In March 2017, United Airlines set off the first of many public relations firestorms when it refused to board a pair of teenage girls dressed in leggings. The girls’ attire, it seems, was not in line with United’s passenger dress code.
Not surprisingly, the decision set off a barrage of criticism across the Twittersphere. Many found the dress code sexist, others questioned whether it should apply to children, and still others thought it arbitrary, ill-defined, and inconsistently applied.
United responded by clarifying that, as family of employees, the girls were traveling on free passes and were therefore subject to the same dress code as those employees themselves would be if they were using the passes. Presumably, the intent behind the rule is to preserve a certain standard of decorum on every flight. Since the girls were not in compliance with the employee and family dress code, the gate agent followed protocol by refusing to let them board.
Grapple with the Gray
List two or three reasons why United was correct to turn back the girls.
List two or three reasons why United was wrong to turn back the girls.
Were there any other options?
Having weighed the options, what would you have done if you were the gate agent?
Gray Matters
Fashions change, and so do standards. When John F. Kennedy attended his presidential inauguration without a hat, instantaneously hats fell out of style. During the Civil War, women were not permitted to approach the army camps since the men occasionally came out of their tents without putting on their waistcoats. Female attire that’s perfectly acceptable today could have landed a woman in jail a century ago.
But there’s a difference between styles and standards. A relaxed dress code may work in the offices of Facebook and Google, but conventional businesses have discovered that productivity drops off when executives trade their button-down shirts and slacks for jeans and T-shirts.
Indeed, University of Hertfordshire psychology professor Karen Fine explains, “Professional work attire primes the brain to behave in ways consistent with that meaning.” To a large degree, we are what we wear.
Nevertheless, any dress code invites trouble by resorting to ambiguous prohibitions against clothing that is “inappropriate” or “vulgar” while requiring the observance of “decency laws and community standards.”
The charge of discrimination against women raises several issues. While it’s certainly possible for men to wear clothing that is sexually suggestive, the opportunities are both less common and less diverse. Even the most flamboyant males are far less likely than women to be seen in public wearing spandex, plunging necklines, bare midriffs, or short shorts. In other words, the policy’s emphasis on female attire is largely a response to the nature of contemporary fashion and the configuration of the human body.
The ambiguity over defining decency reflects the larger crisis in cultural values we face today. There once was a time when society agreed on what was decent and what was not, when social norms could be relied on to govern public behavior. And although many of those social strictures may have seemed arbitrary or contrived, they did contribute to a general attitude that an individual’s public persona needs to project a measure of respect and dignity, and that every citizen bears an equal responsibility to contribute to the general maintenance of civil society.
In such times, common sense was enough to administer loosely worded regulations. When popular air travel was introduced in the 1950s, passengers dressed up in their finest attire to fly. It was considered a privilege, one carrying with it a duty to show appreciation and respect for the institution. In an age that worships unrestricted personal freedom, every loophole must be anticipated, which makes a mockery of regulations and makes enforcement a nightmare.
So if United Airlines wants to hold its employees to a more formal standard of attire when they’re flying as a corporate perk, perhaps the company should be applauded for its professionalism. And if that requires family members who fly on nonrevenue tickets to spruce up a bit, is that such a high price to pay?
Shouldn’t there be exceptions for children? Maybe. It does seem silly to ban pre-adolescents from wearing leggings to fly. Must there be consistency in enforcement? Of course. Arbitrary policing of rules is sometimes even worse than no rules at all.
That being said, perhaps it’s not such a bad idea for us to be more conscious of our self-presentation, and less eager to discard the garments of dignity. Maybe then we would hold ourselves to a higher standard of behavior, and not be so quick to judge those who appreciate the value of self-censorship and the social graces.