Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hardy has uniforms because it has uniforms. There's always resistance to change even if it means going back to normal; especially when there's a perception that there's some kind of racial motive for "normal," as utterly ridiculous as it might seem to a nonbiased mind.

Ridiculous like building UDC a new campus at St. Elizabeth's was racially motivated.
Like building a new, purpose-build, centrally located performing high school would be racially motivated,
Like having rigorous test-in magnet schools would be racially motivated.
Like building bike paths is racially motivated.
Like rethinking Easter Monday at the zoo is racially motivated.
Like the proposed DC bottle deposit law is racially motivated!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, stop the fake racism meme. There's criticism of Hardy uniforms because public school kids don't wear uniforms unless they are too poor to purchase normal clothes; virtually NO public schools in the US require uniforms and Hardy is an extreme outlier in that regard.

Uniforms across the board are either worn by the extremely privileged in private schools or wanna-be imitators, or by the extremely poor. Hardy kids are neither. Nuff said.

I said it before, I'll say it again: if your reaction to a predominantly middle-class, AA student body wearing uniforms is "this is a group of thugs that is forced to wear these uniforms so they can be controlled" then the problem is you, not the uniforms. Please take some time to carefully consider the implications of your views.

Wow. DC is not Missouri. We desire integration/diversity here; whereas your interpretation of a benign issue like school uniforms (!,?) is coming from a different place/p.o.v. entirely.

I think you are proving the point. Thanks goodness, we are not Ferguson; our police are not shooting unarmed children and as a general rule, our citizens do seek integration/diversity. And yet, for a large and influential part of our community, the fact that a group of African American students attend a school with a uniform policy is indicative of the fact that they are a group of thugs with whom it would be automatically unacceptable to attend school.

This is false, absurd and offensive. Deal has a very large African American population, and families in NW are clamoring (and paying handsomely through real estate) to go there. Can someone please explain what is it about Hardy that results in it serving only 13% of its in-bounds school age population?

Anonymous wrote:Hardy has uniforms because it has uniforms. There's always resistance to change even if it means going back to normal; especially when there's a perception that there's some kind of racial motive for "normal," as utterly ridiculous as it might seem to a nonbiased mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, stop the fake racism meme. There's criticism of Hardy uniforms because public school kids don't wear uniforms unless they are too poor to purchase normal clothes; virtually NO public schools in the US require uniforms and Hardy is an extreme outlier in that regard.

Uniforms across the board are either worn by the extremely privileged in private schools or wanna-be imitators, or by the extremely poor. Hardy kids are neither. Nuff said.

I said it before, I'll say it again: if your reaction to a predominantly middle-class, AA student body wearing uniforms is "this is a group of thugs that is forced to wear these uniforms so they can be controlled" then the problem is you, not the uniforms. Please take some time to carefully consider the implications of your views.

Wow. DC is not Missouri. We desire integration/diversity here; whereas your interpretation of a benign issue like school uniforms (!,?) is coming from a different place/p.o.v. entirely.

I think you are proving the point. Thanks goodness, we are not Ferguson; our police are not shooting unarmed children and as a general rule, our citizens do seek integration/diversity. And yet, for a large and influential part of our community, the fact that a group of African American students attend a school with a uniform policy is indicative of the fact that they are a group of thugs with whom it would be automatically unacceptable to attend school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deal is not what it was when Melissa Kim was there. DC2 did almost 0 homework last year and received all A's. DC is bright, but not a genius. It was definitely better when DC 1 was there under Kim. It has become very overrated. Just look at the summer reading assignment. Pretty weak stuff, IMHO.

Interesting. She's at DCI now, right?

Anonymous wrote:Hardy uses the term "uniform" when in fact it really should use the term that St Albans uses: dress code. My son attends Hardy and wears Khaki pants and blue polo shirts and pullovers. There is no special uniform store or catalog where we purchase these items. I buy them in regular stores like Target, Lands End and the Gap. He looks like any prep school kid.

Perhaps I will suggest to Principal Pride that the language be changed to "dress code." Maybe then this fear of uniforms will go away.

Oh wait. What am I thinking? Folks will then find another reason to find make disparaging comments. I'm sure if Hardy kids were allowed to wear whatever they wanted, there would be posters here talking about how "ghetto" and inappropriate some of the students' outfits are.

