Skip to content 
BCIT’s Dress Code and
Jack Smugler Exposed
- Les Merson
- 1991
1972–Richard Nixon, Paul Henderson, and Jack Smugler.
To some, it might seem absurd to lump Jack in with such company. (I suspect that Jack would bristle at the thought of being compared to Nixon).
No, Jack didn’t win Presidential re-election by a landslide nor did he score a game-winning goal. But in his unique way he helped effect change in a controversial time.
Jack was a rebel with many causes. He opposed the war in Vietnam; was suspended for ten days for using four letter words in an article in support of feminism which appeared in this paper, spoke out against a “Puritan work ethic … gone mad,” arguing that it is inhuman to drive people like … the students [at BCIT] are driven;” wrote somewhat rambling Marxist critiques and even an article on the Krupp arms dynasty for the Link. But most notably, he challenged the BCIT dress code.
Until 1972, male BCIT students were not only required to wear a tie to school but to sign a declaration agreeing to abide by all the Institute “statutes, rules, regulations, and ordinances.” Take note: all those “nerdy” photos in old BCIT Yearbooks are a matter of regulation, not taste.
If the sixties were a time of reflection, then the early seventies were a time of action. The peace and love generation had dropped back in only to find their beliefs being viciously and sometimes violently attacked on campuses across North America. Kent State is a most poignant example.
This is not to suggest that ties and bullets are analogous. But the prevailing views were similar. Certainly, no students were lynched with their ties, but according to the January 25, 1972 edition of the Link: “…Our Vice-Principal has instructed the rent-a-cops to keep an eye out for students that are improperly dressed. Upon spotting one, they are to approach the student and take his name, serial number, and set number, etc… The boys in blue are then supposed to produce a copy of the “contract” that the students sign to get into BCIT. As the form is being shown to the naughty rule breaker, it is to be made clear that it is a “legally” binding contract and that the breakage of such can result in getting booted out of BCIT.”
As well, the Principal issued a memo on January 21, 1972 instructing all staff to report “male students without ties…[or] denim pants that do not appear suitable” to their department heads.
And so a group of rebellious students led by Jack’s vociferous charge took aim at the BCIT administration. On one occasion, Jack met with Principal Goard to discuss the issue. While Smugler noted that Dean Goard was a “really nice man,” he concluded that “the[ir] bodies went to the same room, … [but] unfortunately the[ir] minds never could occupy quite the same space.” Smugler tried to place himself in another man’s tie but concluded that “a tie is utterly useless!! No one I have ever talked to has even been able to give me one practical reason for its existence. In actual fact, it can be fatal if worn around machinery. Ties are, supposedly, a matter of fashion. But, in truth they represent a symbolic castration of the male.” Sounds like some strange mixture of psychoanalysis and Yves St. Laurent to me, Jack.
Nonetheless, Jack did have a valid point. If students don’t want to wear ties and potentially place their job prospects at risk that should be a decision they are free to make and are then accountable for. In 1972, the business community apparently didn’t agree. Of the dress code, Dennis Prosser, BC Hydro, said that he “believes that a lot of BCIT goodness comes from the fact that they have standard dress and appearance.” And Lloyd Bray, Creative House Ltd, felt that a shirt and tie were indicators that the interviewee “really care[s] about themselves.” To suggest that one’s dress is intrinsically tied to morality and self esteem is not only dangerous but is equally disempowering for the nonconformist. It would almost appear that for some, the tie was a symbolic harness, a tangible link in the master-servant relationship as Jack would say.
And the tie tug-of-war continued throughout the spring. In April, an anonymous letter attacking Smugler was printed in the Link with an editor’s note which included the anonymous students full name: “Dear Mr. K–––––––, I realize you are in a tough spot and have to push for marks, but if you’re as desperate as it seems, you should have had guts enough to sign this letter.” The note concludes with the suggestion that Mr. K. take a remedial English course.
That same issue of the Link (April 19, 1972) contained the photo of Smugler—with the caption, “A Welldressed Gentleman”—which accompanies this article. And the final issue of the 1971-72 school year invited students and staff to a “tie cutting party” in front of the SAC where ties will be cut in half. The accompanying article guarantees that at least one person — presumably Smugler—will cut his tie. The Link has been unable to confirm or deny this. And so, Tie Wars continued into the 1972-73 year as Smugler was joined by Debra Little and some other “renegade broadcast students.”
As the controversy intensified, Littie “pumped up the volume,” to pursue a timely metaphor. A referendum on the issue was finally agreed upon. Her frontpage article in the January 19, 1973 issue of the Link was a scathing indictment of the dress code: “You see, industry sends out their buyers and we look the prettiest of the competition, rolling down the assembly line—a tidy, square package with a bit of coloured string around our necks.
Perhaps not so surprisingly, she was met by a good deal of opposition from within her own ranks. The Alumni Representative predicted a 10% decrease in starting wages for graduates, while others observed that “orderly clothes reflect an orderly mind.” Yet another dared Little to “come back in twenty years and we’ll see if you’ve changed your mind.”
And then the letter-writing campaign began. The President of the Business Society, Dennis Werk, wondered that “if the tie, such a small trivial thing, is infringing on your civil rights and freedom of expression, then how will you be able to handle real problems?” Problems such as choosing an effective lint brush, a polyester material that doesn’t wrinkle, and a dark tie that doesn’t show gravy stains, I assume. He then quoted from Clothing Behaviour and its affect on Personality Characteristics, Social and Academic Achievement: “these standards are critical predisposing factors for future success in an individual’s chosen career pattern.”
Here are the results from the Student Referendum as published in the February 1, 1973 edition of the Link:
Whole School
In favour of dropping dress code: 58.5%
In favour of retaining dress code: 41.3%
Business
In favour of dropping dress code: 42.8%
Opposed: 57.2%
Health
In favour of dropping dress code: 59.4%
Opposed: 41.6%
Engineering
In favour of dropping dress code: 67.1 %
Opposed: 32.3%
And, in the February 22, 1973 edition of the Link Principal Goard issued the following statement:
STUDENT DRESS AT BCIT
It is the policy of BCIT to rely on the judgement of students to maintain a reasonable standard of dress and appearance. The choice of dress is left to the individual student subject to the following considerations.a) In some field trip and laboratory situations, safety considerations require that special head gear, shoes and other clothing and other safety equipment must be worn.b) Where programs involve regular periods of scheduled experience, for example in industry or hospital, the student may be required to wear a uniform (as in a hospital) or otherwise dress himself to be acceptable to the cooperating agency.
Based on the experience to date, BCIT faculty believe that there is a positive relationship between general dress standards and employment of graduates. Technology faculty are always prepared to give advice on dress matters to students.
Not quite twenty years later, Debra Little says that it was all worth it, though in retrospect, she finds it “amazing that it was an issue.”
Was the issue a red herring or was the tie, as Jack contended, an ideological symbol—the leash that both separates and joins the employer and the employee?
And what of Jack Smugler?
Did he “drop out” to tend the fields of some collective in the Kootenays. Or did he “flip out” and get sentenced to life imprisonment for acts of industrial espionage? Or did he finally “sell out” to sit on the Board of some multinational corporation?
Jack, if you’re out there, phone home.
