Jessica Urbina, a senior at Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory school (SHC) in San Francisco, got a great picture for the yearbook. In the portrait, taken on the school’s Picture Day, Urbina’s beaming in a natty tuxedo, a look that also worked for her at prom.
But apparently someone somewhere thinks that a tuxedo, on a female, would somehow smirch the SHC, and this photo is banned. It can’t be displayed at graduation and it can’t be in the yearbook.
Tuxedo cat, comfortable with her sin.
We all know what Leviticus says about dinner jackets, right?
When it came out that SHC had banned the picture from the yearbook, there was outrage among students and alumni. Last week, to show support for Urbina, many students wore bowties or other tuxaloid attire to school. There’s also tweeting of dissent at #JessicasTux.
SHC put out a vague statement, never using the dread word “tuxedo,” but including the syllables “regret.” SorryWatch doesn’t think it’s actually an apology, but we think it’s meant to look apologyesque, so we’ll examine it.
From the SHC website (on Thursday):
“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.”
Jessica Urbina
Principal Gary Cannon told the local NBC station, “Every student, every senior, is in the yearbook,” and “It has to do with the ‘senior portrait issue’ and the regulations that we have. Those policies are clearly laid out.” He also said it was possible that administrators might later reassess those policies.
No responsibility is taken. Voice is passive. Everything that happened just happened. A portrait was omitted. If that was really meant for an apology, it would be a lousy one.
“Regretful” is an interesting word to use here. Not to mention grammatically incorrect. The correct word would have been “regrettable.”
I would like to think a duct tape tuxedo would be acceptable yearbook attire no matter by whom worn. Probably too hot for prom, though.
Regretful means a person feels sad. So “It is regretful” is wrong. “I feel regretful” would be correct. Regrettable, on the other hand, means something bad happened, creating an occasion for people to feel regretful.
Does this mean whoever wrote the statement needs to take English again? Perhaps not. Perhaps the word was deliberately chosen to give a flavor of regret, without saying a mistake was made or a bad thing was done.
That may be sort of accurate, too, since the decision seems to have come not from SHC, but from the recently retrograde Archdiocese of San Francisco. I suspect Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s influence in these events. More about him in a minute.
The statement tries to present the issue as if it were not about the tux photo. As if the problem is that Urbina might have no picture in the yearbook. I am sure that won’t be so. I am sure there will be pictures of Urbina in such contexts as, say, playing on the field hockey team, or competing with the Mathletes, or appearing in the school production of Victor Victoria.
Maybe not.
But that is not the issue, as everyone knows. It’s the particular photograph. Urbina has a nice picture of herself, nicely dressed, wearing something many of her classmates can wear – and they refuse to put it in the yearbook, because, apparently, it reeks of sin.
But Ellen did not attend Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory.
Archbishop Cordileone was appointed in 2012. He is chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. He says we need an amendment to the Constitution specifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, etc. etc. Which shouldn’t have anything to do with a yearbook portrait, but maybe it does.
Someone must have thought it was a great idea to make him Archbishop of the San Francisco archdiocese.
Cordileone’s probable connection to the portrait ban gives me a chance to bring in an actual apology, one he made in 2012 after he pled guilty to misdemeanor reckless driving, aka “wet reckless.” I ignored it earlier because it wasn’t that noteworthy. (Mother in car; DUI checkpoint; .11%; night in jail). But now I’d like to see something meant for an apology, unlike the peculiar SHC remarks.
In a statement, Cordileone said, “I apologize for my error in judgment and feel shame for the disgrace I have brought upon the Church and myself. I will repay my debt to society and I ask forgiveness from my family and friends and co-workers at the diocese of Oakland and the archdiocese of San Francisco. I pray that God, in His inscrutable wisdom, will bring some good out of this.”
You can tweet it, but it won’t be in the yearbook.
Later, at his installation as Archbishop, he joked, “I know in my life God has always had a way of putting me in my place. I would say, though, that in the latest episode of my life God has outdone himself.”
