Graduation Fashion: American Values under Academic Dress

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

It is graduation season again. As a professor, I have gotten used to the ritual of trotting out the elaborate doctoral robes, sitting through hours of ceremonial name reading, and politely applauding while students parade slowly across the stage to receive their diplomas. The speeches and faces at any particular ceremony all blend together after a while, but the air of exuberant pride and accomplishment emanating from the graduates never gets old.

For the graduates, however, who are not so familiar with this tradition, there are some decidedly alien aspects to graduation, which nonetheless symbolize fundamental American principles. Inevitably, some question why they have to wear such seemingly ridiculous costumes. Today, I even read of a high school student who refused to wear the traditional cap and gown in favor of his military uniform, and thus, to the outrage of his community and peers, was barred from participating in the graduation ceremony. 

I sympathize with the unfortunate gentleman. After all, it has been a few centuries since late medieval clerical fashions have been in style, and he clearly wanted to wear a costume that symbolized principles important to him. However, had he known what academic regalia actually means, and how deeply emblematic it is of American virtue, I suspect he would have worn it with the same pride as his military dress blues, as well as understood why military dress would be decidedly inappropriate.

When universities were first founded in the medieval period, they were run primarily by men of the Church. Thus, the academic attire of Europe looked much like the robes of clerics. When the English began to colonize North America, they brought with them that clerical academic tradition—specifically the traditions of Oxford and Cambridge. However, while universities in Europe continued to develop a great profusion and variety of academic dress over the centuries, the U.S. attempted to standardize the medieval look. By the 1895, they had successfully crafted the Intercollegiate Code of Academic Costume. This has since been updated into the Academic Costume Code of the American Councilon Education, from which we derive most graduation regalia in the U.S. today.  

At first glance, the standardization of U.S. graduation regalia seems arbitrary, perhaps even boring, when compared to the flashy variety exhibited by Europe.  The reasons behind it, though, are decidedly  noble.  We in the U.S. believe in equality of rights, and judging people on their merits. The graduation robes reflect those principles. The black robes of academia cover everyone equally, from those wealthy enough to wear bespoke tailoring and pay full tuition, to those who can barely afford decent clothing and attend university through scholarships. Regardless of the circumstances one comes from, irrespective of the circumstances one graduates into, in academia, at graduation, all are equal in what they have achieved. Indeed, the only distinctions visible are those of merit, for the different robes reflect only the degree earned—not inherited or granted-- by each individual through their own efforts. 

The academic robes then serve to dedicate people, even if for only a day, to a unifying higher purpose. The Christian clerics who originated the robes used them to indicate that they were dying to the world as individuals and dedicating their lives to the will of God. When judges, who have inherited the same tradition, put on a black robe, it serves as a symbolic reminder that they have died to the world as an individual, subsumed beneath the higher purpose of justice they take on while wearing that robe. They even give up their names in favor of becoming avatars of that concept (e.g., Justice Gorsuch). Academics also share in this tradition, and at graduation abandon their personal backgrounds and circumstances which divide them, and don the robes to dedicate themselves to the purpose of scholarship.  They do not snobbishly proclaim pride in their individual institutions, families, or organizations as Europeans do. Indeed, for most U.S. universities, an institution is marked only subtlety in the colors of the hood lining. Rather, U.S. graduates dedicate themselves to the larger and universal idea of the pursuit of knowledge. 

Finally, this American standardization further promotes egalitarianism as it allows the graduation regalia to be mass produced. Thus, it becomes much more affordable than the expensive academic costumes of European universities, which were once primarily havens to the elites and aristocracy. For U.S. graduates, the academic costume truly is a uniform—not aristocratic finery. And so, it further represents the triumph of the American Free Market.

These are the principles woven into the U.S. academic costume. They represent the very essence of American values, but few today remember such symbolism. This also explains why the young man who wanted to wear his military uniform to graduation instead of the academic costume was so wrong. In doing so, he would not be marking an achievement of scholarship earned equitably and on the same scale with his peers, but rather his own subsequent dedication to new and different principles in his military pursuits. More, his uniform would stand out to honor a chosen identity, rather than the achievements he had earned for graduation. Such distinction is not what graduation exists to honor. In truth, though, the principles behind U.S. graduation robes represent some of the very ideas our military serves to defend, and thus they deserve to be honored appropriately in their own right.

