Wait… what is it we’re supposed to be writing again? Oh yes yes, the Staff Editorial. Sorry about that, we got distracted; you see the girl in front of us is showing two inches of skin above her knee and we just can’t seem to stay focused.

However, the good news is that we have a fair and modest dress code. Any moment now we can expect a teacher or dean to come along and dress code her. You see, it’s an easy mistake to make when it’s 86 degrees out and the air conditioning seems to have been broken for the past three decades. Distractions are distractions, and if a girl wantonly sets out to attract the undue attention of other students, she should be dress coded.

The standards of our world are constantly changing, but rules and regulations at BSM have not changed with it. Simply put, the rules and regulations surrounding dress code at BSM are no longer effective, and changes to mindset, if not rules, are necessary. The administration needs to understand—it’s hot. Summer clothes for girls that reach the knees are essentially nonexistent, unless we’re encouraging 14-18 year old girls to shop in the men’s section.

Even so, some boys’ shorts are not necessarily to the knee, a fact that is blatantly ignored by the modesty police. The double standard is evident. When outside during gym class or wellness, why is it seen as acceptable for boys to be shirtless, but for a girl to take off the sweater over a sleeveless dress is distracting? The reasoning, we’re told, is that revealing too much of a girl’s body is distracting. Girls who show off even the tiniest bit of knee to beat the heat are a distraction.

Even the word “distracting” is problematic. Calling a girl’s body “distracting” inherently sexualizes them; the inadvertent message is that they should be ashamed of having a physical form and should do their best to make others comfortable with their existence, no matter how uncomfortable they are in the process.

If a few inches of skin is distracting, then the solution—to wear gym shorts, sweatpants, or athletic gear to cover up—is the distraction. Distraction is watching people get pulled out of class and told to change; distraction is being intolerably hot yet covered from head to toe; distraction is going through the school day so worried that you are going to be dress coded, you actually are distracted from work. Removing an offending student from class implies that his, or more likely her, attendance to the class is so detrimental that she (though technically he too) should be removed until in accordance with dress code policy—education can wait.

From an administration viewpoint, it just doesn’t matter that every boy in the room is wearing shorts and every girl is wearing jeans, save for the one “promiscuous” creature wearing that entirely too revealing skirt on a hot summer day. She may have actually worn that to her confirmation, but none of that really matters because she is a distraction.

The dress code also creates an undertone that speaks volumes on how the administration views boys as well. By enforcing strict dress codes on girls to compensate for boys being “distracted,” the administration is essentially saying that the boys of BSM are too immature and too inappropriate to be in a classroom with girls who are wearing anything but shapeless, floor length clothing. This is simply not the case—students are capable of restraint, and they should be able to focus on the lesson regardless of anyone else’s choice of fashion.

We understand that as a Catholic, college preparatory school, we should have standards. We aren’t arguing that girls should be able to flaunt 60s-esque miniskirts through the hallways, we aren’t even arguing for a technical rule change. What we’re arguing for is just a little understanding.