Harrop: Dress codes are about respect, not money

A nice restaurant isn’t the gym or a Zoom call; there’s no reason not to dress properly for the occasion.

By Froma Harrop / syndicated columnist

There was a time when spending big at a swank restaurant would be regarded as an occasion requiring dress-up. Then the slob culture took over so that even when an establishment made great effort to arrange flowers, iron tablecloths and provide formal service, customers would turn up in sweatshirts and ratty sneakers.

Dress standards for deluxe dining started collapsing decades ago, but the pandemic pounded them further. With the health crisis receding, high-end restaurants are looking for a reset by establishing (or restoring) rules for dress. Olivetta in Los Angeles texts a warning: “Upscale fashionable dress code strongly enforced.” The management at Houston’s Thirteen — noting that “our wallpaper is Gucci” — also announced that customers in T-shirts and sweatpants would no longer be welcome.

Good for these defenders of decorum, and too bad for those who resent them.

The objections are flimsy, if not phony. But let’s address them anyway.

First off, dress codes are not about money. J. Crew sells navy blazers for only $199, while ripped-up jeans at Nordstrom go for an astounding $258. And not all classy dressers rely on expensive tailoring. Some people just have style, the ability to put together chic outfits with moderately priced parts. Proper attire can be found at Target, as well as Neiman Marcus.

Dress codes are not about race. Saying that they are is itself racist. It’s no secret that many of the most elegantly dressed men and women in any downtown are Black. And who could match the Black church ladies in their suits and fabulous hats for splendor?

There have been unfortunate reports, such as a restaurant turning away a Black customer in a track outfit while admitting a similarly dressed white one. The remedy is better-trained staff.

Dress codes are not about class. On the contrary, dressing down at upscale restaurants can take on the air of reverse slumming. Call it “slobbism.” You see people who look like they just cleaned the garage snapping fingers at waiters in pressed uniforms providing professional service.

Given the demographics of the kitchen staff that’s often preparing the truffled turbot — and many of the crisply attired workers in the front of the house — not giving a damn how one presents oneself to them can take on an air of class superiority, sometimes with racial undertones.

Dress codes are also about showing respect for the diners at the next table. When did we make the humans around us invisible?

We can partly blame an online culture where we watch what’s on the screen knowing that, in most cases, no one is looking back. Thus, we forget that at live performances — be they at a restaurant or theater — the audience is part of the show.

With the decline of communal dining at home, many have lost the sense of occasion outside of big deals, like Thanksgiving or a wedding party. The days and weeks melt into one long blah that can get extended to an expensive dinner at a finer restaurant.

As for the legalities of dress codes, yes, they are legal. Those enforcing them are private businesses. They have a right to set their own standards for conduct, which would include dress.

Of course, there is no fashion police to arrest rich peasants in T-shirts bearing vulgar words or wearing baseball caps on backward. Such diners still have a multitude of options, many of which serve pretty good food. These restaurants may welcome anyone who can pay, and that’s fine.

Just remember that dress codes are about fostering respect, not exclusion. And even the most casual places may post signs saying, “No shoes, no shirt, no service.”

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Sunday, July 3

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Junelle Lewis, right, daughter Tamara Grigsby and son Jayden Hill sing “Lift Every Voice and Sing” during Monroe’s Juneteenth celebration on Saturday, June 18, 2022. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Happy Independence Days, America

Linked by history and promise, Juneteenth and the Fourth of July should be celebrated together.

Comment: America’s 250th offers opportunity to look forward

The bicentennial in 1976 focused on America’s history. We can use the ‘semiquin’ in 2026 to look ahead.

Downtown Everett perfect location for Sorticulture

I was at Sorticulture this year and what a great turnout (“Sorticulture,… Continue reading

No way to treat Lady Justice

Dear Lady Justice, your blindfold seems to be slipping down. Sir, my… Continue reading

Saunders: U.S. policy luring people to risky border crossing

Providing amnesty to those who have previously crossed illegally will only lead to more deaths.

FILE - In this Oct. 19, 2016 file photo, a man fishes for salmon in the Snake River above the Lower Granite Dam in Washington state. Three Republican U.S. House members from Washington state are criticizing Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., for opposing their legislation that would prevent the breaching of four dams on the Snake River to help improve endangered salmon runs. (Jesse Tinsley /The Spokesman-Review via AP, File)
Editorial: Waiting could force bad choice on dams, salmon

Work should begin now to begin replacing what four dams on the Snake River provide.

Joe Kennedy, a former assistant football coach at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Wash., poses for a photo March 9, 2022, at the school's football field. After losing his coaching job for refusing to stop kneeling in prayer with players and spectators on the field immediately after football games, Kennedy will take his arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, April 25, 2022, saying the Bremerton School District violated his First Amendment rights by refusing to let him continue praying at midfield after games. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)
Editorial: Court majority weakens church, state separation

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision does more to hurt religious liberty than protect a coach’s prayer.

A pregnant protester is pictured with a message on her shirt in support of abortion rights during a march, Friday, June 24, 2022, in Seattle. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to end constitutional protections for abortion has cleared the way for states to impose bans and restrictions on abortion — and will set off a series of legal battles. (AP Photo/Stephen Brashear)
Editorial: Court’s decision a subtraction from our rights

Using a cherry-picked history, it limits the rights of women and will extend the reach of poverty.

Most Read