Local NAACP Prez 'not interested in looking at anyone's underwear'

Recently, Flint's new police chief decided to follow several other jurisdictions all across the country by enacting an ordinance against sagging pants.

Here is the AP report that ran in the Chicago Tribune:

Flint cracks down on sagging pants

Associated Press
June 27, 2008
FLINT, Mich. - Flint's new police chief wants to crack down on sagging pants that expose too much skin.

"This immoral `self expression' goes beyond freedom of expression; it rises to the crime of indecent exposure/disorderly persons," interim Chief David Dicks said in a memo Friday.

Under the order, anyone with exposed buttocks could be arrested on a misdemeanor charge of being a disorderly person, punishable by up to a $500 fine and three months in jail.

Dicks, who was appointed to his position June 2, said in the memo the measure was prompted by "a significant number of complaints from citizens."

But some are concerned that stepped-up enforcement could violate the Constitution or disproportionately target African-American men.

The American Civil Liberties Union has opposed clothing restrictions in other cities.

Greg Gibbs, an ACLU attorney, told The Flint Journal he plans to research the issue to see whether the crackdown violates the right to free expression.

Frances Gilcreast, president of the Flint chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said she is "not interested in looking at anyone's underwear."

But, she said, she is worried police are focusing on a loose-fitting style favored by some young black men.

"My concern is how (the policy) will be applied equitably," she said.

Flint Police Officers Association President Keith Speer said that in the past, officers have given out warnings for exposed skin and arrested those with their entire rear exposed. He said he doesn't anticipate any significant changes in how police will enforce the law.

My take: Ok, so this seems really stupid on the surface. One could argue, and persuasively I think, that the Flint Police Department has bigger fish to fry. That being said, my sensibilities aren't offended, nor do I think the Constitution is taking a hit. Freedom of expression in this country is, and always has been, limited by community standards of decency. And while these standards are often hard to gauge, I think calling this ordinance unconstitutional is a stretch.

It's not immoral: Sagging your pants probably falls short of being immoral, but it's a bit ridiculous. Calling it immoral does not serve the Police Chief's purposes, which I believe are actually positive. And yes, it does disproportionately affect Black males. (I'm certain the ban on Ephedra disproportionately affected White females--big deal.) I am quite sure that if you went into the mostly White city schools of Burton, you would see a whole lot of sagging going on.

The sooner the better: Our kids are never too young to gain a broader understanding of the real world. I'm about as anti-establishment as they come, but I also recognize that the noxious elements found in the hip-hop culture are crippling our youth regardless of color. I certainly don't like the government telling people what they can and cannot wear, but I also hate the stigma placed upon so many kids who only dress the part. Call me a square, but the real world comes calling much sooner for some and we need our kids to be prepared for it.

This is nothing new: When I was in high school, sagging pants were similarly not allowed. And Flint is not the only city trying to crackdown on sagging (did I just write "crackdown" on sagging?) Locales in Virginia, South Carolina and Tennessee have similar ordinances.