Oh, United Airlines. You’re trying. You really are. But your repeated explanations about why your gate agent turned away two girls (and delayed boarding a third) for wearing leggings this weekend isn’t going over well with critics. Here’s why.
1. Your explanation rings hollow. You’re pinning your response on the fact that the girls were not paying customers but “pass travelers” and thus subject to a dress code out of respect for its customers. The dress code also states that pass travelers should look "neat and professional" and prohibits form-fitting or spandex tops, pants and dresses, T-shirts with derogatory language, and clothing that is "excessively dirty,” worn or "inappropriately revealing.”
First of all, how are the paying customers going to know who is flying as a pass traveler and who isn’t? Secondly, publically shaming anyone—paying or not—and then denying them services not only humiliates that person but also causes a disruption for everyone, escalating stress in the already stressful airport environment. It also sends the backhanded message that you think all leggings are inappropriate (even though you say otherwise), but keep it to yourself because you know you can’t force your customers to wear loose-fitting clothing. If maintaining good customer relations is the goal, how exactly does this action accomplish it?
2. Your policy—and the way it was enforced—relies on sexist norms. These legging-wearers may not have been paying customers, but they are young women and girls (the youngest was reportedly 10) who were publically told that their bodies were too visible and therefore that they lacked decency. Why? Because girls’ bodies are inherently desirable? Distracting? Sexy? To whom, exactly? And why are we privileging the feelings of a possibly distracted mystery person over the freedom to dress oneself? If anyone ever needed an example of what mainstream sexism looks like, this is it.
3. You’re not listening to the public. Customers quickly took to social media Sunday morning, protesting the gate agent’s actions and the policy. Instead of admitting you have some work to do, you doubled down on the correctness of the gate agent and issued a dozen different versions of the classic non-apology: “I’m sorry you were offended.” For anyone who has ever spoken truth to power, this response is maddening. It is essentially a polite way of making the victim (or those defending the victim) the problem.
United, believe it or not, there are many school administrators around the country who identify with the pain of this debacle. As an organization that provides resources to educators, we help school leaders grapple with these dynamics daily. Many of them have learned the hazards of setting different standards for different groups, enforcing dress codes that target a particular identity and sticking stubbornly to zero-tolerance rules that ultimately cause more negative consequences than they prevent. That’s why many schools are moving away from policies that rely on policing students. Consider reading this article about how to do it.
And even if you don’t, for Pete’s sake, just apologize. You’re a multinational corporation. They’re children. Talk about lack of decency.
van der Valk is the deputy director for Teaching Tolerance.
0 COMMENTS