American model Karlie Kloss came under fire on Wednesday because of a photo shoot in the March issue of Vogue, which was dubbed the “diversity issue.” In the photos, Kloss appeared as an Asian woman in a Japanese-themed shoot. People on social media were swift to criticize her and the magazine, accusing them of cultural appropriation.

Hey, Vogue: Embracing diversity does not mean styling Karlie Kloss as a geisha https://t.co/GnW04ejz4v pic.twitter.com/LZSQzIF3eb

— The Cut (@TheCut) February 14, 2017

The photo shoot was reportedly a tribute to Richard Avedon’s famous shoot in 1966, in which he photographed German model Veruschka in Japan wearing exclusive furs. This time, photographer Mikael Jansson photographed Kloss in Japan, dressed in a traditional kimono and wearing a black wig. In one of the photos she poses next to a sumo wrestler. In another, she pumps water from an old-fashioned well.

Emma Stone, Scarlett Johansson, and Tilda Swinton turn to Karlie Kloss. “Your turn, girl.”

Karlie on phone: “Hello, Vogue? Make me Asian.” pic.twitter.com/zgUWIB022Q

— Ira Madison III (@ira) February 14, 2017

But, you would think that if the point of having a diversity issue is to show the diversity of women in fashion and in the world, maybe it would make more sense to cast an Asian model in this role.

This is why Vogue is cancelled. Their idea of “edgy” is hiring white people to imitate other races instead of just hiring diverse models. https://t.co/29lUkHfjLn

— The Glossier (@theglossier) February 14, 2017

But it seems like the people at Vogue didn’t think about that.

IDAF this was an homage to a 1966 Vogue shoot. Sure, take the visual inspiration—Don’t copy the dusty cultural insensitivty from 50 yrs ago https://t.co/gBOKbRugEq

— Chin Lu 呂錦華 (@ChinHuaLu) February 14, 2017

Kloss later apologized through her Twitter account, and Vogue removed the pictures from its website.

pic.twitter.com/Xem3dkaDZZ

— Karlie Kloss (@karliekloss) February 15, 2017

Cultural appropriation in fashion is a common phenomenon, and it’s not the first time Kloss has been involved in a controversy of this kind. In 2012 the blonde and blue-eyed model walked the runway at the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show wearing a Native American-inspired headdress and fringe. The company and Kloss faced backlash immediately. Native Appropriations, a website that is dedicated to countering stereotypes of Native American Indians, Alaskans, and Hawaiians, called out Victoria’s Secret for the costumes, and the company and Kloss both issued statements with apologies.

6.)
Karlie Kloss wearing a traditional Native American Headdress, representing November, for the ‘Calendar Girls’ segment at VSFS 2012 pic.twitter.com/WP3VdOb9XE

— daphne (@voguejupiter) December 6, 2016

There have been other recent incidents that garnered criticism for casting white women in Asian roles. In November, the movie “Doctor Strange” premiered with white, British actress Tilda Swinton in the role of a character that originally was meant to be an older, Tibetan man. The movie “Ghost in the Shell” was accused of whitewashing as Scarlett Johansson was cast as leading role in a remake of a classic manga movie. And in the summer of 2015, white actress Emma Stone played a character who is part-Asian in Cameron Crowe’s flick “Aloha.”

It’s probably high time for Hollywood and the fashion world to start thinking about how to increase actual diversity.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Karlie Kloss and Vogue Slammed for Cultural Appropriation in Photo Shoot appeared first on Law Street.

Dressing the future First Lady of the United States is a privilege most fashion designers would kill for…but apparently Tom Ford isn’t most fashion designers. On a recent episode of “The View,” Ford revealed, “I was asked to dress her quite a few years ago, and I declined.”

“She’s not necessarily my image,” he explained.

Ford, who identifies as a Democrat and said he voted for Hillary Clinton, said he thinks the First Lady should wear clothes that the American people can relate to, claiming that “even had Hillary won, she shouldn’t be wearing my clothes. They’re too expensive.”

via GIPHY

However, one of the hosts was quick to remind the 55-year-old designer that he didn’t think his clothes were too expensive when he dressed First Lady Michelle Obama in 2011.

But apparently the occasion warranted an exception.

“She was going to Buckingham Palace for dinner with the queen and I thought that was appropriate,” he said. “I live in London so that makes sense. And it was an honor to dress her.”

After the show aired, Ford received some backlash on Twitter from users, while others applauded his stance.

trump supporters saying they’re gonna boycott Tom Ford, lmao first you gotta be able to afford Tom Ford

— namith (@namithvorakkara) December 1, 2016

But does it really matter if Ford dresses her or not? Not really. There are no rules that dictate what the First Lady wears or that she must be styled by designers. Thanks to the Trump family wealth, Melania will have her pick of luxury threads (sans Sophie Theallet) to don while her husband is in office–plus she’ll likely score plenty of freebies from her stepdaughter’s namesake line.

Ford appeared on the talk show to promote his new film “Nocturnal Animals,” a psychological thriller starring Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal.

Watch Tom Ford discuss Melania, his new film, and more below:

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tom Ford Won’t be Dressing Melania Trump as First Lady appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama gave his last State of the Union address ever last night, and hit on a lot (but not all) of the important issues the United States is facing right now. POTUS’s speech got plenty of accolades, and criticism, as is to be expected, but FLOTUS’s dress also made quite a splash. And while her dress was gorgeous, the statement she made wasn’t just about fashion:

Why was the internet freaking out over Michelle Obama’s dress last night? https://t.co/v9cnv5X53Apic.twitter.com/L6xyFcgNZx

— Glamour (@glamourmag) January 13, 2016

The internet had a bit of a hard time trying to figure out exactly what color the stunning frock was–some guessed marigold, others posited mustard, and a few others tried saffron. But no matter what color people thought it was, the fashion consensus was that it was a great look. In fact, it has already sold out on Neiman Marcus’s site, it cost a cool $2,095.

