Every year at this time, Ethics Alarms covers one or more ethics controversies over a yearbook photo that has been deemed inappropriate for a high school graduation yearbook. The 2014 controversy, I think, has more significance than the others. Like other examples of rigid school administrator enforcement of poorly though-out rules and blatant cruelty to children, what was done to Jessica Urbina demonstrates the peril of allowing those in what no passes as the education profession to have power over our children, since they so frequently abuse it, or influence over the development of our children’s character, as the administrators display such flawed character themselves. The more I think about this incident, however, the more I conclude that it foretells the dying of a major religion in this country, and why it may deserve to die.
The yearbook photo of senior Jessica Urbina was deleted from her class yearbook because she wore a tuxedo. School officials at San Francisco’s Sacred Heart Cathedral High School said she violated the Archdiocese of San Francisco’s policy because she didn’t wear the dress that’s required for female students in yearbook photos. This is the no-tolerance version of yearbook photo rules, sexist, anti-gay, cruel and stupid. Jessica isn’t dressed inappropriately or unkempt; in fact, she looks great. She took care to make herself presentable for her yearbook, and succeeded. Quite reasonably, however, she decided to appear in clothing that made her feel comfortable, given her sexual orientation, for she is reputedly gay. Tuxes are not a gay uniform by any means; hetero and gay women have worn them as fashion for decades. Below are, clockwise, Ellen Paige, Kim Kardashian, Madonna, super-model Danielle Luquet de St Germain, and the immortal Marlene Dietrich:
I know: yecchhh! How disgusting!
Seriously–there is nothing, nothing, provocative, inappropriate or wrong with Jessica’s attire. She is nicely groomed, her clothing is impeccable, the photograph is impeccable, and she looks cute and happy. The school officials knew what to do about that.
Yes, it is true: she violated a rule that required that she wear a dress. The rule is sexist, archaic, unthinking, prejudicial, arbitrary, cruel and wrong. The best way to change a rule that is sexist, archaic, unthinking, prejudicial, arbitrary, cruel and wrong is to break it, and see if those in charge have the sense and compassion to do the right thing. The administrators of Sacred Heart Cathedral High School flunked. I doubt that Jessica was even trying to provoke a confrontation: like any normal student, she wanted her image in the most important piece of memorabilia of her high school years to accurately portray her as she was, not as some alien ideal dictated by the Catholic Church. There was nothing to be achieved by banning the photo. Well, maybe one thing…
Through the years on Ethics Alarms, I have repeatedly tried to make the distinction between individuals who oppose gays and gay rights out of hate and bigotry, and those who find themselves unable to reject the tenets of the faith they were raised to follow, when it holds that homosexuality is a sin. The latter is the teaching of the Catholic Church, whose spokespersons repeatedly explain that the Church embraces and loves all human beings, and that it only the conduct condemned by God that it deplores. But Jessica’s photo didn’t depict any condemned conduct. The school rejected it because of what it appeared to show her to be, gay, and that is bigotry, not love. (There is nothing in the Bible, by the way, that condemns or even acknowledges lesbians, as homosexuality was presumed to be a male activity.) In an act devoid of compassion, kindness, understanding and fairness, these school administrators looked at the photo of a beaming young woman in attire that would be appropriate at a Presidential Ball, and said to themselves, “Well, we can wipe that smile right off that little dyke’s face.”
Oh, there are the predictable protests from Jessica’s friends, and some gay rights groups may make some noise. Maybe the school will be sufficiently embarrassed that the next time this occurs, it handles the situation differently. That’s something, I suppose. The school put out a fatuous and infuriating statement:
“As we prepare to pass out yearbooks, it is always regretful when a student portrait is omitted for any reason. As a community we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that all students are included in the future.”
Hey, I have an idea, guys! One easy way to make sure that all students are included is to include Jessica Urbina’s photo.