Some of these comments about Hardy's "uniforms" are just thinly veiled racist comments. No one thinks Georgetown Visitation is sending the "wrong signal" by requiring what TYPE OF SHOES the girls wear. (They are required to wear Sperry 2-eyed boat shoes in a choice of 3 colors) And no one thinks St Albans students in their khakis and blazers "look silly" in Ward 3. But God forbid a kid at a public school in Georgetown is wearing khakis and a polo shirt. It MUST be because there are urban thugs there that need controlling. Yeah, that's got to be the only take-away.

Anonymous wrote:Hardy uses the term "uniform" when in fact it really should use the term that St Albans uses: dress code. My son attends Hardy and wears Khaki pants and blue polo shirts and pullovers. There is no special uniform store or catalog where we purchase these items. I buy them in regular stores like Target, Lands End and the Gap. He looks like any prep school kid.

Perhaps I will suggest to Principal Pride that the language be changed to "dress code." Maybe then this fear of uniforms will go away.

Oh wait. What am I thinking? Folks will then find another reason to find make disparaging comments. I'm sure if Hardy kids were allowed to wear whatever they wanted, there would be posters here talking about how "ghetto" and inappropriate some of the students' outfits are.

Some of these comments about Hardy's "uniforms" are just thinly veiled racist comments. No one thinks Georgetown Visitation is sending the "wrong signal" by requiring what TYPE OF SHOES the girls wear. (They are required to wear Sperry 2-eyed boat shoes in a choice of 3 colors) And no one thinks St Albans students in their khakis and blazers "look silly" in Ward 3. But God forbid a kid at a public school in Georgetown is wearing khakis and a polo shirt. It MUST be because there are urban thugs there that need controlling. Yeah, that's got to be the only take-away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, stop the fake racism meme. There's criticism of Hardy uniforms because public school kids don't wear uniforms unless they are too poor to purchase normal clothes; virtually NO public schools in the US require uniforms and Hardy is an extreme outlier in that regard.

Uniforms across the board are either worn by the extremely privileged in private schools or wanna-be imitators, or by the extremely poor. Hardy kids are neither. Nuff said.

I said it before, I'll say it again: if your reaction to a predominantly middle-class, AA student body wearing uniforms is "this is a group of thugs that is forced to wear these uniforms so they can be controlled" then the problem is you, not the uniforms. Please take some time to carefully consider the implications of your views.

Wow. DC is not Missouri. We desire integration/diversity here; whereas your interpretation of a benign issue like school uniforms (!,?) is coming from a different place/p.o.v. entirely.

Anonymous wrote:Deal is not what it was when Melissa Kim was there. DC2 did almost 0 homework last year and received all A's. DC is bright, but not a genius. It was definitely better when DC 1 was there under Kim. It has become very overrated. Just look at the summer reading assignment. Pretty weak stuff, IMHO.

Anonymous wrote:If the issue is about whether uniforms look kind of silly in a Ward 3 public school, then the answer should be pretty clear to anyone who has walked around life for a few years and observed what kind of attire public school kids almost everywhere wear to school.

But with respect to Hardy, the issue clearly triggers unrelated emotions that spring from somewhere else than reason. From some folks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, stop the fake racism meme. There's criticism of Hardy uniforms because public school kids don't wear uniforms unless they are too poor to purchase normal clothes; virtually NO public schools in the US require uniforms and Hardy is an extreme outlier in that regard.

Uniforms across the board are either worn by the extremely privileged in private schools or wanna-be imitators, or by the extremely poor. Hardy kids are neither. Nuff said.

I said it before, I'll say it again: if your reaction to a predominantly middle-class, AA student body wearing uniforms is "this is a group of thugs that is forced to wear these uniforms so they can be controlled" then the problem is you, not the uniforms. Please take some time to carefully consider the implications of your views.

Wow. DC is not Missouri. We desire integration/diversity here; whereas your interpretation of a benign issue like school uniforms (!,?) is coming from a different place/p.o.v. entirely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, stop the fake racism meme. There's criticism of Hardy uniforms because public school kids don't wear uniforms unless they are too poor to purchase normal clothes; virtually NO public schools in the US require uniforms and Hardy is an extreme outlier in that regard.

Uniforms across the board are either worn by the extremely privileged in private schools or wanna-be imitators, or by the extremely poor. Hardy kids are neither. Nuff said.

I said it before, I'll say it again: if your reaction to a predominantly middle-class, AA student body wearing uniforms is "this is a group of thugs that is forced to wear these uniforms so they can be controlled" then the problem is you, not the uniforms. Please take some time to carefully consider the implications of your views.

Wow. DC is not Missouri. We desire integration/diversity here; whereas your interpretation of a benign issue like school uniforms (!,?) is coming from a different place/p.o.v. entirely.