Bonnets and Bedroom Slippers: Symptoms of Communal Disease
Jerome C. Crichton, DMin., PhD.
8/3/20268 min read
The recent controversy over dress codes specifically at Tuskegee University in particular and HBCUs in general is more akin to a pond than a mirror in that it reveals the murky complexities of diversity within diversity. A mirror reflects a clear, singular image back at you; a pond, however, reveals depth, murkiness, and hidden layers beneath the surface. The murky complexities of diversity within diversity exacerbated by contemporary culture represent a deeper condition—a communal dis-ease that manifests in symptoms we can no longer afford to ignore. The bonnets and bedroom slippers are not the problem itself; they are symptoms of something far more insidious.
Clearly, there is a generational component but there is also an underlying worldview issue that reiterates that Black culture is not monolithic. The generational component also exposes the insidious penetration of White privilege into Black culture, and therein lies the murkiness of the pond: the complexities of diversity within diversity exacerbated by contemporary culture.
Stay with me here. Few people, if any, question the necessity of good hygiene, especially in social environments. If you stink at home, alone, no one cares, but even in the most minimal of social environments, poor hygiene is taboo, and rightly so. It is a violation of the basic social contract that allows people to live together in a cooperative society.
These social contracts are not unimportant because they reflect the general consensus of communities, meaning their values and their aspirations.
Now, however, under the guise of Black empowerment and liberation from "White standards," there are those who argue that prohibitions against bonnets and bedroom slippers is an assault on Black identity and freedom from White standards. Some of them assert that having social dress standards or dress codes—particularly within educational institutions—is bougie. And for those of you who aren't in the know, that means it smacks of pretentious upper-class arrogance, you know, like "talkin' White!"
So, let me see if I understand; speaking correct English, with good syntax is talking White, and dressing appropriately for the environment that you are in is behaving White? Full disclosure, I have been accused of talkin' White. Once I extricated a young brother from unfortunate allegations by a Karen at the gym after she had called the police, accusing him of assaulting her. I had seen the whole thing and was able to interject my professorial-self to mediate between the young man and the constables. The Karen, with her face the color of a fall Fuji apple, left with her tail between her legs, having failed to play the White, helpless, "I felt threatened" card.
A couple of days later when I saw my newly found young friend, he greeted me with, "man, if you weren't there with your White talk, I would have been screwed!" I took it as a compliment!
The accusation of White talk is generally an accusation intended to highlight a perceived positional difference, the former being closer to authentic Black expression and the latter being further removed from authentic Black expression. In other words, talking White implies being distant from the mainstream community. The same dynamic is at play in the pro bonnets and bedroom slippers contingent, who are committed to personal comfort and expression, conventions notwithstanding. In essence, they are alleging that those who insist on adhering to the social and or communal norms do not reflect the mainstream Black community; they are in fact distant from their reality and/or conceptions of the cultural norm. They are not authentically Black, because if you were, you wouldn't be fussin' about bonnets and bedroom slippers in college classrooms or the local supermarket for that matter.
And the thought that being dissuaded from wearing bonnets and bedroom slippers—which includes pajamas, doo-rags, bathrobes, etc.—into the classroom of a collegiate educational institution is somehow an imposition of White cultural standards on Black freedom and expression is demonstrably an inversion of White privilege in an age that celebrates individualism over collectivism.
To understand the symptoms, we must trace the infection. Where did this particular manifestation of communal dis-ease originate? What factually is the origin of bonnets and bedroom slippers in academic institutions? The best research currently suggests that there have been 3 primary catalysts in the devolution of dress codes or, if you prefer, the upsurge in personal expression—the origins of the disease:
A shift from formal wear to the casual but status-driven "Ivy Look."
The 1960s counterculture using radical casual dress as a form of protest.
Students actively fighting against and ultimately dismantling strict dress codes as an expression of personal rights.
It was framed by university administrators and media as youthful rebellion, intellectual nonconformity, or artistic expression. They were rarely punished, and when they were, it sparked national debates about "academic freedom." Their casualness was read as individual eccentricity, not as a threat to the institution's reputation. The historical record (photographs, student newspapers, administrative memos from the late 1960s) shows that Ivy League administrations fought this casual turn—but ultimately lost. By 1970, most formal dress codes at these schools had been abandoned, not because of a specific tradition of wearing sleepwear, but because the counterculture made enforcement impossible. The privilege was that White students could lead this charge without their race being used against their entire community. This is the disease in its purest form: White individualism masquerading as "academic freedom" while Black communities bear the burden of representation.
Black colleges and universities were not immune from these social expressions but had their own version of them that were rooted in communal expression rather than individualism. We had the afro, the dashiki, the pick and other expressions, some of which were banned not only on predominantly White institutions (PWIs) but also on some Black campuses, but the key difference is that they were expressions of Black solidarity, African heritage, and Black power; they were community-driven—not individualistic. The Afro and dashiki were a healthy communal response to oppression—a symptom of resilience, not dis-ease. They said, "We are here, we are Black, and we are proud—together." The current bonnets and slippers phenomenon is a symptom of dis-ease precisely because it borrows from individualism rather than collective identity. It says, "I am comfortable, and that is all that matters."