The cruel treatment of Jessica is one more indication of the sorry state of the Catholic Church, which appears to be a fatal cesspool of hypocrisy, desperate public relations, and an integrity vacuum. There are two kinds of Catholics, it seems: those who profess the be devout followers of the Church but who discard and violate its doctrine and core principles whenever they seem too burdensome, unpopular or embarrassing, and those who blindly follow the dictates of the Church, no matter how clearly they have been proven wrong and wrongful by the accumulated experience and wisdom of civilization, because morality never changes. The Church itself proved in its decades-long protection and enabling of child abuse, that when push comes to shove, it behaves like any other corrupt organization—the IRS, Enron, the White House—that views protecting its own as more important than remaining faithful to its professed mission and principles. Meanwhile, journalists and progressives salivate on cue whenever the Pope delivers facile calls for peace, charity, and love that are completely devoid of any acknowledgment of the practical policy complexities involved, while the current Pope plays to the polls by acting as if violating the more archaic Catholic teachings is no big deal, though he will not actively oppose or work to change them. I can’t imagine why any ethical person who regards honesty and integrity as essential values could belong to such a church, and I do not believe that any church whose followers reject ethical values can or should survive. I do know how such followers are likely to behave, however.
For one thing, they would reject the photo of a happy young woman in a tuxedo, who only wants to appear in her high school yearbook as she really is.
Update: The school reversed its decision, and apologized. Good.
________________________________
Pointer: Fark
Facts: KTVU
Ethics Alarms 
Just a point of order…
Ellen Page is, in fact, gay.
Unless she is a liar. 😉
“Hetero and women” was, as you might guess, supposed to read “hetero and gay women.” I’m not sure whether that photo of Ellen Page was before or after she came “out,” not that it matters.
Sorry. Thought that maybe you just didn’t know… I had to Google to make sure I was remembering right…
No, you have to Google them, because “gay” actresses become un-gay, and vice-versa, with remarkable frequency. Ann Heche, Lindsay Lohan, Meredith Baxter…it’s not easy keeping track.
Also, I hate myself for knowing this, but in the picture, that looks like Kourtney Kardashian, Not Kim.
It is always regretful when schools misuse/misunderstand the English language.
Oy, yes. I was just ranting and raving on Facebook about such misuse/misunderstanding of the English language by newly minted college graduates, as in “I’m proud to be able to state that I am an alumni of this great institution.” Ugh. Take back his diploma!
Is that conscious irony, using the word “regretful” like that when complaining about improper English?
yes
How exactly is wearing a tux “who she really is”? she was not born wearing a tux.
What is next? Should the school allow students to pose naked for yearbook photos? And why limit this to schools. Why should U.S. marines, for example, have to wear a uniform for their official portraits?
The rules were simple. Wear the dress for the yearbook photo. That was it. No one was telling her that she could not wear a tux ever.
How? The point is that wearing a dress, when she never wears a dress, is NOT who she is. Who she is is dressing to reflect her own personality and characteristics. Surely you don’t think stooping to a false slippery slope scenario is justified here. If the school wants to require uniforms, with all students dressed the same, that’s a legitimate policy, if a needless one. It eliminates the need for administrators to have a brain, which, I agree, is a good idea. Military units are not there to educate or socialize, and regimentation and conformity is a valid goal. This isn’t Sparta: schools aren’t armies, and kids are being trained to enter a democratic society, not a bee hive.
So who is she?
“This isn’t Sparta: schools aren’t armies, and kids are being trained to enter a democratic society, not a bee hive.”
I think you meant to say “kids should be trained to enter a democratic society, not a bee hive like they are currently“
Well, you knew I was going to respond, right?
“The cruel treatment of Jessica is one more indication of the sorry state of the Catholic Church, which appears to be a fatal cesspool of hypocrisy, desperate public relations, and an integrity vacuum. There are two kinds of Catholics, it seems: those who profess the be devout followers of the Church but who discard and violate its doctrine and core principles whenever they seem too burdensome, unpopular or embarrassing, and those who blindly follow the dictates of the Church, no matter how clearly they have been proven wrong and wrongful by the accumulated experience and wisdom of civilization, because morality never changes.”
So, what am I? The feckless “Cafeteria Catholic” or the “Fundamentalist Catholic”? I really take exception to your gross generalizations about Catholics as being one or the other of your versions. Knowing me, Jack, how could you make such generalizations?
As a sometime student of Theology, I prefer to see myself as a Catholic who dissents in good conscience from certain teachings of the Church — not because they are “too burdensome, unpopular, or embarrassing,” but because I believe that there is more to be learned from the core teachings of Jesus than what we have thus far proclaimed. And for the record, I am saddened by what happened to Jessica. What the school did (notice I say school, not church) was not compassionate, kind, or tolerant.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:
“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”
The problematic part comes after that: “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” It’s kind of a Catch 22. Does the Church see a well-formed conscience as one that has been properly educated (indoctrinated?) in the “truths” that the Church has put forth, and therefore agrees with the Church on all matters? Mmaayybe. I suspect that this conscience thing was intended to give courage to Catholics who would have to disobey their “Catholic conscience” to do something they were being encouraged or forced to do in the secular world that is against Church teachings. Thus, martyrs. Regardless, I stand by my educated conscience.