Being a Polite Guest

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Recently, while attending the anniversary party of some old friends, I found myself in a rather disturbing conversation with a few executives from the banking world. Each of these gentlemen complained that their latest young hires out of college lacked any semblance of professionalism—even when commanding six figure salaries. This lack of professionalism, they noted, was especially pronounced in any social situation. They then asked me if colleges bother to teach any sort of professionalism or etiquette today. Sadly, I expect the answer is generally, “No.” Although, I certainly try to instill a sense of professionalism in my own students, it is difficult to train people in a classroom for how they should act in a ballroom—or even a dining room. Nonetheless, I shall try to address some of the biggest etiquette problems of the dinner party here.

The invitation:
Unless you receive an invitation to an open house party, you need to reply to the host and accept or decline the invitation—and not a mere hour before your arrival. The R.S.V.P. is not optional, despite the literal translation.

Never ask who else is attending. This is rude. You are at least supposed to pretend you are happy to see the hosts over anyone else. As most modern invitations are online with a visible guest list, this should not pose much difficulty for anyone.

Finally, once you accept, you should not cancel unless a true emergency arises. And no, a better invitation is not an emergency.

What to wear:
If the invitation does not stipulate a dress code, then ask the host. While most modern social gatherings are casual, this does not grant a license to wear anything. One should never wear flip-flops, shorts, or tee shirts to anything other than the beach, a pool party, or an outdoor barbeque. There is nothing wrong with being comfortably slovenly in the privacy of your own home, but when others have to look at you, try for at least a modicum of fashion.

When to arrive:
Arrive on time for an invitation with a set end time, and no more than half an hour late for an invitation with an open ending.

What to bring:
While it is never appropriate to expect a gift, there are few people as annoying as those guests who expect to be feasted and entertained, yet never bring anything to offer in exchange for such hospitality. Such people should not expect to be invited a second time. Each guest at any party should traditionally bring either a bottle of wine or loaf of bread as a guest gift in appreciation for the hospitality they will receive. The host, gets to set the menu, however, so do not be offended if your wine is carted off to the cellar; it is for the host’s use—not yours.

If you want to be truly helpful, call the host and ask if there is anything you can do to help, or something extra you can bring. Hosts often appreciate a salad, desert, or side dish, but are far too polite to request them. They will certainly appreciate them if you offer, however.

What not to bring:
Perhaps even more annoying than the guests who bring nothing are the guests who bring what is not invited. An invitation goes to the addressee alone unless it specifically states otherwise.

Do not bring a date. Unless the invitation says, “and guest,” or the host tells you to bring someone, assume a date is not welcome. Only spouses and engaged couples arrive together at a party. Even then, however, if the party is only for employees, or involves only men or women, spouses are not welcome. And no, you may not ask the host. That only puts pressures them to acquiesce. If the host asks why you did not bring a date, then feel free to do so next time. However, unless specifically told otherwise, the invitation goes to the addressee alone.

This applies doubly to children. Adult parties are no place for children and one should never assume children are welcome. Sometimes, however, a host will make accommodations for children. If you know this is often the case, you may discretely ask the host. Do not be surprised, however, if the host responds that this particular party will be for adults only. Also, never assume that the host’s own children will, or even should, be available to entertain your own, and never invite other children of like age to create an children’s play group to entertain themselves while the adults party. The host may choose to do that—but you may not. Adults often host such parties to get a break from parenting responsibilities. Do not deprive them of that rare pleasure by forcing them to accommodate uninvited children.

As for pets, assume they are never welcome. Unless a host specifically asks you to bring your pet, you should leave it home. Do not ask the hosts or pressure them to accept your pet. Do not bring your pet and leave it sitting in the car hoping that the host will take pity. Leave it home. No matter how much you love your pet, it is not ever appropriate to bring it to the home of another uninvited.

Many people keep delightful, well trained, and well-groomed animals. Of course, such conscientious folk would not dream of breaking this rule. The people who break this rule tend to be thoughtless knaves who keep obnoxious, barely controlled beasts who have not had a bath in over a month and smell as if they just rolled in a dung heap. Yet, these people always think the rest of us find their little dog as cute and adorable as they do. We don’t. Leave them home.

What to say:
Conversation at a social party should be light and genial. In reply to the question, “How are you?” You should answer, “Fine, thanks. And you?” This should be your reply even if you just suffered the worst heartbreak in history, lost your entire family fortune on the stock market, and are currently dying of cancer. Your best friends may want to hear about that—privately—but people come to parties to enjoy themselves. Conduct yourself with good cheer and decorum or do not come.

