This minor controversy caught my eye because it got me thinking about changes in how we as Americans respond to rules and authority:

A Roman Catholic school has banned yellow wristbands that are sold to raise money for cancer research and promote awareness, saying they violate the school's uniform policy. 'Live Strong' bracelets are sold by the Lance Armstrong Foundation raise money for cancer research and promote awareness.

Some schools run by the Diocese of Allentown allow the "Live Strong" bracelets sold by the Lance Armstrong Foundation, but St. Thomas More Elementary School in Salisbury Township does not.

Diocese spokesman Matt Kerr said the only jewelry the school permits are a crucifix, small stud earrings or small rings.

Some children and parents are upset by the decision.

When I was growing up, if there was an attire issue at school, the principal would detain that student in his/her office until their parents brought them a new outfit or the school day ended, whichever came first. There was no formal dress code; the decency in attire system operated on the judgments of the staff. Infractions were very rare.

In those days, the rules provided a guideline for the staff to follow as they made judgment calls on what was appropriate and what was not. In today's lawsuit happy world, common sense and judgment calls have been rejected and replaced by explicit rules. This is why we see warning labels like "Do not use while driving!" on car window shades and "Caution: contents may be hot" on coffee cups.

I believe there are two reasons why this is a problem. First, it is simply not possible to imagine every possibility for a product or a rule in advance. Thus, the 'letter of the law' approach means that every discovered use or violation not covered explicitly by the documentation or rules results in an addendum, and quite possibly a lawsuit.

The final result is a massive framework of rules which eventually collapse under their own weight, which results in the second issue. Once it becomes impossible to completely control behavior via specific rules or to document every possible misuse of a product, the complicated rules turn into a very simple blanket restriction. A restriction which limits the activity of everyone instead of dealing with those who violate rules or intended use.

Example: the now extinct teeter-totter (fulcrum). When the world was young and innocent, playground designers added these enjoyable toys for tots to todder on. It really did not matter that some kids who were misbehaving got injured on them – it was their own fault. Then the tort age dawned and the toys became a liability. Thus formal (and boring) rules were adopted, such as 'No standing' and 'Only 2 riders at once'. Injuries and damage claims continued and eventually the problem was solved for good via backhoe.

Not that I am against school uniforms, but it troubles me somewhat that educators are spending time, energy and money hashing out acceptable dress. I would much prefer they concentrate on teaching math, reading, writing and history. Besides, finding a clothing solution that suits everyone is impossible. Once the rule based approach fails, they may be forced to resort to banning clothing altogether.