I hold up the subjects of my senior thesis, which was about dissent in the Church: Hans Küng and Charles Curran. Both censured for their dissent, but still voices in the wilderness. Look at Pierre Telhard de Chardin. Got into a lot of trouble for his writings, but somewhat “rehabilitated” in today’s world of theological thought.
With regard to Jessica, I see this as an educational system problem, because it might have happened at any school. The fact that it happened at a Catholic school makes it look like a Catholic problem, but I sense that you would find the same problem in schools in various places around the country, as well as other denominations which teach (yes, there are others) that homosexuality is wrong/forbidden/whatever. I’m sure I’m breaking one of your principles here, but really I do see this as an authoritarian school problem first and foremost. It’s also a self-expression issue.
I personally wish Jessica great success as she, no doubt, continues to break the barriers that keep her and others from being and expressing who they are.
As you no doubt suspected, I was trying to seed a Comment of the Day from you, and got it. Thanks. Great job.
Fell right into your trap, didn’t I? Well, OK!
I’ll post your COTD tonight. Rushing off to catch a plane!
Bullseye, Patrice. Catholicism’s been around 2000 years, we survived the Inquisition, the Great Schism, the Reformation, the Second Great Awakening, and a bunch of smaller events. We’re not going anywhere.
Point of fact, I don’t think any major religion has ever been stamped completely out or simply died. A few have been superseded, like the Greco-Roman, Druidic, and Norse pantheons, which were superseded by Christianityand have few if any adherents today. The only example of religions that were successfully stamped out were the Lithuanian pagan religion, which was successfully stamped out by pressure from the Teutonic Order and the Russians, and the Aztec/Inca religions, which ended because their believers were all either slain or enslaved. The Soviets were decisively unsuccessful in their attempt to stamp out Christianity in a continent, and the Muslims were unsuccessful in their attempts to destroy Zoroastarianism and Arab Christianity completely.
Killing off a faith completely is very hard to do, and I don’t see it as ever being a good thing. I think you were trying to elicit a reaction, Jack, but I hope, I say I HOPE that you are not engaging in Catholic-bashing, which is the last acceptable prejudice in the United States, but no less a prejudice than hating skin color or any other belief system. It’s one thing to point out the flaws in a faith system, and there’s not a one that doesn’t have flaws, it’s another to bash and hate. One is acceptable, the other isn’t. Pointing out that the Pope is dealing only in moral platitudes without giving a whole lot of thought to how to practically apply them is permissible, and I might even agree with you there. Pointing out that the Church has enabled deviant behavior is simply repeating what’s well-known. Saying a major religion deserves to die… eh, I think that’s in a gray area, especially in light of the fact that the reation changes depending on WHICH major religion you put in that slot.
Not Catholic bashing, but Catholic criticizing. I think the Church is hopeless. I don’t hate the Church; I admire its goals and pedigree. But I hate incompetence, hypocrisy, greed and stupidity.
I think an incompetent religion without integrity does deserve to die, just as a corrupt or incompetent business deserves to go belly-up. What good does it do, in the balance? What kind of religion has a leader who curries favor with the anti-religious, and has supposed followers who when confronted on a principled position, say, the wrongfulness of abortion, say, “Oh, I don’t believe that.” Indeed, what legitimate religion can call the likes of John Kerry, Andrew Cuomo and Joe Biden “good Catholics”?
The Catholic Church helped civilize the world, and thanks for that. At this point, it is undermining faith while feeding cynicism. It has become the religious equivalent of Michelle’s selfie…
Incompetence, hypocrisy, greed and stupidity are never good things, especially not in an organization that is supposed to be dedicated to good works, but I’d hardly say they are unique to the Catholic Church among religions and I’d hardly call Catholicism the biggest religious problem in the world – that title belongs to Islam. State atheism is also frankly nothing to write home about, in fact all the worst regimes, Nazism, Communism of pretty much all varieties (although Pol Pot’s was the worst of all), whatever the term is for the adherents of the French Revolution, were all officially godless regimes.