Similarly, do not get so drunk you make a fool of yourself or start confessing the intimate details of your love life to all and sundry. You might have gotten away with such antics in University when people assumed you were afflicted with existential angst and professors were busy scrambling your brains, but after that, you are expected to have some decorum. To engage in such behavior among colleagues is especially disastrous. They will find you either grossly uncouth or laughably pathetic, and in both cases you will undermine any respect they have for you as a professional.

As for those of you who love politics, try to keep your discussions civil and light. No one ever succeeded in converting the opposition during a heated shouting match or by hurling personal attacks. They have, however, managed to ruin many good dinner parties and irked many dutiful hosts with such antics. Keep it light or walk away. If you make a boor of yourself, you will not find yourself invited back very often.


When to leave:
As if getting people to arrive and behave themselves properly is not hard enough, one of the most problematic areas for hosts is getting their guests to depart. The rule here is easy. If the invitation listed a set time range for the gathering, make sure you are out by the appointed hour. If, however, the party is open ended, you should depart thirty minutes after the hosts’ last offer of refreshments. If they do not repeat the offer, make for the door. Similarly, if the host rises and refuses to sit, it is time to depart.

There. Was that so hard? You have now mastered basic dinner party skills. Next time we can move on to advanced silverware and table conversation. Now, go forth and socialize.

The Cyberbullying of Gay Youth

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

By now, most of you have heard the sad story of Tyler Clementi. He was that unfortunate freshman at Rutgers University whose sexual encounter with another man was secretly filmed by his dorm roommate and live streamed over the internet. Mr. Clementi then committed suicide by jumping of the George Washington Bridge, having first posted his plans to his Facebook page. The incident captured the attention of the national press, which has since worked diligently to highlight much of the bullying gay youth endure daily.

The Denver Post is no exception. In yesterday’s front page story, “Young, Gay, Bullied,” the Post focused on the high rates of depression and suicide among young gay students who are bullied by or isolated from their peers. Of particular interest is the relatively recent phenomenon of cyberbullying through blogs, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and other online sources. The Post cited several methods of addressing this problem, ranging from additional tolerance education and awareness programs to school administrative punishments to new legislation criminalizing cyberbullying. Such legalistic outcomes, however, would render an already tragic situation truly ghastly.

Do not mistake me. I truly do understand the problem and I do not doubt the plight of these young gay people. During my own time in high school, I was careful not to reveal my bisexuality to more than a handful of trusted friends. I was well liked, and had no desire to sacrifice social status to an identity which would have rendered me an instant pariah. Still, there were always rumors, inevitable suspicions, and occasional confrontations. Some of that was decidedly unpleasant. I was lucky, though. Those friends who did know accepted it without question. Many others would not have cared even if I had told them. And to my family it was a non issue. Not everyone is so fortunate.

Unlike other minority groups, gay students have no natural support network; their parents and siblings are generally straight. Often, families not only have difficulty relating to the problems faced by gay youth, they also actively disapprove of homosexuality. Peers, faced with overwhelming pressure to fit in, will often disassociate from gay students for fear of being labeled with the f- word themselves. Gay people faced with any one of these situations can and do feel incredible isolation and depression. That much is undisputed. Debates among scholars and theologians regarding the causes, nature, and morality of human sexuality, however, can fill volumes. It is not something to be addressed here at the Peoples Press Collective, which limits its scope to issues dealing with individual liberty, the free market, and limited government. Unfortunately, whatever one may think of their intent, many of the proposals listed by the Post to address the cyberbullying faced by young gay people negatively impact all three of those topics.

Focus on the Family correctly points out the danger to the marketplace of ideas and free religious expression with mandatory school programs and penalties specifically tailored to promote tolerance for homosexuality. Many mainstream religious traditions regard homosexual acts as mortal sins. For any public school administration or law to step in to enforce toleration and acceptance of homosexuality would usurp the province of religion to define virtue and thus violate one of the most cherished aspects of the first amendment. According to the Post, Focus on the Family instead would like to see bullying policies that protect all students against all forms of bullying for any reason. Even this, however, goes too far.

Apparently, our society has gotten to the point where at least some believe it is no longer acceptable to make gay people feel excluded or unwanted. Well and good. After all, gay marriage and civil unions are increasingly recognized in the various states and nations of the world. What about stoners though? I recall those semi-dazed individuals who would languish behind the main building of my high school, quietly smoking their marijuana while the rest of us went to class. Many students shunned them and sneered at the foul reek that hung about them. Yet, smoking marijuana for medicinal reasons is now legal in Colorado. California may soon legalize it for any reason. Should we now prohibit any exclusion or derision of such drug use? And what of students who espouse a belief in the doctrines of Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, or the KKK? Such beliefs are certainly legal. However, at my high school, anyone who publicly stated such beliefs quickly found themselves without a single friend and excluded from all social functions by their peers. Should such exclusion and public derision be prohibited? I think not.

