A few months ago, a young University of New Mexico football player was wearing his pants low like many other adolescents. The flight attendant asked him to pull up his trousers, but he refused. And so he was escorted off the plane, a nice way to say he was kicked off the plane for sagging and later arrested. There was extreme controversy over the fact that he was African American and a white man in Flordia was able to board a flight dressed in women's underwear. Controversial airline news seemed to have blown over, but that is not the case.
On Monday, another case arose. Except this time, it was a celebrity. Lead singer, Billie Joe Armstrong, of the famous band Green Day was asked to leave the plane when he refused to pull up his saggy pants after a flight attendant asked him to. Southwest Airlines immediately apologized after they heard what happened. I wonder if they would have apologized if the victim was not a celebrity.
Even though this case is not as extreme as the former, it is still controversial. Should airlines really have the right to kick someone off the plane based on their clothing preferences? I understand that not complying to their requests is a good reason, but what kind of request is that? It's kind of ridiculous if you ask me. If you let a man in women's underwear on a plane, why not saggy pants? It's not like anyone is complaining, nor is it harming anyone. Don't we have a right to dress how we want?
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I really agree. When i first heard this i was shocked. Obviously there are rules on the plane just like any other place but really, saggy pants? It really isnt hurting anyone and no one complained so whats the problem. Things like this are are taken to a whole new level. Personally, if the airlines are going to apologize to the celebrity, they should apologize to the Black man that was obviously mistreated on the plane. I can see why people were protesting not to fly on the planes. _nicole lahham
Personally, I think sagging your pants isn't very cool and I don't want to see what color your underwear is everyday. However, like the previous comment said, this is kind of taking it a little too far. I can understand dress codes in school and at jobs, but if someone is in a public place it doesn't matter what they are wearing.
The most obvious answer is publicity, and in the long-run, profit. Because a celebrity is more likely to attract media attention, they are more concerned with it. Certainly, there is no "equality" here, but what do you expect from planes offering first class and coach class. In terms of the issue with the white man and black man, that is a problem with the rules not being "absolute" rules, as more "relative," rules, and much open to interpretation.
With that said, how do others see this, compared to job discrimination based on race? Is it the same thing? Is it less severe? Would you oppose the government placing more regulation to prevent things like this from happening?
I definitely agree that sagging is not the most attractive way to wear clothing, but people should have the right to wear their clothing in whatever way they choose. As long as there was no indecent exposure (which it doesn't sound like there was), I don't think that the airline had any justification to make the request for him to adjust his clothing in the first place.
In addition to the question of whether this was racial discrimination, I have to wonder if differences in airline policy factored in. On U.S. Airway flights, a skimpily dressed white man was allowed on while a black man who was sagging was kicked off. However, it was on a Southwest flight that Billie Armstrong was ejected for sagging. To truly determine whether the ejections were "fair" would require seeing if a white man who sagged would be kicked off a U.S. Airways flight. If it were to be proved true that Deshon Marman was ejected on the basis of race, does the government have a right to intervene with airline policy (i.e. dress code)?
In response to Zhili's comment: I see your point, but I think that it would be difficult for the government to dictate what merits consequences from events such as these because they are very subjective matters.
I also feel that things were taken way too far. If the average teenage boy is able to walk the streets, sagging, without being ticketed for public indecency, how is it that airlines feel so differently? I feel like the airlines are being extremely unfair in seeing that the passenger had paid for a ticket already and there weren’t complaints from other passengers (as Nicole stated), so in reality I don’t think it should have been that big of a problem. It’s the airlines job to make their passengers comfortable, so why is something so small made such a big deal? However, I have one point that slightly strays my stance on the situation, according to an article Billie Joe Armstrong apparently said, “Don’t you have better thing to do than worry about that?’ (http://news.lalate.com/2011/09/04/billie-joe-armstrong-sagger-controversy-erupts-on-southwest/) although he may have had a right to be upset, he didn’t have to be crude.
Post a Comment