By Will Frankel, ’17, Op/Ed Section Editor

On Thursday of senior week, the senior class decided to dress up under the “hillbilly” theme, in which suspenders, cheap sneakers, trucker hats, scooters, and farmer t-shirts were sported by most our soon-to-be-graduates. Mr. Daughtrey issued a stern announcement of disapproval at assembly, calling the theme a form of economic discrimination, and warning upcoming classes not to follow in the example of our elders.

Some students recoiled at Mr. Daughtrey’s response, seeing it as an unfair condemnation of an entire class. Even more commonly, many complained that Mr. Daughtery’s words were another manifestation of the inability for people to “take a joke” in the current social climate dominated by the “PC police”. While some members of the senior class, like Student Disciplinary Committee head Geoff Schoonmaker, had the good judgement to abstain from the theme, the majority of seniors, who did participate, were correctly criticized, and should use this opportunity to learn from and apologize for their mistakes mistakes in their last few days with the school.

There are two fundamental guidelines to whether the costume-ification of a group is acceptable.

The first is that no group who has been historically disadvantaged should be made into a costume. In respect for both their struggles to find a place in society and the collective guilt of society for their mistreatment, any group who have been denied a chance the succeed in society deserve now to be taken seriously, and not made into points of fun for others. Put simply, the identity of certain groups is too sensitive to be made a play-thing. To dress as a certain group is to claim to represent, or even understand, that group’s identity, which is impossible for someone who is not a member of a particular historically oppressed group.

The second is that no group should be made a costume in an attempt to belittle or poke fun at that group. Regardless of their historical status, every single cultural group has value and importance. To belittle certain groups is to belittle their members simply on the basis of their membership. Accordingly, poking fun at any particular group identity is, to paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr. to judge based on the color of one’s skin (or any other defining feature of a group) rather than the content of one’s character.

These standards are both easily derived from reason and clear ethical landmarks. Dressing up as a cowboy is OK. Dressing up in Black Face is not. Dressing up as a golf player is OK. Dressing up as a Native American is not.

In evaluating the “hillbilly” theme the seniors chose, it clearly fails both these tests.

The rural poor, which is what a hillbilly really is, not only suffer the most dire poverty in our country, they also are systematically discriminated against in our governments reluctance to extend public services like roads, adequate power systems, and equal education funding to rural areas. “Hillbillies”, thus, easily fall under the protection of being considered disadvantaged.

Moreover, regardless of the history, to dress up as “hillbillies” in the way done by US students was clearly poking fun. Zipping around on scooters was not a celebration, it was a joke at the expense of the rural poor. Wearing overalls was not cool of fashionable, it was deliberate putting down a certain group for laughs.

Seniors who participated in the theme may see their condemnation as a toxic continuation of political correctness against well meaning fun. Such a defensive reaction is unwarranted. Rather than branding things we do not like with a pejorative, it is much more productive to try to put aside one’s intentions and look instead to the effects of their actions. While no malice may have been intended, clear discrimination occurred, even by students who dressed up only because they knew many of their classmates were. To someone who has had their identity put down, whether you deviously planned your bigotry or whether you went to Walmart the night before to fit in with other bigots matters little. All to often, those who rally against “political correctness” could replace the term with “respect” and lose no meaning in a given sentence. While some, especially political and social conservatives, are becoming increasingly vocal in their fear that political correctness will destroy free expression, Amanda Taub of Vox correctly pointed out that it is those who rally against PC all to often use “a position of privilege to silence debates raised by marginalized people — to say that their concerns don’t deserve to be voiced, much less addressed”. Indeed, a clear distinction between “political correctness” and fundamental respect for others has never been made. Knowing not to dress up like the rural poor, and make a joke of their conditions, is a skill any US boy should have honed, regardless of their intentions.

US aims to graduate “young men of character” who display “moral excellence”. With graduation around the corner, a group of seniors making rural poverty into a costume theme should make the community wonder how successful the school has been.