But Obama’s dress didn’t just make headlines because it was an excellent sartorial choice–the choice, whether it was intentional or unintentional, carried its own symbolism, for a few different reasons. For one, it was designed by Narciso Rodriguez, a well-known fashion designer who also happens to be the son of Cuban immigrants who fled to the United States, and openly gay. This isn’t the first time that Obama has worn one of Rodriguez’s creations–he also designed the dress she wore on election night in 2008. But, last year was heavy with talk of immigration and LGBTQ rights, so wearing Rodriguez’s dress may have been a subtle homage to the Obamas’ politics.

There was also another possible political angle to Obama’s choice. As a few users of Twitter pointed out, orange is the color of the anti-gun violence movement, and Obama sat next to the empty chair that was left unoccupied to represent the victims of gun violence.

Also the color of her dress is a symbol for The National Gun Violence Awareness campaign. https://t.co/Nsxnd4d8pf

— Angelica Stevens (@darkandtwisty90) January 13, 2016

#EmptySeat next to #FLOTUS for #gunviolence. Her orange dress is the color for @MomsDemand, I doubt it’s coincidence pic.twitter.com/F9kZMhydv7

— KathleenReddy Guidry (@kmreddy) January 13, 2016

Obviously, there were significantly more important things that happened last night than Obama’s dress choice. But, consciously or not, she made some statements, and showed that a dress has the potential to make a bigger statement than one just about fashion. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michelle Obama’s SOTU Dress Was More Than Just a Fashion Statement appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, Fox News entered into a discussion about the appropriateness of leggings as pants. While that’s a hotly debated topic–particularly when it comes to school dress codes–the way that Fox News approached the conversation can only be described as really yucky.

The discussion was sparked by a viral video made by a Tennessee woman, Jamie Higdon, who ranted about women who wear leggings as pants. One of the “Fox & Friends” hosts, Steve Doocey, moderated the panel. He was joined by the husband of a co-host, Andrew Sansone, as well as “Duck Dynasty” star Willie Robertson, and one of Fox News’ legal analysts, Arthur Aidala.

Here’s the entire uncomfortable interaction, if you want to check it out for yourself:

There are just so many things wrong with this segment that I don’t even know where to begin.

For starters, let’s talk about the fact that as far as I know, none of these men are experts on fashion. Instead, they were qualified to be on the panel because they’re all dads. That’s disturbing, because it sends a clear message–that it’s up to a father to police what his daughters wear. Not a woman herself, because we can’t possibly be trusted to make autonomous decisions about what we can put on our own bodies.

Then there’s the fact that these four men clearly ogle the young women that are paraded out in front of them–and some of the comments they make get downright creepy. For example, Doocy asked one young woman if she had a tattoo in a particularly leering manner. At another point, the men applaud one of the models who turns around to show that her “tail” is covered. They also all comment on the physique of a model named Paige. In perhaps the creepiest moment, Aidala comments “We all took our nitroglycerin pills before she came on the set, just to make sure,” implying that Paige’s ensemble could have given the men heart attacks.

At one point Aidala does point out that dress codes aren’t just an issue for women. He comments on the apparel of young men he sees too, implying that sagging pants aren’t appropriate. But there’s a difference in the rhetoric used when referring to these young men and women–the men aren’t be sexualized. And I would bet you quite a bit of money that if young men were paraded out in front of these panelists wearing saggy pants, this segment would look a lot different. There would be way less clapping, way less leering, and I don’t think anyone would joking about heart attacks.

Overall, the panel just stinks of sexism and creepiness. It’s not a father’s job to police what his daughter wears, and it’s sure as hell was not this panel’s job to leer at and comment on young women’s bodies while doing so. Thanks guys, now I need a shower.

Learn More: School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Features Cringeworthy Panel of Dads Talking About Leggings appeared first on Law Street.

It’s long been a pretty poorly kept secret in the fashion industry that many models are very thin–some dangerously so. For years, there’s been various debates in the industry over whether or not to make rules restricting the weight of models to ensure that the women (and men) showing off the latest high fashion designs are a healthy weight. Now France, one of the bastions of the fashion world, took a pretty strong step in that direction. A new French law prevents super-skinny models from being hired by designers and fashion houses. Industry members who do so may be subject to fines, or possibly even jail time.

The new law would essentially ban models who have a Body Mass Index (BMI) under 18. BMIs are calculated on a sort of sliding scale that takes into account an individual’s height and weight. The BMI then fits into one of a few different categories–including under healthy weight, healthy weight, overweight, and obese. However, doctors would also be consulted to ensure that the BMI test was being administered fairly, and to take into account the unique build and structure of the individual. Under a BMI of 18.5 is usually considered under healthy weight, and can be a marker to determine if someone has an eating disorder, such as anorexia or bulimia. There’s been an increased awareness brought to the problem of anorexia recently, particularly after the death of Isabelle Caro, a French fashion model who passed away most likely due to the disease in 2010.

An important aspect of the law to keep in mind is that it punishes the agencies or houses that hire the models, not the models themselves. This is to keep members of the industry from putting pressure on the models to lose weight, or stay at an unhealthy weight. As Dr. Oliver Véran, one of the legislators behind the bill put it, “a person should not be obliged to starve herself in order to work.”

France isn’t the first country to implement laws about the sizes of its fashion models. Other nations, such as Israel, Spain, and Italy have limited measures in place as well. However France’s seems to be the most sweeping. In France, punishments for employing a model who is below the healthy weight threshold could include a fine of up to 75,000 Euros ($82,000, under the current exchange rate), or up to six months of jail time.

Not everyone is on board with the new legislation however. Some think that the restrictions are too harsh, as well as too sweeping–they don’t allow as much ability to decide on an ad-hoc basis whether or not a model is healthy. That criticism includes the argument that just because a model has a BMI over the given level, does not mean that they are “healthy,” but could still be suffering from a debilitating eating disorder. Isabelle Saint-Felix, who heads up France’s National Union of Modeling Agencies stated:

When you look at the criteria behind anorexia, you can’t look only at the body mass index when other criteria are also involved: psychological, a history of hair loss, dental problems. It’s important that the models are healthy, but it’s a little simplistic to think there won’t be any more anorexics if we get rid of very thin models.

