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.

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).

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!

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.