BEFORE JABERWOKE was Jaberwoke, it was The Greenskeeper, a nondescript bar and restaurant frequented by underage students and, in the fall, by visiting football fans. Sometime before my 21st birthday, I was having a beer there when I heard two young men exchanging angry words. The argument subsided and one walked off toward the back of the room, but voices were soon raised again and I looked up just in time to seem one man strike the other in the head with a pool cue. The bartender dragged them both out while the waitress, a friend of mine, cleaned up the blood. I don't remember what either man was wearing, but I'm glad I didn't have to drink with them that night.
That respectable people don't spend money in an establishment frequented by hooligans is the insight behind the dress code promulgated last semester by Jaberwoke, which bans brimless hats, baggy clothing, sweatpants, plain white t-shirts and camouflage when not worn by a member of the armed forces. The dress code has been criticized as strange and picky, with some students wondering blithely why Jaberwoke would ban such a particularized list of items from its premises. The answer, quite simply, is that the dress code is not a dress code, but an indirect means of excluding people who might cause disturbances.
Jaberwoke co-owner Anderson McClure acknowledged as much, telling The Cavalier Daily, "There certainly have been numerous occasions where people have come in and caused problems," and that "people who are dressed nicer tend to behave better." And, whether accurately or not, Jaberwoke has identified brimless hats, baggy clothing, sweatpants, plain white t-shirts and camouflage on non-soldiers as the markers of a disruptive patron.
The problem is that these items are also the markers of a large subset of the black male population, most of whom, presumably, have only peaceful intentions when heading out for a night on the town. Like beards and turbans at the airport, the hip-hop items on the Jaberwoke blacklist subject patrons to increased scrutiny as a result of their association with a group that has caused trouble in the past, whether or not the individuals thus scrutinized are troublemakers. Like a law forbidding rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, a general prohibition on clothing worn primarily by young black men is a facially neutral rule whose greatest impact is felt by single group.
Such rules are not impermissible, for all rules fall harder on certain groups than on others, but they should be avoided where possible. And to that end, we might ask why Jaberwoke chose to adopt such a controversial dress code where alternatives might have been available.
The appeal of a bright line rule like "no brimless hats" is that it is readily understandable and easily enforceable. Thus, one can see why a bar might frame its dress code as a series of specific prohibitions, rather than adopt a vague standard like "dress nicely." But the problem with rules, as opposed to standards, is that they are both over- and under-inclusive. "No brimless hats" will exclude brimless hatted people having no disruptive intent, while admitting people inclined to cause problems despite having no brimless hat. "Dress nicely" is more difficult to enforce and would seem to invite discrimination, based as it is on the subjective impressions of the enforcer, but it provides at least for an evaluation of the individual rather than an assumption of guilt by association.
Beyond even these considerations is the fact that "dress nicely" is not exactly what Jaberwoke wants. It is instead a surrogate for the true standard, "behave nicely." And while nobody should question the right of a business owner to maintain order on his premises, it's worth asking why the rules don't approach this directly. Bars can and do demand good behavior of their patrons, principally by employing bouncers to evict rowdy patrons. And in the extreme, staff can call the police if anybody gets too far out of hand.
Of course, nobody wants to drink in a place where peace is maintained only by threat of force, which brings me back to the beginning. Bars need some preemptive ability to exclude potentially disruptive patrons and a dress code may be the first line of defense. But rather than adopt a series of prohibitions with a discriminatory effect on certain groups, they might consider positive rules such as "collared shirt" or "tuck in your shirt" or "jacket after six." Such a dress code would seek an affirmative commitment to gentlemanly behavior, separating the well mannered from the ill mannered without the confrontational tone or racial bias of the Jaberwoke dress code. And who knows? It might even class up the Corner a bit.
Alec Solotorovsky's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at asolotorovsky@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On fighting imposter syndrome and being cool
By Mary Kurbanov | 18 hours agoUltimately, though, I now know that success in a role is possible if deep-seated passion is the main source of motivation.
PARTING SHOT: Escaping the Doldrums
By Camila Cohen Suárez | 18 hours agoIf you ever find yourself stuck in the Doldrums, know that you are not alone. Look to your surroundings for escape. You will know the way out.
ELJAZZAR: Celebrate U.Va.’s expansion into Northern Virginia
By Farah Eljazzar | YesterdayThe Northern Virginia campus is indicative of a larger initiative and a larger imperative to expand into other underserved areas.