Ironically, many of those who would dispense with dress codes and standards of social presentation appropriate to various settings have absolutely no communal objectives in mind, rather they have bought into an insidious ideology that reeks of the privilege and individualism demonstrated in the classrooms of White Ivy League schools in the 1960s. Then they appropriate the term "respectability politics" as their rejoinder against traditional community standards and professional responsibility, as if dressing appropriately for the classroom is White oppression or being directed to do so is a betrayal of Black culture.
Let's be clear, respectability politics is a sociological concept and political strategy, first coined and theorized by historian Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham in her 1993 book Righteous Discontent: The Women's Movement in the Black Baptist Church, 1880–1920.
The central mechanism involves members of marginalized groups—often those with relative privilege within their community—complying with, adopting, and performing the dominant social norms (regarding dress, speech, behavior, and morality) as a deliberate strategy to:
Counter negative stereotypes about their group.
Demonstrate their "respectability" and moral worth to the dominant group.
Advance their group's social and political condition by seeking acceptance or rights.
This strategy is inherently ambivalent: it operates simultaneously as a form of resistance to oppression, and as an accommodation of oppressive structures and cultural norms. It places the burden of social progress on the individual behavior of the marginalized group, rather than demanding systemic change from the oppressor.
This is a convenient diagnosis, but it misreads the patient. For the claims of the bonnets-and-slippers proponents to hold, the traditional dress standards would have to be motivated by a strategic desire to appease White society. The pre-existing and modified dress requirement—rather than reflecting traditional standards of the schools in question—would need to be motivated by a strategic initiative to counter the negative perceptions of White people in response to external pressures from the dominant White society. It would need to be predicated on the desire to conform for the purpose of acceptance. Objectively, one might argue that it has been that way all along, however; history records otherwise.
For example, the culture around Black church and Black church attire was never rooted in the desire for acceptance by White Christians but was an expression of the Africans' collective sense of intrinsic value and reverence for God. The same is true of almost all of the social and cultural practices that emerged out of slavery. Almost every photograph of communal and/or social engagement up to the 1960s reveals a social ethos of style, fashion consciousness, pride, and collectivism, a few exceptions notwithstanding. The disease is not "respectability"—it is the abandonment of collectivism for individualism. The symptoms are bonnets and slippers; the underlying dis-ease is the erosion of "We" by the tyranny of "I."
There was a time—not that long ago—when going to church in anything but one's best was sacrilege. There were no jeans, T-shirts, and sneakers, or tennis shoes, if you prefer; not to mention the list of unmentionables that might get me branded as misogynistic, so I'll just leave that there. The point is that many have uncritically assumed that Black traditional practices were rooted in hypervigilance or a motivation to be accepted by White people, in fact there may have been some of that, but by-enlarge, Black culture has stood tall on the feet of its own collectivistic values . . . until now!
The rampant individualism at the expense of the community is the bastard-child of White privilege, unhinged and unleashed on many who don't know their history and have traded its values and traditions for the leftovers of White youthful rebellion, privilege, and intellectual nonconformity.
Is this what we've come to? The idea that making yourself presentable is White oppression? That social standards of dress in educational institutions are archaic, outdated, and discriminatory? That your personal "rights" should be superordinate above the objectives and well-being of communal environments that promote holistic success?
It's not popular any more to say that people who go out publicly in sleepwear, are "ghetto," meaning that they are behaving in a way that betrays being devoid of social awareness and what is appropriate, but somebody needs to say it. It needs to also be said that we need to stop making excuses for uncivil, anti-social behaviors, as if behaving in a way that is appropriate is being White. Saying thank you, please, and excuse me is not being White. Washing up and dressing appropriately for class is not acting White! Taking care of one's hygiene is not White! Speaking English well is not talking White! The conflation of appropriate traditional behaviors, rooted in pride, self-esteem, and community with a lack of proximity to the Black community is the insidious end-around (a trick-play in football) of White supremacy. It is essentially calling good evil and evil good, with a race rider (an optional addition in an insurance policy) for which you pay more.
So, let's address the perennial elephant in the room. Freedom from oppression is not simply living without constraints (rules, principles, codes, laws, and/or expectations), but that is precisely what individualism would have you to think. Freedom is a condition that is forged through discipline and restraint. It shares in common with autonomy and liberation that they are exercised appropriate to their respective contexts. This is precisely why within Black culture the "We" has been emphasized over the "I," until now.
In closing, the push for bonnets and bedroom slippers is in fact a minority assault exacerbated by the exceedingly loud mouth of social media. The vast majority of Black students do not go to class wearing bonnets and bedroom slippers, and the vast majority of shoppers do not go to the supermarket dressed for bed. Bonnets and bedroom slippers are not, in themselves, the problem. They are symptoms—visible indicators of a deeper communal dis-ease: the erosion of "We" by the tyranny of "I." Black excellence will survive this minority Trojan-horse-like episode, routing the individualistic tendencies of Eurocentrism and celebrating the collective advances of Black achievement. Though I am in support of it, the cure is not a dress code. The cure is remembering who we are.
