This story is within the section concerning reluctance and submission. It concerns humiliation, embarrassment, and a bit of spanking, mostly involving guys as the recipients (but some with girls as well). If you do not like such stories then you really should not read it. There is also a bit of group and exhibitionism, but the story does fit best within the section for reluctance. I also want to acknowledge that aspects of this story were inspired and/or suggested by Ingen Ingetson and Gocarty, Literotica members. I certainly want to thank them for their ideas and suggestions, which were really very helpful. Of course, all the characters in this story are at least eighteen years old, as this is a minimal requirement for admission to Templeton College.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Miss Harding was pleased to help her colleague, Mr. Peters, with the enforcement of the Templeton College dress code (see "Mr. Peters and the panties"), but she had her own concerns, and her own way of doing things. Well, it wasn't really her own way. She was also well trained within and a strong advocate of the New School method of student discipline. It was just that each professor within the New School of pedagogical discipline was encouraged to provide minor variations of its application.
Plus, whereas Mr. Peters specialized largely in the discipline of young ladies (see "Disciplining Young Ladies") Miss Harding tended to specialize in the discipline of young men (see "Disciplining Young Men"). So, it was only natural for her to address in particular the responsibility of ensuring that the young men of Templeton College adhered to the dress code.
At Templeton, all of the girls had to wear white blouses with black ties, plaid skirts that reached below the knees, white socks, black shoes (Maryjanes were preferred), and, of course, white panties and brassieres. None of the girls were allowed to wear perfume, or excessive jewelry or substantial make-up. And certainly none of the young ladies could have tattoos! Just the thought of that was simply abhorrent to the Board of Trustees.
The administration felt that the uniform requirement was important to instill a sense of pride, duty, and discipline, as well as to avoid the presence of distracting outfits that many college students were wearing these days. Goodness, at some colleges girls would arrive to class wearing a chemise as if it was in fact a blouse! The parents of Templeton girls appreciated the emphasis on proper, respectful dress and decorum.
Not surprisingly, however, Templeton College had been under considerable pressure to amend the college uniform requirement. No college, not even one as conservative as Templeton, wanted to be perceived as sexually discriminatory, and it was blatantly discriminatory to have an underwear rule for girls but not one for boys.
The boys' uniform requirement had been confined to simply white shirts, black slacks, black ties, and black shoes. Nothing was said about their underwear. The rationale for the further requirement for the girls' undies had seemed at the time reasonable to the college administration: there was quite a bit of fashion statement to be made in a girl's choice of panties and brassiere, much of which was explicitly licentious and intentionally enticing. This was not, however, the case for the underwear of most young men.
Plus, the girls' underwear was not even necessarily well hidden from view. Boys, and even faculty, will get occasional peeks at what a girl was wearing beneath her skirt, due to a sudden breeze, the need to pick something up, or a less than modest manner of sitting within a tiered classroom. None of this was the case for young men.
But, these arguments, compelling as they might be, fell on the deaf ears of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, enforcing Title IX. The arguments were rejected in any case by the outspoken female faculty at Templeton College. Miss Harding in particular had raised a number of objections against the clear sexist double-standard, and with the full support of Mr. Peters, had been able with her colleagues to get the uniform code amended to address boys' underwear.
The struggles to adhere to Title IX had been very difficult and costly for many colleges. For Templeton, Title IX required either the elimination of football or the addition of multiple girls' sports in order to equalize the number of boys and girls who were supported by athletic scholarships. The Board of Trustees opted for the latter, despite the considerable expense this entailed.
With respect to the school uniform, they decided to amend the rule for boys, requiring that young men also wear black belts and white briefs, just as the girls were required to wear white cotton panties. It was either that or allowing girls to wear whatever panties they preferred, a liberal permissiveness that was supported by no administrator, by none of the faculty, by few of the parents, and by even fewer of the alumni. This was not the time to loosen the morale fabric of college life. It was precisely the time to instill a stronger and stricter sense of virtue, integrity, and temperance.
The enforcement of the new code though was another matter. The white panty policy was not itself well enforced.
There were spot panty checks in the student center or at other well-traveled locations. The Dean of Women would require a passing girl to briefly lift up her skirt (e.g., see "Just a little peek"), which was not particularly disruptive to the flow of traffic as the students proceeded to their next class or academic responsibility (albeit at times a crowd of boys would naturally gather around a respective check point).
The penalties though for a violation were rather weak, if not in fact ineffective. The first offense was met with just a warning. The second offense was met with a grounding for a week (a punishment difficult to enforce for students who lived off campus). The third offense was met with having to write a paper on the importance of wearing regulation panties, and periodically visiting personally the Dean of Women to have her panties checked.
The President of Templeton, Dr. Chalmers, recognized that the college was not fulfilling its responsibility to provide sufficient enforcement of the white panty policy. All of the students at Templeton College were at least 18 years old but they still relied upon the faculty to provide in their lives a helpful, if not necessary, guidance, discipline, and structure. If it became apparent that the college was lax when it came to some rules, others would be treated with comparable negligence and disrespect. It was a slippery slope that needed to be nipped in the bud.
President Chalmers therefore empowered Mr. Peters and Miss Harding to apply the New School approach to this central and important Templeton code of conduct.
After she had helped Mr. Peters within his class (see "Mr. Peters and the panties") Miss Harding wasted no time applying the New School approach to her own class.
"Students," she announced, after they had taken their seats and quieted down, which did not take long in any of her classes, "as you are aware, the Templeton dress code for young men has been expanded to be comparable to that required for the young ladies."
A number of boys squirmed in their seats. They were, of course, fully aware of the change in policy, as it had been posted on all of the major campus bulletin boards and discussed within the student newspaper. A student would have had to have been in a coma to have missed it.
However, many did not much care for it. A requirement to wear black belts was not particularly bothersome, as they went well with the black dress pants. But, quite a few of the boys felt that briefs were simply too childish (as well as too uncomfortably tight). Briefs were for junior high school students; whereas boxers were for men.
On the other hand, quite a few of them were already wearing briefs, particularly those enrolled in the classes of Miss Harding, where something tight within loose slacks did at times come in handy.
What was troubling to all of them, whether they were wearing briefs or boxers, was the suggestion that they might be subjected to routine inspections, an invasion of their personal privacy that they found rather objectionable, and a bit embarrassing; actually, very embarrassing if it were to take place in public.
Of course, somehow that hadn't seemed to bother them when the girls had to submit to an inspection. Many of the boys who raised objections to the new policy were precisely the same boys who had appreciated the sight of girl after girl strolling up to the Dean of Women to briefly lift her skirt to display her feminine undergarment. Of course, in all fairness, knowing how embarrassing it was to the girls helped the boys to truly appreciate how embarrassing it might be for them.
"Your President, Dr. Chalmers, has empowered me to enforce this new policy at my discretion, and today I intend to do precisely that."