Yes, the Church is going through a rough patch right now, and it’s largely a rough patch of its own making, as higher-ups failed to clamp down earlier on abuses under their direct control (diocesan priests and staff) and allowed those under not as direct control (religious orders) to run amok. That said, I wonder how much of it was also parents looking the other way and either disbelieving kids in the case of sexual abuse, because the religious are supposedly God’s representatives, or being ok with it in the case of physical abuse because they engaged in the same practices themselves (how many kids were told not to tell mom and dad if the teacher hit them because if they did mom and dad would hit them a second time?)
It doesn’t help that they have also not clamped down on other radical elements or looked at other issues through a more reasonable lens. The issue you raise here of conduct toward gay people is frankly a small one when you look at the church’s approaches to capital punishment, economics, and national defense. St. John Paul II may have given the west the moral gravitas to win the Cold War, but I think he lost part of that when he advocated against the Iraq war, and the US bishops did the Cold War no favors by issuing a pastoral letter that said that the use of nuclear deterrence was wrong when there was no possible alternative. St. John XXIII may have made the Mass and other things more accessible, but he arguably opened the door for liberation theology to become the “moral gloss” for dangerous radical activity in other parts of the world. As a law and order and foreign policy conservative I have a tough time reconciling this other than by “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”
As you pointed out, though, the Church played a big role in the spread of civilization, and it still plays a big role in education, healthcare, and charity. It’s not about to shut down, and it shouldn’t shut down because the world would be the worse off without it, but it does need a major cleanup and streamlining of the message. It withstood the assault of Islam. It withstood the Eastern Orthodox Christians going their own way. It withstood the papal schism. It withstood Martin Luther and his 95 theses and it withstood Henry VIII and the rulers in Scandinavia and northern Germany using Protestantism as an excuse for trying to glom more power for themselves. It also survived the rise of secular elected government, and it’s survived attempts to snuff out the message (which is still a good message, even though the messengers have slipped up) by violence. We’re still listening to Bach 350 years later. We’ll still be reading the Gospel 2000 years later, whatever Gene Rodenberry might think.
It’s not the worst religion (thing)….
And it’s not. Maybe this is one of my two ethical blind spots, but I get funny about attacks on Catholicism.
I can remember the ‘good old days’ when Catholic girls were instructed not to wear black patent leather shoes because “they might reflect up!” Fortunately, I never had to go to a Catholic school. I guess the authoritarian environment still remains but unless this young lady or her parents had to sign some stupid agreement about yearbook photos, wearing a tuxedo seems quite proper.
If public schools are dangerous for kids (and I agree that some are) and private church schools are dangerous for kids (and again I agree that some are) what choices are left? Home school is not feasible for most families.
I assume there is some sort of dress code or policy at most if not all schools public or private. The student who goes to that school has explicitly or tacitly agreed to abide by that code by their continued attendance. If the code states that female students must wear dresses for their yearbook picture then they should abide by the code.
There are ways around it. There are dresses that have more masculine necklines, collars etc. There might even be a dress that has a bodice that looks like a tuxedo.
“…(There is nothing in the Bible, by the way, that condemns or even acknowledges lesbians, as homosexuality was presumed to be a male activity.)…”
Are you sure?
“26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”
Newsweek’s religion editor invented this lie a couple year ago…and now it’s apparently one of those urban legends, like people only using 10% of their brains…
That’s a matter of interpretation, rather than a lie. First of all, one unnatural relationship (or instance) a lesbian does not make. Secondly, who knows what that sentence means? It could mean incest; it could mean bestiality. One reason male gay relations were illegal in Britain and female gay relations were not is that Queen Victoria refused to believe such things occurred.
Jack, I think it’s fairly clear – worship idols – such as images of birds, animals, people, or even books, and that’s the gateway to all sorts of undesirable behaviour. Same-sex attraction, but also far worse stuff – hypocrisy, judging others, lacking understanding, cruel, unmerciful and implacable. And proud of it too, enjoying it.
Worship a thing, the literal Bible, rather than God, and these are the consequences:
It’s a pity that an arbitrary break was inserted between Romans 1:32 and Romans 2:1.
As for the Catholic church, the logic appears to be this:
1) Everyone is fallible and human. We all sin, but if we do, it’s a personal thing, affecting only ourselves not others.