Overall, the recognition of possible dangerous attitudes in the modeling industry seems like a step in the right direction. That being said, there is clearly still more work to be done to ensure the fact that the models from the world’s top designers are healthy role models.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New French Law to Ban Models Below Healthy Weight appeared first on Law Street.

Now that awards season is officially in full swing, it means that red carpet season is upon us as well. And as we watch the red carpet coverage there seems to be only one question that reporters are interested in asking female attendees: Who are you wearing?

This year, The Representation Project launched a campaign promoting the hashtag #AskHerMore. The idea is for red carpet reporters to ask female actors and entertainers about anything other than their appearance.

The whole reason I write here on Law Street is because I am in fact a woman who is interested in business, politics, and law (and yes I do identify as the “F-word”). But I’m a little different from most of the other Law Street ladies (and men), because I work in the fashion industry as well. While many might argue that law and fashion are like apples and oranges, my career is focused around fighting against that notion. That said, can #AskHerMore and the fashion industry exist in solidarity? Absolutely, but allow me explain why.

The main reason most attend a red carpet event is that their work is nominated or because they are being celebrated in some shape or form that evening. While reporters may want to ask first-time nominees what it feels like to be recognized, they’re not going to ask someone like Meryl Streep the same questions for the umpteenth time. Asking what they’re wearing can serve as a sort of ice-breaker for any nominee. I’m not so sure, however, that “What are you wearing?” should be the only question women or men on the red carpet are asked.

Also, the fashion and entertainment industries are both based on artistic forms of expression. You can’t really have one without the other (Ahem, best costume design award?). But you also can’t have art without politics either. In fact, the reason behind a given celebrity wearing a certain designer is strictly business. These celebs have contracts with fashion houses that require them to wear designs that are meticulously picked out and designed for a given public appearance. In turn, these designers get calls from clients the second the celeb reveals to the reporter what he or she is wearing.

That’s not to say, however, that even celebrities aren’t fed up with being asked about their appearance. Last month during the Golden Globes, several celebrities chose to pass on partaking in E! News’s “mani-cam.”

While I don’t think there’s anything wrong with reporters asking celebs what they’re wearing, the idea behind #askhermore is that it shouldn’t be the only thing they’re asking. But what else are they supposed to ask in the few seconds that they have to interview them? I’m not sure. If it were up to me, I would just get rid of E! News’ red carpet coverage altogether. It all gets covered online anyway. That way we can focus on the actual show and honoring these women for their work, while still preserving the Old Hollywood tradition or seeing celebs all dolled up in their best evening wear.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #AskHerMore But What? Feminism, Fashion, and Awards Season appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Couture Week, my fellow fashion law-istas! On Tuesday while we were just dodging the Snowmageddon here in New York, Karl Lagerfeld threw a garden party in Paris for Chanel’s Spring ’15 Haute Couture show. Things haven’t been all sunshine and daisies, however, over at the Haus of Chanel as it filed a counterfeiting suit just last month.

Chanel is suing online e-tailer Shop Jeen not only for copying its goods but also its way of doing business. Shop Jeen produced imitation Chanel iPhone cases and allegedly marketed them in the same way as the couturier. According to The Fashion Law, Chanel claims that Shop Jeen’s actions have cost it irreparable damage and “the Defendants have been unjustly enriched.” Chanel is demanding $2 million “for each counterfeit trademark used and product sold,” in addition to attorney and investigative fees.

As you know, I’m all for designers defending their own intellectual property, but I’m not so sure about their ability to sue someone for stealing the way they do business. If a product is already a knockoff, wouldn’t it come with the territory that it is advertised in the same way as the original? If it were any other company but Chanel this might not really fly as two separate charges, but I’m sure the kaiser Karl Lagerfeld will be able to get away with it.

It’s cases like this that make fashion law so much trickier than most other intellectual property and trademark lawsuits. The only thing fashion attorneys have to go off of is prior cases. Then again, this is the Haus of Chanel we’re talking about here. Lots of clothing and accessories can be seen as inspired by or imitating the brand that basically defines classic. Yet as far as I can tell, it looks like Chanel’s got this lawsuit in the (2.55 chain strap) bag.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Chanel Sue For Stealing Its Style of Doing Business? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week I told you about the $22 million counterfeit operation busted in Queens. So now you might be asking yourself: If getting your “designer” handbags from Canal street is such a big no-no then where should I get my holiday gifts at a reasonable price? Never fear, it’s almost 2015 and there is now a plethora of consignment sites to get your second-hand designer goods. But as great as sites like Ebay, Amazon, and the new Alibaba are, sometimes sellers aren’t always honest when they claim their items are authentic. So to make sure that you don’t get duped (like my poor brother did when he ordered those fake Nikes from China) I’ve put together a handy guide on how to spot a fake. Whether you’re giving or getting one this season, here’s all you need to know about how to properly authenticate a designer handbag.

Chanel

Remember when I told you that I’ve had family members gift me fake bags in the past? When I was in high school, my aunt gave me a Chanel Grand Shopping Tote. I thought it was cool until I found some irregular stitching and a defect in the “leather.” However, there are a few other tell-tale signs aside from the obvious ones. When it comes to the flap bag, the quilting should properly line up when the bag is closed. The biggest giveaway can also be simply the leather itself; the lambskin should feel buttery smooth and not waxy. Also, every bag made after 1985 should have a label with a specific serial number inside.

Hermès

The most coveted bag in fashion history, people will do anything to get their hands on an Hermès Birkin bag. With a retail price of up to $150,000, the Birkin bag has a high resale rate, so it only follows that there are a lot of fakes floating around out there too. The easiest thing to look for is the bag’s lock spindle, as it should turn around smoothly, and should not be bumpy or grainy. The logo should also read Hermès-Paris with a dash, as opposed to an underscore. In the video below, Tammy Flehr-Gates from Michael’s consignment shop on the Upper East Side gives more tips on how to spot a fake Birkin.