The first part contains minimizing, and doesn’t address the safety issue, but it isn’t too bad. What’s he mean by repaying his debt to society? The court-ordered fine? But I’m definitely unimpressed with blaming a DUI checkpoint on God.
Oh hey look, at this statement from the SHC website page. It’s pretty long. I’ll summarize.
In working with young people blah blah confidentiality blah blah there are pictures of everybody somewhere in the yearbook blah blah “sparked a campuswide dialogue which will result in a revision of policy.” Blah blah dignity blah blah inclusive blah blah “Our students have risen in support of each other and the principles central to our community. We are proud of their leadership and thoughtful effort to affect change.”
Run! It’s the archbishop!
Not an apology, not pretending to be an apology, could mean a lot of things. Including “We’re going to argue with the Archbishop about this. And we’re pretty sure everyone will show up in a tux for Picture Day next year if we don’t DO SOMETHING.”
It also means I could have been wrong with my delicate dissection of “regretful.” Because now they’re talking about an effort to “affect change.” Maybe it was routine language mangling. Or maybe they just get really nervous when they think of 1,250 angry teenagers in tuxedos.
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
The school has now issued a long letter to the community. It’s from the SHCP president and the principal. I won’t reproduce the whole thing, but it starts, “We begin by formally apologizing to Jessica and her parents… We deeply regret the pain caused in the past few days. The information below is meant to provide our entire community with an account of how we have come to this place, but that account is in no way meant to excuse our actions, or lack thereof, and the real, significant impact they had on the Urbina family.”
They describe the senior portrait policy and imperfect communication about the policy.
“…Given the nature of this specific case, however, we believe that decision, while conforming with our policy, was wrong. Moreover, the lack of communication with the family led to even greater anguish as it proved unexpected to the student and family…”
Another fine portrait
They say the current policy is “not adequate” and they will revise it together with students, families, and the Board.
“[W]e met with the entire Urbina family to express our regret and acknowledge our failure to adequately communicate about this issue several months ago when these discussions and decisions should have been made collaboratively.”
There’s a quote from St. John Baptist de La Salle, and this: “While there are those who want to make this situation an example of problems with Catholicism, we want to be clear that this letter, our apology, and our decisions moving forward come not in spite of our Catholicism, but precisely because of it.”
The school takes responsibility, acknowledges the impact, and explains how the situation came about and what will be done next. It’s an excellent apology. The reaction has been great. I recommend reading the whole thing.
Let’s fix some details.
You can’t rip the school for sexual/gender discrimination in the same article that opens with a mention of her being allowed to wear a tux with her girlfriend at the Catholic school’s prom. If they’re ok with her taking a girl to prom, they aren’t the evil, backwards bigots they’re being made out to be.
And if she was allowed a tux and prom and not on picture day, maybe it is as simple being a dress code issue, not some archdiocesan conspiracy.
Cannon and the school were careful in their statements to not assign blame because the blame isn’t theirs. It’s Urbina’s. They avoided specifics because, as they put it, we’re dealing with a minor so confidentiality is important, but also because they didn’t want to throw her under the bus. She enrolled at a private school with a dress code. When she had issues with the day-to-day code, they made allowances to make sure she felt at home. When she had issues with the portraits, they said to take one of each photos and then they would have more time to discuss and come up with a solution. But once photo day passed, that ship would sail. She agreed and then backed out and never took the second photo. Their hands tied, the school fell back on it’s stated, printed policy.
Is the policy in need of updating? Sure, and they are working on it. But the kid broke a rule and then she (actually, mostly her grand-standing brother) cried foul when the repercussions she was told would come came.
As for blaming the archbishop, you have an axe to grind clearly and that’s fine. He’s no prize, but the archdiocese had nothing to do with this and no one ever said they did besides the same conspiracy theorists who treated a dress code violation like the Burmingham bus boycotts.
