By Adeena Liang and Jessica Wu
​
To kick-off the new school year, the new dress code is fully implemented. No midriffs and no undergarments should be visible. Sounds simple, right? However, a deeper look at what this change will mean for different members of the high school student body offers food for thought.
 
One perspective is from the girls of our community. Many express their dismay, as their wardrobes consisting primarily of midriff-baring shirts are now against dress code and cannot be employed to their fullest potential. They express that by no means should they be prohibited from wearing their attire of choice for this season, especially in the muggy and humid Shanghai summer weather. Additionally, it remains an unchangeable fact that there are some shirts that do go past the belly button, and yet expose the top undergarment or bra because of their design and structure. A concern arises that questions the justifiability of counting the unintentional exposure of a top undergarment because of the style or cut of a shirt as a violation of dress code.
 
Another perspective is from athletes of both sexes. Both boys and girls on the cross-country team have things to say about the dress code and its relation to athletes. Boys sometimes remove their shirts during cross-country practice.
Sean Yuan, a member of the team, said, “shirts are heavy and suffocating; if you take them off, you can feel some actual wind”.
 
A question is raised if such shirt removal constitutes as exposure of midriffs, and thus a violation of dress code. Something to consider further is that girls are not allowed to run without a shirt in just their sports bra; however, “the new dress code doesn’t really affect the girl runners because [they] were never allowed to run without a shirt even before the update anyway,” said Archana Velauthapillai. Sean describes a possible option to reconcile the whole controversy by having “a dress code that pertains specifically to athletes because the athletic environment is so different from a typical school environment”.
 
From both perspectives, we see potential disparities between how the new dress code affects girls versus how it affects boys. Because of anatomical features, girls are responsible for covering up two undergarments versus the boys’ one; because of gender, girls are prohibited from baring midriffs, while boys can essentially avoid consequence even when they bare everything from the waist up. Although the new dress code certainly marks a significant improvement from the requirements of previous years, some further clarification may be in order to make it a code for all, and not just a code for a particular gender.

By Cynthia Wang
​Why would you ever want to play an instrument?
First of all, craning your neck over a violin 24/7 will surely perpetrate some severe spinal disease. Also, blowing into a tube is just a waste of time and saliva. Those band students must be constantly oxygen-deprived - their lifespan no doubt shortening significantly. Every time I pass by those jail cells called "Music Rooms," my ears implode. The blood-curdling screeches echoing down the choir hallway, accompanied by the twig-waving terrorist's screams of bloody murder, just serve to ruin my day and shatter my youthful glee. Don't even mention dance or theatre: I swear, those ritualistic Satanists with their flailing limbs and gaping mouths are in some coveted cult; they must be!
So why should we ever properly recognize APAC performing arts?
We've already established that they are simply unworthy of team uniforms: what's a couple dozen years of cultish practice, blackened fingertips, strained vocal chords, and crusty lips compared to our blood, toil, tears, and sweat out on our oh-so-glorious field? Such repugnant tyrants should not be allowed to reign over our school anymore. They must be quarantined and suppressed, for their revolting noises must be confined to a minimum in order to allow the ultimate complete, authoritarian rule of sports over all activities. We must preserve whatever purity we have left in our sanctum of a school; we cannot tolerate the fostering of such deceitful, wicked crafts!
Not to mention the internal turmoil going on between those duplicitous Puritan worshippers of "music." Those four-stringed instruments of ear-hemorrhage-induced-death are not afraid to lynch their spit-infested, plastic-tube-blowing counterparts on crosses of mucilaginous, inedible tree sap; those bonfire-worshippers with their hoots and screams will gladly scorch their fellow spine-tingling screamers and present them as human sacrifices, sandwiched between the secretions of their prey. Look at us athletes, ever so peaceful with absolutely zero tolerance for any sort of drama (except for the baseball players, of course: who could ever look at them, clamped in their inappropriate ballet tights, and not smirk in pity?).
For all of the unconditionally reasonable arguments presented, APAC performing arts should not be mentioned at all during community meetings, nor should they be supported in any way shape or form. To all those who say that APAC performing arts deserve more recognition: I say that they most certainly do not! They obviously contaminate our shrine of honorary sports, and they are unquestionably lesser in all means when compared our righteously lionized athletic programs. Hell, why do our lovely Activities admin still tolerate the effort of incorporating slides of recognition for those scandalous so-called "celebrations of aesthetics" when they could clearly simply substitute time wasted on such revolting activities for more high-quality iMovie rugby propaganda? Why not have classes on basketball, volleyball, and badminton and make better use of the lovely air-conditioned suites that such undeserving, ghastly undertakings currently occupy? Let us join arms and rebel against the tyranny of the arts!