Louis Vuitton

For any Vuitton bag, I reiterate the importance of checking that the leather is dry because if it’s waxy, sorry, but it’s probably not even leather to begin with. More specifically, the Neverfull’s strap should be exactly 3/8″ in width. Any larger is a sign that the bag is made of poor material, so it needs a thick strap to withstand any weight. Vuitton is also famous for its various collaborations, like with Japanese artist Takashi Murakami. The infamous multi-colored Speedy features exactly 33 colors, so any less and it’s cheap, lazy imitation. The cherry blossom Speedy also has a sneaky feature that an amateur counterfeiter would never know about; the inside should say “Made in Japan.” Although Vuitton bags are typically made in France, this particular collaboration was made in Japan. If it says “Made in France” on a cherry blossom Speedy, it probably wasn’t made there, or even in Japan for that matter.

Balenciaga

My personal favorite, the City Bag, is pretty easy to authenticate. Since it features so much metal hardware, the first thing you should check for is if they’re heavy and not hollow-feeling. The O-rings on all the zipper pulls will also be soldered closed. Rivets have two rectangular notches in them and the straps should be smooth with absolutely no bumps. Also you won’t ever find your average YKK zipper on a Balenciaga, as they only use Lampo zippers on their bags.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Holiday Gift Guide: How to Authenticate a Designer Handbag appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve heard about judges having very specific laws for their courtrooms before, but a judge in the Cook County Circuit Court, near Chicago, has taken quite an interesting step in that regard. Judge Gloria Chevere has started to fight against saggy pants in her courtroom–even throwing eight people in jail for the offensive apparel in the last three years. When defendants have come into her courtroom wearing pants she deems too low slung, she’s remanded them to jail for “direct criminal contempt.”

That really is pretty extreme–criminal contempt is defined in Illinois as:

Any conduct committed with intent to impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court, or to derogate from the court’s authority, or bring the court into disrepute.

The direct part just means that it is done in the presence of a judge–in this case Judge Chevere. Usually such a designation is reserved for something legitimately distracting–such as fighting, or yelling in the presence of a judge. It wasn’t just pants that got Chevere to invoke that designation though; she had 22 other cases of direct criminal contempt in her courtroom as well over the same period of time. She has now been assigned to a courtroom where she deals more with administrative issues because of worries that her constant throwing people in jail when she didn’t like their pants impeded justice somehow.

I’ve never been to Chicago, but I guess saggy pants don’t just get Judge Chevere up in arms. Apparently it’s a big problem in a small suburb outside of the Windy City, too, called Forest Park. Mayor Anthony Calderone himself proposed legislation that would not allow people to wear “pants or shorts falling more than three inches below a person’s hips and exposing that portion of the person’s undergarments, buttocks, pubic area and/or genitals.”

It’s kind of a weird proposal–it’s one thing to ban someone showing their genitals, but there are, I have to assume, public decency laws already on the books about that kind of exposure. This ban seems tailored at really one thing–a fashion trend that I probably hear people complaining about more than I actually see.

At first glance it seems kind of silly at best, but if you look more closely at the proposed rule, it’s pretty problematic. First of all, it seems to target a particular group–young black men. Those in favor of the ordinance deny that’s the intention. Mayor Calderone, said:

There are people on both sides of the issue. This doesn’t have to do with any sort of racial profiling what so ever. In our town, it’s not been any one specific color (race), it’s been whites and blacks.

While that could be true, the arguments about racial profiling are justified. Those who disagree with the ordinance argue that known discriminatory practices like stop and frisk could be facilitated by this new rule. If police officers can stop a young man from wearing pants that don’t fit the code, they may segue that into a more invasive interaction.

So if you’re a particular fan of sagging pants, don’t wear them in the greater Chicago area. Some places you might get thrown out of a courtroom, and in some you may break a law.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Illinois vs. Saggy Pants appeared first on Law Street.

By now you’ve probably gathered how important I think it is for a person of power to present themselves as far as their sartorial choices go; however, that doesn’t mean I don’t see the inherent double standard in society’s speculation over what women in power wear. From first ladies to political candidates, the public loves to ask a woman about what she wears and why she wears it. In fact, it was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself who once shot down an interviewer’s inquiry about what designers she likes to wear with the now-famous retort, “Would you ever ask a man that question?” Personally my answer would be yes, but I’m fully aware that I’m in the minority here.

The recently-opened exhibit at the Design Museum in London titled “Women Fashion Power” says a lot about how society tends to care more about how female politicians dress than it does about males. While sometimes there’s a correlation between a politician’s confidence and his appearance — a la Obama’s tan suit — clothes shouldn’t affect voters’ opinions on how well a person can lead, especially women.

While men may appear to have fewer options outside of the accepted black suit as formal and professional attire, tailoring is always key. If his jacket is too big, then the suit will end up wearing him as opposed to the other way around. People don’t want to vote for a walking suit, they want to vote for a powerful and trustworthy man — or woman.

“We want you to see firsthand that a solid education and the willingness to work hard is really at the core of what it’s going to take to achieve your goals: education and hard work.” —The First Lady to #FashionEdu Thank you to all the leaders in the fashion industry who encouraged the students at today’s Fashion Education Workshop to #ReachHigher in their education.

A photo posted by First Lady Michelle Obama (@michelleobama) on Oct 10, 2014 at 6:07pm PDT

Yet from Wendy Davis’ famous sneaker-and-skirt-suit ensemble to Hilary Clinton’s rainbow of pantsuits, voters love to refer to a woman of power by her clothing choices. First Ladies like Michelle Obama and Jacqueline Kennedy are constantly scrutinized, or lauded, for what they wear to every single appearance they make. The press couldn’t stop talking about the fact that Mrs. Obama finally wore American couturier Oscar de la Renta to her fashion education panel just days before the designer’s passing. The first lady has expressed her disinterest in fashion in the past, so why is she trying to fit into the fashion crowd now? Is this the only way for her to solidify her position of power? The exhibit in London even starts with fashions of ancient Egyptian leaders like queen Hatshepsut, but surely ancient male leaders dressed just as ornately. Yet we only ever talk about King Tut’s naked corpse.