The first amendment also protects the freedom of expressive association. We can choose with whom to associate. We are also free to state the beliefs and values that hold such associations together and exclude and disapprove of those who refuse to meet those values. Sports and athletics are perhaps the most obvious examples of this. While participation is voluntary, you must accept the rules in order to be included. Failure to play by those rules results in censure and exclusion. Though other human associations may not be so clear about their rules, the basic idea is the same. Politicians soon find themselves excluded from their own parties if they take positions in conflict with the party platform. Dinner guests, likewise, do not often receive a second invitation if they forgo the use of any utensils or decorum. Indeed, such behavior, if it becomes publicly known, can even cause a person to lose his employment.

While most of us appreciate our freedom of association, few people acknowledge the importance of disassociation and publicly expressed disapproval. While exclusion does make people feel terrible, it is the best tool we have to regulate social norms and values in a free society. In this way, everyone is free to choose their own social circles, promote the values which are important to them, and exclude those who do not share such values. The only alternative is to have a governmental authority dictate all values and associations. That is completely unacceptable—but it seems many people are calling for exactly that in an effort to address cyberbullying.

Obviously, any responsible school should have reasonable policies prohibiting bullying on its grounds. Name calling and similar behavior is not only rude, it is disruptive to the educational process and should be sharply corrected. In the event of a physical altercation, the law, in addition to any school policy, can bring severe penalties to the aggressor, though all people have a right to defend themselves and others. However, when school policy or legislation extends beyond the school grounds and classrooms into the social lives and online interactions of students, problems arise.

Unless an overt physical threat is expressed, cyberbullying, while often cruel and rude, is often no more than disdainful speech. Any attempt to limit it can run afoul of the first amendment. It has other unpleasant consequences as well.

By interfering in the social lives and expressions of youth, such policies take away any opportunity students may have to express and enforce their own values, and places that responsibility solely on a governmental authority. The proper response to a bully who is rudely or inappropriately deriding a friend in speech or in any online forum is to exclude the bully from social life. Conversely, if someone expresses legitimate condemnation of unacceptable behavior, the object of such condemnation should be excluded. In this way, students learn to stand up for their own values and regulate their own behaviors. It does wonders for their sense of self worth as well. When the state or school authority criminalizes such behavior and usurps all power to regulate associations and interactions, it teaches our youth to rely not upon themselves and their friends to solve problems, but on official authority. In later life, that produces well trained sheep without any self esteem who follow their employers without question and who expect governmental authority, not individual innovation, to solve all of their problems for them. That is not how a free people should live. That is how slaves and serfs live.

Every time law intrudes into the province of etiquette, these problems arise. As a lawyer, I know it for absolute truth that law is seldom the best solution to any given problem. It is vital to remember that the authority of law ultimately issues from the barrel of a gun. Law is force. It takes away any choice or option and imposes a permanent directive which must be followed lest one lose property, liberty, or even life. Etiquette, on the other hand, is wholly consensual, dynamic, and continually adaptable. Merely by exercising our right to associate and disassociate as we see fit, we express and enforce the values which we want to guide our individual lives.

At times, we will all face situations in which we are rudely or perhaps even unjustly excluded and demeaned by those who do not share our values. Certainly, young gay students face this more often than most, and I have the greatest sympathy for them and what they endure. The solution, however, is not to call for the school authorities or state legislature to enforce tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, or whatever the case may be, upon everyone else.

Any victim of such ridicule should instead seek out a group of peers who share his values and stand ready to defend them and one another. Other students should express their own support of such individuals while publicly censuring and excluding anyone they believe is behaving rudely or inappropriately toward another individual. As families, friends, and community members, we should be encouraging our youth to express and defend our values. When we see others attacked for values we share, we should live by example and speak out in their defense, censuring and excluding bullies from our own social circles and networks. In this way, free people constantly foster and defend the values they live by—not by law, force, and compliance—but by individual choice, responsibility, and virtue. Moreover, unlike law, which imposes one standard on everyone, etiquette leaves each person free to find their own group of like minded individuals.

Having experienced the hardships bullies can impose first hand, I understand the deep desire people have to protect their children from enduring similar circumstances. As a current practitioner of corporate law with its stringent demands for professionalism, I abhor rudeness of any sort. Here at the PPC, we even created the “Political Breath” page to address issues of etiquette in political activism. However, much as I despise bullying and rudeness, I am unwilling to sacrifice my freedoms for the illusion of acceptance. Government cannot legislate social inclusion. It cannot grant self esteem. It cannot force virtue into human hearts. Only individuals have that power, and as individuals we must take the responsibility to do so.

