The Making of a Morehouse Man
Recently, the president of Morehouse College took the bold move of instituting an Appropriate Attire Policy for the young men who matriculate at the college. The resulting controversy suggests that the policy struck a raw nerve. The strong reaction was clearly fueled by the comments of a college official who suggested that the policy was developed to respond to five young men at the college who were “living an openly gay lifestyle” as evidenced by their dressing in women’s clothing. This statement was issued despite the fact that a reading of the policy reveals the prohibition of the wearing of women’s attire as the ninth point of an eleven point list of prohibited attire. Few subjects will impassion black folks more than the mention of homosexuality. The prospect of Morehouse College teeming with cross-dressing young men set the radio waves, blogs, emails and internet chat lines on fire. This, subsequently, became the headline and the resulting discussion generated more heat than light which obscured the real understanding of and rationale for the dress code and its broader implications for Morehouse College and the education of young African American males.
For those who attempted to get beyond the cross dressing and engage in an intelligent discussion about the policy, a recurring theme expressed by those critical of the policy was the belief that standards of decorum and dress should be taught at home and should not be the province of the college. This is a sentiment about which we can all agree. The reality, however, is that this kind of old-fashioned, time-honored home-training no longer occurs in many homes. The popularity of hip hop and the ascendency of casual, carefree dressing as an acceptable cultural norm have resulted in sloppiness in dressing and behavior among many young males and young black men are no exception. The critics of the policy have further suggested that this focus on a dress code is superficial and misdirects the important attention on education. However, it is dangerously naïve to think that dress does not offer important clues about a young black man’s value and potential. There are rules of engagement in civilized societies and we make immediate and lasting assumptions and judgments about young black men based on appearance and their public presentation of self.
In a culture which has historically and continues to criminalize and marginalize young black men based largely on stereotypes perpetuated by violent, disturbing and degrading images, can we afford to allow our best and brightest to appropriate attire that is associated with the most unsavory images of contemporary young black men? There is nothing redeeming or uplifting about looking like a thug, appearing in public in pajamas, do-rags, sagging pants or sporting gold “grillz” over perfectly healthy teeth. Furthermore, men simply do not wear women’s clothing under circumstances which approximate acceptable social engagement.
Without apology or explanation, the Morehouse College campus should be distinguishable from the “hood”. Critics have noted that on predominantly white college campuses, young men wear what they want. To that I would assert that under no circumstances should the unacceptable behavior of young white men be modeled by young black men! Despite our desire to have it otherwise, the fact remains that young men dressed in attire associated with thugs will be treated like thugs. Clothing which suggests a sloppiness and disregard for decorum usually results in undisciplined, thuggish behavior. In preparing Morehouse students as leaders and social change-agents, Morehouse must equip them with an arsenal of skills and habits that will facilitate and not disadvantage. Requiring young men to think more critically and intentionally about how they behave and present themselves is a legitimate part of a Morehouse education. The college experience should be transformative; moving a young man into manhood while expanding and refining his intellectual repertoire, world view, perspective, and presentation of self in a world that is most often skeptical about what he has to offer.
Having declared that Morehouse men will be renaissance men who are “well read, well spoken, well traveled, well dressed and well balanced”, the president of Morehouse College has every right to expect a standard of dress and decorum at the institution over which he presides. He would have been irresponsible not to address this issue. This is clearly not about a few young men who choose to flaunt convention and test the boundaries of tolerance by choosing to wear women’s clothing at an all male college; but is instead about the larger more profound issue of what we will require of our young men as they craft personal definitions of self and what is acceptable in their journey to honorable manhood. Indeed, clothes don’t make the man, but they are an introduction.
Elfred Anthony Pinkard
Morehouse College “74
Share