Clothes definitely play an important role in any public figure’s reputation. But why does the public care so much more about what a “woman of power” wears than they do about the president’s and other male politicians’ clothes? All I know is that when I go to the ballot box next Tuesday, any women I happen to vote for will be because I trust in their ability to lead based on their policies and past actions. The fact that they dress cute is merely an added bonus.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Fashion Such an Important Issue for Women in Power? appeared first on Law Street.

As a “melting pot,” Americans observe and consume different aspects of various cultures every day. In Western culture, it has become the norm to borrow foods, traditions, and clothing from other racial and ethnic groups as we please. But when exactly does taking inspiration from other cultures’ ways of dressing cross the line into cultural appropriation?

Cultural appropriation by definition is “the taking over of creative or artistic forms, themes, or practices by one cultural group from another.” From Pharell’s Elle UK cover, to Katy Perry’s music videos, the fashion and entertainment industries always seem to cause an uproar every time someone wears a Native American headdress or Indian bindi. But is it possible to ever rock a turban or fringe without offending anyone?

The answer to that question is complicated, especially when it comes to those cultures that have been historically repressed by others. Native Americans seem to be the biggest issue with the ubiquitous use of headdresses everywhere from the runway to music festivals like Coachella. There’s no doubt that white people have done horrible things throughout history to exploit Native Americans, so I understand why they would be terribly offended when they see people from outside of their culture wearing full-on headdresses.

However, there are some styles that have become so ingrained into the Western way of dress that people may wear them without even realizing that they might be offending someone. Moccasins, for example, have become a staple shoe option in the West. And why wouldn’t they? They’re comfortable and go with almost anything. And what about driving moccasins? Should we stop using such a practical innovation in footwear just because our forefathers stole the idea hundreds of years ago?

So what determines what styles belong to a certain culture anyway? One culture that seems to have a lot of gray areas is that of African Americans. One of the most sensitive areas in African American culture is the representation of their hair. And just because a person is a minority doesn’t mean that they are free to wear whatever they want without considering other subcultures. Dreadlocks, for example, have religious associations that might make it inappropriate for some African Americans to wear. 

African Americans in general have taken on certain kinds hairstyles to be considered as their own, such as cornrows and baby hairs. As a white Hispanic girl with curly hair, sometimes I find it difficult to tell if I’m “allowed” to get in on the natural hair movement that many mixed-race women and women of color have been embracing lately. Some mixed-raced Latinas may be able to get away with sporting cornrows, but as someone who appears to be a white woman of Anglo-Saxon descent it’s difficult to see where I fall. Am I supposed to walk around with a sign that says “I am Cuban-American. My ancestors did not enslave your ancestors”?

Granted there are times when celebrities completely disregard a culture’s background and simply wear certain styles because they think it’s cool or sexy. Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Rihanna come tend to come to mind as examples. Perry’s “Dark Horse” video is just a bunch of random cultural messages slapped together without even trying to make a statement or anything of artistic substance.

A lyric in Lady Gaga’s song “Aura” reads verbatim “she wear burqa for fashion.” So not only is she trying to make light of a garment that women are forced to wear in some parts of the Middle East, she uses incorrect grammar to imitate a foreign accent. Not cool.

Yeah…not really sure what’s going on here.

And let’s not forget the time Rihanna came under fire for trying to look sexy in traditional clothing in Abu Dhabi.

Abu Dhabi mosque asks Rihanna to leave after photo shoot clashed with “sacredness.” http://t.co/1jgq2Duh5q pic.twitter.com/SjjrIx7Pxi

— Jim Roberts (@nycjim) October 22, 2013

While I’m not sure if we can always dress without appropriating any cultures whatsoever, there are few instances where it is a big no-no. With Halloween coming up, try to be conscious about what kind of costumes you choose to wear. For example the sexy version of any kind of ethnic-wear is probably not the most politically correct thing to wear. Most importantly, this holiday should be about having fun, so think about how un-fun it would be to feel like your own cultural identity is under attack.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Beckett via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Cultural Appropriation in Fashion Ever Okay? appeared first on Law Street.

I recently wrote about how fashion ads are becoming less and less controversial. But now I think I know where all the controversy went in today’s retail strategy: it has shifted to the product itself. By now you may have heard about Urban Outfitters’ recent bloody Kent State sweatshirt. I’ve read a lot of opinions, including that of fellow Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney, claiming that Urban Outfitters intentionally released the controversial garment in order to increase its recently dwindling sales. I’m not so sure about that though.

Urban Outfitters’ highly offensive Kent State sweatshirt is up for sale on eBay for $2500 http://t.co/0YFxkIMGyr pic.twitter.com/RpTZrUQHUi

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) September 16, 2014

A few weeks ago, Spanish retailer Zara came under fire for producing a children’s top with a six-pointed star patch on the chest that bore a striking resemblance to the star of David patches that Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust. Last I checked, Zara has been doing pretty well financially. Maybe it isn’t necessarily booming but sales don’t seem to be dwindling either. If anything, producing such a controversial item would hurt its profits and reputation, especially in the dominant European market where the Holocaust occured. It would be a poor choice on Zara’s part if it purposely released a controversial shirt in order to gain publicity.  

The owner of Zara has withdrawn this children’s shirt because of comparisons to the Holocaust. http://t.co/xbyJcuuulR pic.twitter.com/jQ0OKIxPnb — NBCWashington (@nbcwashington) August 28, 2014

While the situation with Urban Outfitters may be a little different, I also don’t think it’s fair to claim that garments go through so many people in production that it would be impossible for someone not to catch something that appears to be a little off. There’s a reason it’s called fast fashion. Unlike more specialized design houses, mass clothing retailers have to move quickly in order to meet consumer demands and make a profit. It’s not like there’s a group of people focused on each item for more than a few seconds at a time. Often the products are presented as a seasonal collection, so details on individual items may be overlooked.

As a writer and someone who works in the creative field, I know what it’s like to look at a project so much that you get sick of it, which may be the case for both the design and production teams in these companies. Also, when you’re working for a company, you look at the product with a completely different mindset than the hypercritical masses that are always looking for a reason to be angry about something. Even The New York Times gets busted for being lazy sometimes. I’m not necessarily condoning such laziness when it comes to editing, but I know for a fact that sometimes it just happens because people are human.