2) But the appearance of sin, whether really sinful or not, is far, far worse than the actuality. For it encourages others, perhaps thousands of others, to sin, whereas a personal sin that is carefully concealed and covered up is no big deal.
Thus any actual malefaction within the Church has to be covered up, even if this will allow the evil to continue unchecked.
But the appearance of sin, even though there is none, must be prevented at all costs, even if actual evil results. It’s all about appearances.
If the code states that female students must wear dresses for their yearbook picture then they should abide by the code.
***********
I think it is a dumb rule.
My mother-in-law never wears dresses because she hates them and it is not her style.
She is not gay, just has never been a girly-girl.
She can’t be the only one.
Why must the seniors wear a dress when the photo only shows from the chest up?
For my high school graduation photo I wore a lovely blouse and a pair of ripped jeans.
It didn’t matter what I was wearing on the bottom.
I really wish people in places of authority would stop telling other people how to look.
We’re all different, people.
What this school did was rotten to the core.
yup
Of course, that is simply an assessment according to your own tastes, and tastes differ. But for that very reason, I think it would be informative and useful for me to state why that is not true according to my own tastes, as that might let people see how such things vary.
Jessica Urbina’s hair is tufting and sticking up. That makes a sort of informality going on scruffiness that – to my eye – just does not go with formal wear. (I’m not claiming any special virtue here; my father said that with one deft touch I could make anything look scruffy.)
Her skin is too dark to go with that sort of clothing; she should have chosen something that would have clashed less.
Last and worst, she is grinning her head off like a five year old, which is too unseemly to be fitting in a formal context. I noticed that even before I read your approval of it; I am not simply telling you this to be contrary. (Remember, what counts in a formal context isn’t simply how people feel about it themselves, but also the experience they are part of giving to others.)
I am certain people will disagree with my own tastes. Arguing taste is not the point; that has long been known to be impossible, so all the more reason not to let other tastes through as though they were all that could happen.
Huh? But I would have tried to suppress it for another reason entirely, that it was selfishly spoiling other people’s memories. I would have tried to replace it with something else that would have satisfied everybody, but if I couldn’t find anything like that I wouldn’t have ruined the formal stuff for everybody else.
Wow. You really are a fucking cuntwad…
I will instead avail myself once more of the Abecedarian Insult.
Sir, you are an apogenous, bovaristic, coprolalial, dasypygal, excerebrose, facinorous, gnathonic, hircine, ithyphallic, jumentous, kyphotic, labrose, mephitic, napiform, oligophrenial, papuliferous, quisquilian, rebarbative, saponaceous, thersitical, unguinous, ventripotent, wlatsome, xylocephalous, yirning zoophyte.
Thereby expressing my true feelings in a humorous, even jocular vein, so as to remove any sting.
Also, his mother was a hamster, and his father smelt of elderberries.
That sounds a lot better than “what a pretentious little twat” doesn’t it? Such disrespect for another commenter – as opposed to his views – has no place here too.
If he is a pretentious little twat, then that will be obvious from his fatuous comments. So saying it is redundant, and demeans us all.
Also, his mother was a hamster, and his father smelt of elderberries.
****************
Go away or I shall be forced to taunt you a second time.
😀
Mr(?) Lawrence?
I accuse you of impersonating a Fashion Police officer.
I copied down the link to this post, wanting to return to it and write about the case myself when I had more time than I did in late May. When I started to do so this evening, I naturally wanted to see what else I could find out about the case. Turns out, the school had already reversed itself when you wrote your piece, Jack, making their decision public the day after your post.
Here’s a link to the school’s official statement. The school’s president and principal both attached their signatures to a letter that is well-crafted, thoughtful, and apparently sincere. I was especially struck by this paragraph:
We are all of us fallible. The folks at Sacred Heart get that. After careful consideration–prompted in part by essays like yours, no doubt, but also, I believe, by honest introspection–they decided they’d made a mistake, and they set out to make amends in the best way they could. Everyone, both the school’s administrators and Jessica and her family, acted like civilized adults. Everybody learned something; everybody wins.
I may yet write about this case, but if I do, it will be in the no-doubt forlorn hope that other contentious moments might be resolved as gracefully. No Curmie nomination here, I’m happy to say.
Thanks for this, Rick. I wish I could tell the rest of the story on so many of my posts, but the job would swallow the blog. This, however, was an important one, and worthy of an Ethics Hero post.