Rally to the Enemy: Protests that Harm Your Cause

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A., & Eileen McGuire Mahony

On Monday, the anniversary of the battle of Lexington and Concord, dozens of gun rights activists gathered on Gravelly Point, across the Potomac River from the Capitol. They were all openly and heavily armed, and all reeking of political breath. Their honorable purpose was to rally in support of Second Amendment rights, which the District of Columbia continually attempts to subvert. As you might imagine, only fellow gun rights supporters seemed to like the rally, while gun control advocates were alarmed despite the fact that there were no injuries, overt threats, or even so much as a single shot fired.

One of our favorite politicos sent word of the rally to “Political Breath,” and asked us to address the persuasive value of such demonstrations. Mr. Dunraven simply chuckled darkly then rang our D.C. Beauro Chief, Ms. Mahony to solicit her view of the matter. Unfortunately, her staff informed him that, upon getting the news, she had simply requested a bottle of tawny port and a bendy straw, then retired to her chambers for the day.

It is not that we oppose gun rights, mind you. Indeed, Mr. Dunraven only stopped sleeping with a pistol under his pillow when he realized he had time to take afternoon tea every day or make a daily trip to purchase a new alarm clock–but not both. Ms. Mahony, in steadfast refusal to be parted with her gun, simply gave up television after going through a few sets. She claims that the evening news was bad for her health anyway. She now spends her evenings meditating serenely to the music of Elvis.

Despite our love of the Second Amendment, however, weapons wielding rallies cause us a good deal of consternation because they have almost no persuasive value. Far from persuading others to see the value of guns, such demonstrations only alarm and inflame the opposition. Frankly, we cannot much blame them. A large group of well armed citizens angrily protesting the growth of government and vowing that they will no longer tolerate it is indeed somewhat alarming. Of course, our founders did contend that a government should fear its people and thus be kept to good behavior. Perhaps that was the goal of the rally. If so, they may still have a ways to go before our government is convinced they represent the people rather than an angry militia group.

If, on the other hand, the goal was to persuade people that Second Amendment rights are vital to our republic, we have a few suggestions. First, it is generally prudent to consider who you are trying to appeal to and what your detractors will say about you. If your detractors generally say you are a bunch of angry unhinged loons wielding dangerous weapons, it is probably best if you avoid appearing in such a manner. After all, what do you suppose someone unfamiliar with gun rights causes thinks upon seeing a large group of well armed people protesting the government? Scary unhinged loons wielding dangerous weapons. Precisely. They might even associate it with the images of Islamic fundamentalists firing their guns into the air in the Middle East. It doesn’t matter that not a single shot was fired at the rally. That is the image that pops into people’s minds.

A better option would have been to stand on the Point and call attention to the fact that no guns can get any closer than that to our Capital City. Across the river, despite the crime high rate, people must depend solely on police for protection. Then go on to cite the crime reducing and life saving effects of concealed carry laws. Give profiles of profoundly normal people who have needed their concealed carry permits to save their lives or another’s life. Wax poetically about the history and purpose of the Second Amendment. But in all ways appear normal, peaceable, and civilized. Reasonable people can appreciate and relate to such arguments. Most people do not relate to the image of walking about with a semi-automatic assault rifle strapped to one’s back. In fact, they get downright uneasy about it and tend to start calling police with terrorist sighting tips.

Thus, unless you want to add ammunition to your enemy’s store of arguments, always consider your audience. Consider what would appeal to them—not others like you who do not need convincing. And keep in mind how your opponents are likely to portray you. Try not to make it easy for them to paint you as a villain.

If you are planning on hosting a gun rights rally and absolutely must have your weapons on display, however, we suggest you throw a mock fox hunt. Not a true fox hunt of course. We quite simply adore cute little foxes and our liberal friends would go into fits of apoplexy if you actually tried killing the darling creatures. Nonetheless, garbed in the proper dashing gear and riding about on horseback trumpeting to a pack of baying hounds is the very image of refined civilization. Best of all, after all the riding about looking splendid, you get to sit down to a lovely picnic, laid out by the small army of servants that will no doubt accompany any proper fox hunt, and refresh yourself with a Bloody Mary. Why, if you pull that feat off, Ms. Mahony and Mr. Dunraven may even deign to join your protest.