The offending sweatshirt was a one-of-kind vintage piece from Urban Outfitters’ Urban Renewal line, which consists of curated items that may be slightly altered or updated by the company. What seems to be the case with this sweatshirt is that the college apparel was tie-dyed by Urban’s design team in an unfortunate red color. The deep red dots appear to be parts where the dye was more saturated than the rest of the garment. Now if you’ve ever tried to tie-dye before you probably know that it can be pretty damn messy, not to mention difficult to make a consistent design. In this case they only had one item to work with, so if they messed up it was just seen as added character to the unique vintage gem.

While part of Urban’s reputation is to make quirky — and not always politically correct — products, I don’t think this was the case here. Sometimes the viewer reads way more into a piece of art than the artist ever intended. Also, producing a controversial product instead of an ad is a pretty risky business strategy, especially in Urban’s case where the sweatshirt was one of a kind. If anything, they would be at risk of losing even more money if people were to start a boycott of the brand altogether. While I wouldn’t excuse Urban Outfitters or Zara for having such a sloppy editing process, consumers need to calm down when it comes to judging a whole company for a mere oversight.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Neff Conner via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cut Urban Outfitters Some Slack, Mistakes Happen appeared first on Law Street.

Urban Outfitters deserves an award for the ballsiest PR stunts of pretty much any clothing company. Forget American Apparel and its usually naked models; forget United Colors of Benetton and its Pope-kissing ads; the award goes to Urban Outfitters.

The reason Urban Outfitters takes the top spot here is because of its most recent transgression — yesterday a particularly tasteless item was discovered on its site. I’ll let this tweet sum it up:

Urban Outfitters are selling a “vintage” Kent State jumper, blood splatters and all. Nothing says “hip” like murder. pic.twitter.com/tq63ONAniq

— cory zanoni (@cjzanoni) September 15, 2014

That’s right, that’s a Kent State sweatshirt that clearly looks pretty blood stained. And what is Kent State most famous for? The May 4, 1970 shootings by members of the National Guard that left four students dead and the campus and nation devastated.

Of course, Urban Outfitters “pretended” to have an answer, releasing a statement that said:

Urban Outfitters sincerely apologizes for any offense our Vintage Kent State Sweatshirt may have caused. It was never our intention to allude to the tragic events that took place at Kent State in 1970 and we are extremely saddened that this item was perceived as such. The one-of-a-kind item was purchased as part of our sun-faded vintage collection. There is no blood on this shirt nor has this item been altered in any way. The red stains are discoloration from the original shade of the shirt and the holes are from natural wear and fray. Again, we deeply regret that this item was perceived negatively and we have removed it immediately from our website to avoid further upset.

Sure, Urban Outfitters. I’m sure that literally no one involved in the production, marketing, or selling of the shirt noticed what every single person who saw a picture of it did — those red spots look remarkably like blood stains.

Listen, Urban Outfitters knows what it’s doing. If this were an isolated incident, maybe I’d give them a pass, but this is just the latest in a long string of PR stunts the company has used. Here are a couple times that the company charmingly attempted to glorify various disorders:

Dear @UrbanOutfitters, Depression and a girl with 2% body fat wearing an Eat Less shirt is not a fashion statement. pic.twitter.com/yEKurbhBwp

— nye (@fooddood_) January 18, 2014

Again, Urban Outfitters followed the exact same path. It received serious amounts of backlash over the shirts, came out with half-assed apologies, and moved on.

Remember that saying, “Any press is good press?” Urban Outfitters really seems to be taking that idea to heart. The more controversy you stir up, the more people talk about your brand. It’s pretty clear that that’s the philosophy that the company is attempting to use to sell clothes right now…but the real question is whether or not this tactic is working.

In 2012, Urban Outfitters hired a new CEO and purportedly tasked him with edging up the brand. There’s a fine line between edgy and offensive though, and Urban Outfitters has stepped way over that line. The fact that sales have been floundering while the other stores under its parent company have been growing, doesn’t bode well for the retailer.

Urban Outfitters has chosen to adopt the hot-mess Miley Cyrus strategy of marketing, and no one can give them any flak for not going all in with it. While this Kent State sweatshirt controversy is truly gross and horrible, I heard more people mention Urban Outfitters yesterday than I have in a very, very long time. That being said, whether or not it actually attracts new people to the brand remains to be seen — all press is not necessarily good press.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Urban Outfitters Forges Ahead With Offensive PR Strategy: Will it Pay Off? appeared first on Law Street.

As New York Fashion Week draws to a close and all of the celebrities, bloggers, and street style photographers clear from Lincoln Center, it appears that there is the same unsolved issue every season: where is the diversity on the runway?

Surely, we have seen quite a few additions of minority and even plus-size models since the earlier years of fashion week, but we still have a long way to go. And although the runways seem to be slowly but surely diversifying, there’s no excuse why particularly the one fashion week that takes place stateside is so slow to change. They may be able to get away with it in Europe, but there are plenty of African American girls for New York designers and agencies to chose from.

In the Fall/Winter ’14 shows last February, 78 percent of runway models were white, a slight decrease from the previous season’s 79 percent. Meanwhile, there are several famous supermodels who are minorities, like Brazilian Gisele Bundchen, Somali-born Iman, and Naomi Campbell who is black and British. So what gives? Why do designers insist on maintaining such whitewashed runways?

One possible reason is that, as with racism in most cases, it is simply easy for designers to fall into the same trap of maintaining the status quo of what ‘looks good.’ While the point of fashion shows is to display designs, that doesn’t necessarily mean that minority models can’t walk the runway without looking “too exotic” and detracting from the clothes they are wearing. Designers and casting directors need to start making a conscious effort to chose models of varying races. After all, if uniformity is still a concern, that is what hair and makeup are for. Remember last season when Kendall Jenner hid among the models at Marc Jacobs and no one even recognized her because her eyebrows were bleached?

