KCRag Forum

I have a hard time supporting a dress code that was apparently written by someone who drove around my neighborhood and took notes about how young black men dress. It isn't about people coming and starting trouble--troublemakers are welcome as long as they dress right--it's about people (especially, but not exclusively young black men) dressed a certain way creating a perception problem and scaring away suburban money.

I don't blame Cordish for wanting to protect their investment, but I wish they could find a less tacky and borderline discriminatory way to go about it. Like, you know, maybe by having a strong security presence (which they do) to minimize the possibility of incidents, and then swiftly removing people who actually cause trouble.

I think the dress code is way more sexist than racist.

I can sit and watch the 10th and main transit plaza and point out just as many white or hispanic men as black men that break that dress code. 

Wow.  So  young black men can only dress in a certain manner?  I don't usually wear a tie and jacket but I will wear one when required.  Is that discriminating against me, a man who grew up in a culture that did not wear jackets and ties?

Besides, a quick look around almost all of the nightclubs in the city (and the country) will show you that the dres code is nothing unique.  Zen, Seven, VooDoo Lounge... Not to mention Pure in Vegas and 40/40 in NYC. 

If it is not being fairly enforced then you have a problem.  Beyond that it is a fair standard.

mean wrote: I have a hard time supporting a dress code that was apparently written by someone who drove around my neighborhood and took notes about how young black men dress. It isn't about people coming and starting trouble--troublemakers are welcome as long as they dress right--it's about people (especially, but not exclusively young black men) dressed a certain way creating a perception problem and scaring away suburban money.

I don't blame Cordish for wanting to protect their investment, but I wish they could find a less tacky and borderline discriminatory way to go about it. Like, you know, maybe by having a strong security presence (which they do) to minimize the possibility of incidents, and then swiftly removing people who actually cause trouble.

KC-wildcat wrote: Look, I'm not trying to be a bleeding heart ACLU representative but I think I know injustice when I see it.  I'm seeing white people making generalizations about how black people dress and how they should dress.  I just have a problem with people perpetuating a casual stereotype that guys who wear baggy pants and workboots are thugs.

It's always easier to howl about "injustice", when you're money isn't on the line.

KCTigerFan wrote: Wow.  So  young black men can only dress in a certain manner?  I don't usually wear a tie and jacket but I will wear one when required.  Is that discriminating against me, a man who grew up in a culture that did not wear jackets and ties?

Besides, a quick look around almost all of the nightclubs in the city (and the country) will show you that the dres code is nothing unique.  Zen, Seven, VooDoo Lounge... Not to mention Pure in Vegas and 40/40 in NYC. 

If it is not being fairly enforced then you have a problem.  Beyond that it is a fair standard.

They can dress any way they like. But the overwhelming majority, at least in my neighborhood, would fail to meet the requirements outlined by Cordish. It is quite literally like a Cordish rep sat on my porch and watched young black guys walk by and took notes about what to ban from the district. You're welcome to come sit on my porch any time, and take notes of who walks by on the sidewalk and how they're dressed. I guarantee damn near 100% of the younger black dudes would not meet the dress code. It is what it is. But apparently you think that's a coincidence? 

I don't know if it's fairly enforced, and at the end of the day I don't really care what kinds of things any company wants to allow on its private property. They are well within their rights to say everyone has to wear pink tutus and leather chaps in order to be permitted entry. I just don't see how anyone can look at this dress code and, being intellectually honest with themselves, deny that it was crafted to primarily target black dudes and force them to either not go to P&L or to dress differently than they would on a normal day. Is it racist? I dunno, I kind of doubt it. It is obviously discriminatory, but not obviously racist. Anyway, that's a totally separate issue, to me, and Cordish can be racist if they want as far as I'm concerned, discrimination laws be damned--I just wouldn't go there if I thought they were.

Whether it is racist or not doesn't really relate to whether I think it's a good idea, which is a secondary point. I'm not convinced it is a good idea, but that's because I'm not sure it is the best way to protect their--and my, as a taxpayer--investment. It will continue to foment discontent amongst liberals and is likely to give P&L something of an image problem, especially considering the hugely anti-urban-KC media bias. It could even end up forcing the council to play mean with Cordish on future deals or, worse, we could see a lawsuit, and I don't think that would be good for anyone. It makes more sense to me to drop the dress code and focus on swiftly and competently dealing with any actual incidents, rather than trying to preemptively deal with them based on a misguided dress code that relies on the assumption that people in white t-shirts are more likely to cause problems than people in green t-shirts. That was the thrust of my last post. Sitting around writing up a dress code based on what young black men in my neighborhood wear just seems kind of short-sighted and unlikely to be as effective as having a competent, visible security team keeping order.

