just as the few who wore suits in the dining hall after the dress code imploded were no longer part of the predominant culture but in opposition to it, so eventually a culture of slovenliness, rudeness and profanity becomes oppressive, and forces conformity. Once, men would dress in suits and hats to visit amusement parks and baseball games, not to mention eating establishments and theaters. Now, you feel like an idiot. A public slob or a human billboard isn’t just showing disrepect for the culture and spoiling the enjoyment of the environment for everyone else; he is also trying to change the culture and environment to his (or her standards.) If he’s going to do that, he better have a damn good reason…a better one than “I was too lazy to put on pants.”

I find it hard to believe that you regard “I’m going to be rude, and expect you to tolerate it” and “I’m going to be polite and mannerly, and expect you to do the same” as having co-equal claim to the Golden Rule. One is not disrespectful by being polite. Toleration of bad conduct is not consideration or respect; it is an abdication of the obligation to maintain civilized standards.