And finally, at no point was she going to be disallowed from graduation or the Baccalaureate mass. At no point was her photo going to be. In fact, the slideshow for Bacc. was already completed last week and included the tux photo. Seeing her in a dress is not a violation of any of God’s laws. No one cares. What they cared about what a kid being told what a rule was and then having her thumb her nose at it.
So that’s why they didn’t apologize. They’re a private school enforcing their dress code. There’s nothing to apologize for.
Thanks for commenting. The only thing I’m “ripping” the school for is disallowing the Picture Day portrait.
Nor do I suspect archdiocesan conspiracy, only archdiocesan policy.
You say “when she had issues with the day-to-day code, they made allowances.” This isn’t something I’ve read about — do you have a link? Or other sources?
Also, can you tell me more about my axe? I wasn’t aware I had one.
The possibility of her “being disallowed from graduation or the Baccalaureate mass” was never raised in this post, and so doesn’t need to be refuted.
You say “Seeing her in a dress is not a violation of any of God’s laws. No one cares. What they cared about what a kid being told what a rule was and then having her thumb her nose at it.”
If no one cares, why is there a rule? If it’s an old left-over rule without significance, why are they still warning people that it must be followed?
A dress code might seem simple enough until you notice that it is actually two dress codes. Urbina can’t wear a tux in her portrait, and a boy can’t wear a “drape.” Enforcing two dress codes means the administration has to police gender markers.
As one who remember dress code battles of the ’70s, I can say that way stupidity lies. His hair’s too long! Her hair’s too short! She has to wear a skirt, but OH NO LITTLE MISSY, not THAT skirt! LET ME SEE THOSE SHOES.
Too short! Too long!
There is a place for dress codes. The same reason why some would want to abolish them – because the clothes you wear makes a statement – is the reason that they continue to exist at private schools and at workplaces and at concerts literally every social situation around the world (just usually not stated).
They are a private school and have a right to create rules for behavior and appearance. A student who wants to grow a beard can go somewhere else. It’s just not a civil rights issue. I choose to work where I work and so I wear what they tell me to.
Does she have a right to push those boundaries and work with them towards making exceptional people like her feel more welcomed (and I mean that in a good way because she is a lovely young woman, not in the sense that she is an exception to a rule). She has done that throughout her career at the school – worked within the bounds of what they allow to be able to express her individuality.
She has, that is, until this time when she simply chose not to. She chose not to accept the offer they made. She chose to give them one option, which is always going to be to follow the written policy in that situation.
What’s my source? Me. And I can tell you that the administration of SHC would definitely have made an allowance in the yearbook if she had not forced them into an antagonistic position. And the policy would have changed to grad gowns for all and no one would have noticed and the world would have kept turning.
Jessica has been a welcome member of the community her her entire career and continues to be. But she created the problem when she agreed to take both photos so the admin could have time to discuss the issue and then backed out and forced the issue.
(Also, sorry I got a little argumentative with you. Just tired of seeing a lot of really good, accepting, tolerant, loving people get so much hate and hostility from the supposedly most tolerant and inclusive folks among us. As for your “axe” with regards to the Archbishop, it just seemed that you were quick to bring him into a situation that he literally has nothing to do with and you ran with your tangent on him for six paragraphs).
Again, I say it’s not a dress code, it’s two dress codes. A literal double standard. One approach that many schools take is having a uniform. (I once attended a school where we wore uniforms — not a Catholic school — and it solved problems for me.)
You’re the only source I’ve seen for the take-two-photos discussion. I don’t doubt you, but I don’t know the ins and outs of it.
I’m really pleased you’ve commented. The quotes I’ve seen from school officials (as opposed to oddly-worded statements) do indeed sound like they come from good people who care about the students.
I don’t know how you can be certain that the Archbishop has nothing to do with this situation. If that’s so — and it’s certainly a possibility — then you’re right that the paragraphs about him are irrelevant.