And yeah, I think asking you to wear a jacket and tie is probably discrimination. Are you familiar with the non-loaded definition of the word?

dis·crim·i·na·tion (2) Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

I guess if you consider non-tie-wearing folks a category and you're disallowed entry based on that, then the doorman is discriminating.

maybe these young black men you see just don't dress nicely.  Does that mean we need to make our dress codes more lenient?  no!  You can look at it from both angles.  BTW, not all young black men (I think you said about %100) dress down all the time.  Some black guys actually have jobs where they have to dress up.  Some of these jobs are located downtown...imagine that!!

cordish isn't trying to keep "black males" out of the p+l district, they are trying to keep out people who dress (and by extension are more likely to act?) in a "thug" or "gangsta" urban style.  while individuals of white, hispanic, or asian descent certainly dress in this style, there is no question it is overwhelmingly exhibited by black people. 

thus:

do all or most black males dress in this style?  no.

are all or most individuals who dress in this style black?  probably. 

i expect that if some white "gangstas" from raytown tried to gain entry to the P+L wearing sideways hats, sagging jeans, XXXXXXLT white t-shirts, etc., they would be denied entry. 

is this racist?  no, but it's discriminatory. 
fair?  probably not. 
consequential?  not in my opinion. 

I was in the Living Room briefly Saturday night and security wouldn't let some guys in from a wedding party until they tucked their shirts in.....kinda stupid, because I had jeans, flip flops and an untucked short sleeve western shirt on and I got right in 

That is ridiculous. What's the code on that? Must have shirt tucked in if you're wearing a tie? Damn roving bands of untucked dress shirt thugs.

chrizow wrote: do all or most black males dress in this style?  no.

are all or most individuals who dress in this style black?  probably. 

Agreed, and agreed.

chrizow wrote:i expect that if some white "gangstas" from raytown tried to gain entry to the P+L wearing sideways hats, sagging jeans, XXXXXXLT white t-shirts, etc., they would be denied entry. 

And, agreed.

chrizow wrote:is this racist?  no, but it's discriminatory. 
fair?  probably not. 
consequential?  not in my opinion. 

Agreed, agreed, and kind of disagree, maybe. It isn't necessarily consequential. It doesn't particularly bother me, personally. I just don't think it's going to be more effective in its apparent goal than possible alternatives, and it could be a source of unnecessary drama and controversy.

So, even by the "non-loaded" definition I am being discriminated against when I was asked to leave church for wearing just a speedo.  Those bastards!  &&&

BTW, I still think popped collars should result in immediate pepper spray. 

mean wrote: They can dress any way they like. But the overwhelming majority, at least in my neighborhood, would fail to meet the requirements outlined by Cordish. It is quite literally like a Cordish rep sat on my porch and watched young black guys walk by and took notes about what to ban from the district. You're welcome to come sit on my porch any time, and take notes of who walks by on the sidewalk and how they're dressed. I guarantee damn near 100% of the younger black dudes would not meet the dress code. It is what it is. But apparently you think that's a coincidence? 

I don't know if it's fairly enforced, and at the end of the day I don't really care what kinds of things any company wants to allow on its private property. They are well within their rights to say everyone has to wear pink tutus and leather chaps in order to be permitted entry. I just don't see how anyone can look at this dress code and, being intellectually honest with themselves, deny that it was crafted to primarily target black dudes and force them to either not go to P&L or to dress differently than they would on a normal day. Is it racist? I dunno, I kind of doubt it. It is obviously discriminatory, but not obviously racist. Anyway, that's a totally separate issue, to me, and Cordish can be racist if they want as far as I'm concerned, discrimination laws be damned--I just wouldn't go there if I thought they were.

