Cardiff student union has recently announced a ban on the ‘uniform’ worn by certain sports societies – blue shirts and chinos. They argued the those donning the uniform were instigators of violence within the club and queues.
I presented this topic to my flat expecting a very unified response, a laugh about a certain type a boy who wears a certain type of jacket to clubs in Edinburgh. What ensued was an evenly split passionate debate.
The anti-ban side argued that this was the first step on a slippery slide of discrimination. Once you start to exclude people based on their appearance, where do you draw the line? Should we be giving more power to security guards and club owners who, let’s be honest, are notorious for unfair discrimination against punters.
If it begins at chinos, blue shirts and tweed jackets (as the rugby boy in Edinburgh is colder than one in Cardiff – he needs that extra layer), then what happens if the next rule is banning those in Burkas? One of my flatmates was worried about the specific implications it could have on LGBTQ+ groups as certain ways of dressing and presenting yourself are core to LGBTQ+ identity and bans such as these have been used in the past to discriminate against the Queer community. There are many ways of discriminating against the appearance of a Queer person that does not break the law. Their conclusion was that public spaces must be inclusive.
On the other side of the debate, we were surprised at their outrage. Clubs already do discriminate on dress – something which I’ve never heard anyone question before. Many clubs require heels from women, suits or buttoned shirts from men. Jeans are often banned in expensive venues. Why would adding to this list create a new, more dangerous slippery slope?
Moreover, we argued that clothing such as shirts and chinos are a choice to wear, there is no rule book or religious law commanding someone wear a tweed jacket to Hive on a Wednesday. The same people can still enter the club, just in different outfits. Furthermore, we argued, it should be the club’s choice as it is the owner’s domain: if the public don’t agree with this choice, they can vote with their note and go to another club. Club owners aren’t policy makers – this would be a very different circumstance if it was the council pushing the ban as policy. As club owners are not law makers, this means there is no slippery slope, as the laws against discrimination still stand – if discrimination occurs, they have broken the law.
The LGBTQ+ argument was one I found the most interesting. Of course, certain aspects of optional clothing are central to identity and have in the past been used to discriminate. It would make me feel uncomfortable if clubs started banning certain hair colours or if a ban went out on something that was knowingly synonymous with Queer groups. This is because external identity expression is important, especially to minority groups whose identity is systematically denied. Identity expression should never be prohibited.
So, I suppose the question becomes, are tweed jackets a necessary part of the Edinburgh rugby boy’s identity? If yes, then I guess I must oppose any ban.
“Tweed jacket akubra hat 5” by Make Oxygen… Kill Co2…Plant More Trees is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0.
Related
Are nightclub uniform bans unethical?
Cardiff student union has recently announced a ban on the ‘uniform’ worn by certain sports societies – blue shirts and chinos. They argued the those donning the uniform were instigators of violence within the club and queues.
I presented this topic to my flat expecting a very unified response, a laugh about a certain type a boy who wears a certain type of jacket to clubs in Edinburgh. What ensued was an evenly split passionate debate.
The anti-ban side argued that this was the first step on a slippery slide of discrimination. Once you start to exclude people based on their appearance, where do you draw the line? Should we be giving more power to security guards and club owners who, let’s be honest, are notorious for unfair discrimination against punters.
If it begins at chinos, blue shirts and tweed jackets (as the rugby boy in Edinburgh is colder than one in Cardiff – he needs that extra layer), then what happens if the next rule is banning those in Burkas? One of my flatmates was worried about the specific implications it could have on LGBTQ+ groups as certain ways of dressing and presenting yourself are core to LGBTQ+ identity and bans such as these have been used in the past to discriminate against the Queer community. There are many ways of discriminating against the appearance of a Queer person that does not break the law. Their conclusion was that public spaces must be inclusive.
On the other side of the debate, we were surprised at their outrage. Clubs already do discriminate on dress – something which I’ve never heard anyone question before. Many clubs require heels from women, suits or buttoned shirts from men. Jeans are often banned in expensive venues. Why would adding to this list create a new, more dangerous slippery slope?
Moreover, we argued that clothing such as shirts and chinos are a choice to wear, there is no rule book or religious law commanding someone wear a tweed jacket to Hive on a Wednesday. The same people can still enter the club, just in different outfits. Furthermore, we argued, it should be the club’s choice as it is the owner’s domain: if the public don’t agree with this choice, they can vote with their note and go to another club. Club owners aren’t policy makers – this would be a very different circumstance if it was the council pushing the ban as policy. As club owners are not law makers, this means there is no slippery slope, as the laws against discrimination still stand – if discrimination occurs, they have broken the law.
The LGBTQ+ argument was one I found the most interesting. Of course, certain aspects of optional clothing are central to identity and have in the past been used to discriminate. It would make me feel uncomfortable if clubs started banning certain hair colours or if a ban went out on something that was knowingly synonymous with Queer groups. This is because external identity expression is important, especially to minority groups whose identity is systematically denied. Identity expression should never be prohibited.
So, I suppose the question becomes, are tweed jackets a necessary part of the Edinburgh rugby boy’s identity? If yes, then I guess I must oppose any ban.
“Tweed jacket akubra hat 5” by Make Oxygen… Kill Co2…Plant More Trees is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related