Anyone want to discuss this? Part II

17-Jan-08, 12:00 PM

I've got my position and I'll share it, but after someone else goes first.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080116/...uslim_clothing

**Firehawk** · 17-Jan-08, 12:10 PM

Don't get me started...

17-Jan-08, 12:14 PM

I knew that would bring you back to the front of the class. So where do you stand on this one big guy?

**maverick** · 17-Jan-08, 12:19 PM

If it truly has no impact on her performance, then the rules should allow for it. Seeing as how the rules didn't allow for it at the time of the meet though, it seems the correct call was made.

bodyshop20 · 17-Jan-08, 02:43 PM

Pierini my ol son, please put that lid back on the bucket of maggots.

**MAURER** · 17-Jan-08, 03:55 PM

i think they should relax and let her run, what the hell its just a high school track meet. its pretty apparent especially in a long distance run she isn't gaining a competitive advantage. i understand the need to comply with rules though, they just need to change it for next time IMO.

**.V.** · 18-Jan-08, 09:31 AM

So she should get a unitard in a color that complies with the rules. And they should let her run. Smacks of discrimination in a way. No exposed skin means just that - COVER UP.

**LiftGirl** · 18-Jan-08, 10:46 AM

Why not just put a plain T-shirt over it like the rules say? The fact that she refuses to put on a plain T-shirt over the unitard and under the uniform makes me think she is just trying to start controversy.

**Gooseneck** · 18-Jan-08, 07:34 PM

I'm gonna stay out of this one.

TomG · 18-Jan-08, 09:10 PM

I smell not the whole story, a common problem in the news. As it is put, a student should be able to cover up in a tasteful way that gives him/her no advantage.

What if the student had a burn scar that needed covering?

I really think this sounds like a couple of sides itching for a fight that has nothing to do with a kid running.

What? There is an overriding rule/philosophy that "skin must be shown?"

I choose not to believe the story. As someone mentioned somewhere, what if this was a Mennonite or something like that (sorry, Mennonites, I don't know anything about you, but the name sticks out) who wanted to be modest?

bodyshop20 · 19-Jan-08, 05:55 AM

Ol poerini has done it again, id never sit in a bar with him lol.
He would pick on a large guy and leave you to finish it lol.
You instigator Mr lol, The old hornet nest stirer

Dan C · 19-Jan-08, 08:25 AM

So long as her "religious attire" does not give her performance benefits, I think they should allow it. It's not that big a deal.

Wearing a head dress for your drivers license photo is another story.

**LiftGirl** · 25-Jan-08, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomG

I really think this sounds like a couple of sides itching for a fight that has nothing to do with a kid running.

Why can't skin be covered by a plain white tee shirt? Why must the T-shirt have a logo to be considered covering?

ajarvis · 27-Jan-08, 12:35 PM

I too don't get why she didn't just put on the plain white t-shirt. As was said I'm sure alot of it has to do with not knowing the whole story. The media likes to just tell you enough to get everyone riled up!

Your_Crazy · 31-Jan-08, 08:30 AM

Here's the thing when I ran track in High School. We had the same exact rule. You can wear only solid colors. Not to mention all relay teams must have identical uniforms. I know of at least two of my classmates that were disqualified for running with a small white stripe down their tights. I also know of more who were allowed to remove the garment before competing. This is not a religous issue, it is a standard rule. It is being made a big issue because religion is involved. Why can't she wear the same kind of uniform just in a solid color?
I seen the outfit she was wearing. It was orange and blue. The stripe ran down the sides. I don't believe this is part of her religous qualifications. Just that she is covered up. Maybe someone can enlighten me about why she can't wear a solid color?