Another reason for the lack of diversity on the runway could be that there are not a lot of minority models attending castings in the first place. If that is true, then the fault would lie with the modeling agencies as opposed to the designers. According to the Wilhelmina Models site, 13 out of 51 of the models signed with them appear to be women of color, about 25 percent. That’s an under-whelmingly low proportion of minority models. So why aren’t model scouts finding more women of color?

"Be happy, be yourself" love Diane #NYFW #DVFW pic.twitter.com/ua2PP5xIZc

— DVF (@DVF) September 7, 2014

The notion that only pale and blonde women can be beautiful is apparently still very ingrained in the fashion industry. Despite the fact that the number of white models is slowly decreasing each season, there is still a lot that needs to be done in order to erase this mentality. While I don’t think using affirmative action or establishing a certain quota for the number of white models allowed in one show would work, perhaps the CFDA could work to change this practice.

Several companies are already starting to promote the idea of using normal-sized girls as models, so why not start a campaign encouraging diversity? The president of the CFDA herself, Diane von Furstenberg, had about a third of her models as women of color in her show on Sunday, so I hardly think she would be opposed to promoting diversity in fashion. Von Furstenberg should use her power to eradicate the racist mindset in fashion and get more women of color on the runways.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Fashion Week Still Doesn’t Promote Diversity appeared first on Law Street.

Along with the two consecutive award shows this week came two red carpets. Each carpet brought a lot of interesting fashion choices, from Katy Perry’s tribute to Britney Spears to Kim Kardashian’s backwards looking dress, both at Sunday night’s MTV Video Music Awards. The one dress that people could not stop talking about, though, was Lena Dunham’s Giambattista Valli gown worn to the Emmy Awards Monday night. Regardless of whether you loved or hated the dress worn by creator and star of the HBO series Girls, it seemed to bring up an issue of intellectual property.

On Monday night, designer Christian Siriano posted a throwback photo on Instagram of one of the designs from his Spring 2010 collection. The dress he chose to post had a strikingly similar color scheme and tiered tulle skirt to the dress Dunham wore that very night. Hm, coincidence? Probably not. Nice try Christian, but it wasn’t even #ThrowbackThursday.

As much as I hate when bigger designers copy smaller ones’ designs, I don’t think Siriano really has a case here. The only thing the two dresses have in common is the fact that they have tulle skirts. The colors and tiers are far too different for there to be any issue of copyright infringement. The bodices of each dress also give off two completely different aesthetics, as Valli’s offers a menswear-meets-formalwear vibe by matching a collared shirt with a ball gown skirt, while Siriano’s features a simple strapless design.

Even if Siriano did want to get into a legal battle with his fellow designer, there are no laws protecting him. It is perfectly legal to copy a garment’s pattern, which is hardly the issue here anyway. The only way Siriano would have a case is if there was an issue of print-copyrighting and both dresses lack any kind of screen-printing to begin with. Also, Siriano would probably never stand a chance in court against Valli, as the latter is a veteran couture designer and the former is a relatively new designer who got his start through Project Runway and designs for Payless Shoes.

Then again, Siriano definitely wasn’t the only one who thought the dress looked familiar…

Lena Dunham’s #Emmy dress looks kind of familiar. @josswhedon @JewelStaite pic.twitter.com/oEkU7N59nv

— refinery29 (@Refinery29) August 26, 2014

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Lena Dunham via Twitter]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Votes Are In: Lena Dunham Wins Most Controversial Emmy Dress appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to marketing, they say that sex sells. That may have been true ten years ago when retailers like Abercrombie & Fitch, Calvin Klein, and United States of Benetton ruled the fashion scene. But lately the industry seems to be erring on the safe side in advertising. Maybe this is why controversial photographers like Dov Charney and Terry Richardson have recently gotten the boot. Maybe it’s a movement in feminism. But maybe it’s just censorship.

The sexualized female figure has shocked the public since the Impressionist Era. The censorship of the female nipple is nothing new; however, as in art, it’s this same kind of scandal that often gives companies the most attention, which is basically the point of advertising. The more people are talking about a company, the more money they make. There is no such thing as bad press. So why are so many ads playing it safe these days?

One reason for this could be that companies just don’t want to bother with all the hassle. If an ad is too controversial, it risks getting banned in some countries. For example, back in 2011 the U. K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) seemed to read a little too much into Dakota Fanning’s ad for Marc Jacobs’ perfume Lola, resulting in a ban throughout Great Britain. The ad features Fanning with the perfume bottle, which includes a large rubber rose on the cap, between her legs. At the time the ad ran, Fanning was only 17 so it upset people to see a minor, whom the ASA claimed looked under the age of 16, staring in such a “provocative” ad.

Marc Jacobs, however, seems hardly controversial compared to other retailers such as Benetton and Italian label Sisley. These companies are notorious for making cheap shots when it comes to advertising. For these two, the more scandalous, the better: from a kissing nun and priest to a man dying of AIDS to “fashion junkies” snorting a dress. Despite their tendencies to upset the public, these ads have been successful in garnering attention. In such cases, these companies value shock factor over just putting out a pretty ad.

Benetton has become tamer since photographer Oliver Toscani stopped working with the company in 2000. Their recent Unhate campaign featuring feuding world leaders kissing, like President Obama, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, Pope Benedict XVI , and Egyptian leader Grand Sheikh Ahmed el Tayeb, led to the Vatican suing back in 2011.

Another reason ads may have tamed down is that companies now do most of their marketing through social media. Sites like Facebook and Instagram are heavily regulated when it comes to what they determine is appropriate for such a large and diverse audience. Most pictures featuring the female nipple are promptly removed from these sites within hours of posting. Therefore, if an ad is considered too inappropriate, the company risks losing a large amount of consumers.

Although sometimes they make more than one version of an ad through strategic cropping, companies, especially smaller ones that can’t afford it, may not want to bother paying for multiple versions of the same campaign. Social media also allows for free advertising for all kinds of companies and can be shared to reach consumers who may not normally pay attention to a specific brand. While Benetton’s ads certainly have a tendency to go viral, they risk running into potential legal troubles on the web. If an ad ends up on a site with certain regulations, the company could be held accountable.