Whether it is racist or not doesn't really relate to whether I think it's a good idea, which is a secondary point. I'm not convinced it is a good idea, but that's because I'm not sure it is the best way to protect their--and my, as a taxpayer--investment. It will continue to foment discontent amongst liberals and is likely to give P&L something of an image problem, especially considering the hugely anti-urban-KC media bias. It could even end up forcing the council to play mean with Cordish on future deals or, worse, we could see a lawsuit, and I don't think that would be good for anyone. It makes more sense to me to drop the dress code and focus on swiftly and competently dealing with any actual incidents, rather than trying to preemptively deal with them based on a misguided dress code that relies on the assumption that people in white t-shirts are more likely to cause problems than people in green t-shirts. That was the thrust of my last post. Sitting around writing up a dress code based on what young black men in my neighborhood wear just seems kind of short-sighted and unlikely to be as effective as having a competent, visible security team keeping order.

And yeah, I think asking you to wear a jacket and tie is probably discrimination. Are you familiar with the non-loaded definition of the word?

dis·crim·i·na·tion (2) Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

I guess if you consider non-tie-wearing folks a category and you're disallowed entry based on that, then the doorman is discriminating.

I got nabbed the other night and was forced to tuck my shirt in or they were going to kick me out.
I had a polo shirt on and my white shirt that i had on underneath that was 1/4 inch longer than my polo was obviously causing a ruckus and it had to be taken care of.

That's funny. I live down the street, dress like an Irish thug hooligan, and still get into the Live block as well as Mosaic, Angel's, etc. after 10 or 11pm. I never tuck my clothes in, I always wear hats (sometimes tilted sideways), and I'm partially smashed when I enter. Maybe they just recognize me or something? Overall, I think the dress code is a great thing. Besides myself, I don't wanna see anymore ghetto garbage trash in the district.

KCTigerFan wrote: BTW, I still think popped collars should result in immediate pepper spray.   

thank you!

what about the double popped collar? 

anniewarbucks wrote: As KCPowercat said dress codes do not discriminate.

Well, yes and no.  If the dress codes were written with a blind set of eyes then one could say the codes do not.  But if a style of dress is particular to a set of people then it does.  If a style of dress is common for 60 to 70% of a group of people and 10% of a second group of people and that style of dress is forbidden then one could say there is a level of discrimination.  And then have only entertainment that is geared to the second group of people and none of the first that just adds to the discrimination case.


What is funny about this is KC Live is suppose to be "urban".  But how urban can it be if it does not allow an urban style of dress?  This place could be a perfect place is Lees' Summit or Gladstone.  And I thought that people wanted to go downtown to get out of the suburbs.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:What is funny about this is KC Live is suppose to be "urban".  But how urban can it be if it does not allow an urban style of dress?  This place could be a perfect place is Lees' Summit or Gladstone.  And I thought that people wanted to go downtown to get out of the suburbs.

I like the various urban styles displayed at JP Wine Bar or Grinders...not the ghetto-thug style at the Quaff or Peanut on a Sunday night (hip-hop night). Cordish's dress code isn't any different than that of the Peach Tree, Blue Room, or Juke House on 18th & Vine...actually, those places are even more strict on dress codes, plus they're African-American businesses. 

Excuse AKP, he has very racist stereotypes he is not even aware are racist.

I consider myself an urban person in that I live, work, and play downtown and the dress code has never once affected me.

KCPowercat wrote: I consider myself an urban person in that I live, work, and play downtown and the dress code has never once affected me.

But do you wear oversized white t-shirts and baggy, below your ass crack jeans?

When I'm on my own time, I like to be comfortable.

I often wear baggy T-shirts, most of which have sports logos on them.  I also often wear various sports jerseys because I like to support my teams (Chiefs, Royals, Wizards, Tigers, Brigade, Kangaroos, T-Bones, etc).  Some of my T-Shirts are kind of big on me and hang down lower than my pockets.  I call that "comfort."

I also like to wear loose jeans.  Very rarely do I wear polos and khakis on my own time.  So, normally, I don't fit the P&L Dress Code.

Yet, the only time I have haven't been able to get in the P&L District was when I purposely showed up out of dress code (just to see if I would be turned away, and I was).  Other than that, I have NEVER had any problem getting in the courtyard.  Why?  Because I know there's a dress code, so I just make sure I within the dress code to get inside. 

It's not rocket surgery!