Online advertising has presented endless opportunities for giving companies exposure but at the same time, advertising has also never been more censored. There are few laws to regulate what is appropriate and what is not online, so it is often up to the websites themselves to make the regulations. Many sites do not want to face the legal complications involved with featuring controversial images, which in turn has led advertisers to not even bother with anything controversial in the first place.

While Benetton may not offer anything groundbreaking or artistically ingenious in its ads, the company is known for opening up a conversation about greater issues such as HIV/AIDS, homophobia, and racism. Lately however, there is not much conversation going on regarding these kinds of ads, just a bunch of pretty models in pretty clothes. While the point of fashion advertising is to sell clothes, sometimes the less clothing a model wears, the more intrigued a consumer may be to find out what kind of product the ad is selling. The use of accessories in fashion ads also creates a more timeless image, which is bound to be remembered and used for decades.

Perhaps advertisers should start taking cues from the Impressionists again, instead of playing it safe. The Impressionists lucked out though, because there was no ASA or Facebook back then to stop them from creating anything interesting.

Of course full-on nudity isn’t the only way to intrigue an audience with sex appeal. Let us not forget the classic Brooke Shields for Calvin Klein ads, who was just 15 at the time.

Nothing, not even the ASA could get between her and her Calvins.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Buzzfeed]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Censorship in Fashion: Where Did All the Controversial Ads Go? appeared first on Law Street.

“Can’t a young [    ] get money anymore?”

Prophetic words indeed from the twenty-first century’s most evocative and provocative lyricist – Kanye West – in case there is anyone out there who doesn’t recognize the quote. A very serious question indeed in a modern world where many of us, Black and non-Black, define our successes based on our material possessions. But the deeper meaning resonates with every Black person who has heard  the news coming from New York relating to one of the preeminent department stores in the country: Barneys New York. Turns out this lovely little mom-and-pop luxury store, which prides itself on drawing fashionistas the world over, had a little problem with some of their darker shoppers.

The story goes, a male shopper by the name of Trayon Christian, 19 of Queens, felt the inexorable urge to splurge on a designer belt, because, ya know, a guy’s gotta treat himself every now and then. So, with his hard-earned money, about $349 of it, Mr. Christian bought a Ferragamo belt. He bought the belt with his debit card, for which he showed identification, and then happily left the store. Upon exiting, it seems two plain-clothes cops handcuffed him and detained him for two hours. The officers apparently could not possibly comprehend how someone his age could buy a belt so expensive. The card had to be stolen. Mr. Christian had to be a thief, because, ya know, young Black people having money just doesn’t add up.

I wonder if the exchange went like this:

Officers: “Excuse me sir, can I ask you a few questions?”

Christian: “Umm, what do you want?”

Officers: “Did you just buy a belt from Barneys?”

Christian: “Yes, I can’t imagine how you’d know that, but why does it. . .”

Officers: “We’ll ask the questions here! I think we’re gonna have to take you in.”

Christian: “Why, I have a receipt?”

Officers: “Silly kid, receipts don’t mean anything when you’re Black and buy things we can’t imagine someone your age and race should buy.”

:: AND SCENE ::

Now, I’ll begin by saying I totally made that up and have no proof whatsoever that that happened. In that way, I am just like the officers who detained Trayon. Obviously they suspected he had stolen the debit card or something of the sort, and they had naturally no proof whatsoever that that was the case. But who needs facts, anyway?

But it didn’t stop there. Turns out another incident happened at Barneys, where apparently Black is the new guilty. Kayla Phillips of Brooklyn, 21, was confronted by officers at a subway station. Her charge: buying a $2,500 Celine purse. Again, I get all my advice on high fashion from Kanye, and he’s the one who told me when you have on the Zara pant and a girl walks in with the Celine version you feel like shit. Well, Kayla didn’t want to feel like shit. So Kayla, with her hard-earned tax refund, bought herself a designer purse, because that frantic purse dig for her keys that pisses off her boyfriend when it’s cold outside and they’re just trying to get to the car because they are already late . . . – I digress – just isn’t the same unless the purse is Celine.

These two intrepid fashionistas were simply trying to buy nice things. All too often the allure of keeping up with the Joneses plagues minority communities. Is it some underlying desire for conformity? Is it some thirst to bedazzle oneself in the trappings of the majority culture? Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Hell yes. But I am more concerned about what this says about our culture.

It goes like this: Black people were brought here as slaves. [Stop me if this sounds unfamiliar at all.] We were emancipated. We essentially languished for 100 years despite like five Constitutional Amendments and men like Dubois, Washington, Garvey, and King. We got some rights: voting, etc. Then we began to enter the middle class. We begin to live how the other half lived for nearly the entire tenure of our race on the North American continent. We began to believe in our hearts that the color of our skin didn’t matter. Then we sorta lost some voting rights. [Still wondering how the Supreme Court did that.] When it came to material things, the only thing we thought mattered was the color of our money. We were wrong. Turns out all that matters is someone in a position of power and his perception of you. Doesn’t matter if your debit card has your name on it and you showed identification. Merely buying something someone else thinks you ought not, or have no reason to buy, is apparently all it takes to stir up enough suspicion to be arrested.

Therein lies the hard truth of modern America. I have often in my time in Washington, D.C. literally stood in the middle of the street with money in my hand hoping to hail a cab. And time and again I have been passed over for the White couple on date night. Or the drunk frat boys. Greater than the inconvenience of just having to take the Metro is the shame associated with someone whom you don’t even know perceiving something negative about you based on no actions of your own.

I have never been followed in a store. In many ways, what happened to these two people is even worse. No one followed them expecting them to shoplift. They waited until after they had purchased their items to imbue them with the suspicion of illegality. So legally entering a store, legally shopping, and legally purchasing something isn’t enough to dispel suspicion? That begs the question, what the hell will?

At this very moment I am looking at my designer, leather jogging pants and wondering when the Feds will come knocking. I guess I could run, but you folks have no idea how impractical it is to actually do physical activity in leather jogging pants.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Alicia Griffin via Flickr]

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thursdays at Barneys appeared first on Law Street.