The Wearer and the Worn.

I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new
wearer of clothes. ~Henry David Thoreau, Walden
The proposal that Thoreau makes has many philosophical applications far
beyond the obvious connotation of clothing. However, even when considering the
most surface interpretation, the implication is that worth lies in the wearer and not
the worn. Thoreau urges us to be critical of any situation where outward appearance
eclipses intrinsic value. In todays world, this recommendation would leave little
time for anything else. Our societal rules are heavily centered behind the
impression that outward appearance speaks volumes about character. Most
occupations require employees to adhere to a set of aesthetic standards, whether
explicitly stated or culturally expected. Unwritten codes permeate almost every
social situation, making the selection of the right clothes, a prerequisite to any
activity. A flowery dress would hardly be a wearable consideration to the person
preparing to play a game of soccer, not merely based on functionality, but on
cultural ideas of appropriateness. So do school dress codes help set children up for
success in a real world of unavoidable guidelines, or invite them to blindly conform
to a society that values the superficial over the genuine? What are the advantages
and disadvantages of exercising control over student clothing choice?
A look at the ultimate dress code, a school uniform, presents several
arguments in favor of this practice, citing increased school safety and equality as
positive outcomes. The National School Safety and Security Services claim a strict
dress code encourages a safer environment by:

1. Reducing conflict stemming from socio-economic status, i.e., conflicts stemming

from comments and personal attacks about who has better clothing and so on.
2. Reducing ways in which gang members can identify themselves which, in
essence, is a form of intimidation and creates fear ("School Uniforms, Dress Codes &
Book Bags - School Security").
The counter to these submissions is in the reality that socio-economic status is
observable in other ways than clothing. How often a student has their hair done, the
type of jewelry they wear, the school supplies they have, the frequency in which the
students replaces shoes, and the list goes on. To assume that a dress code would
render students unable to draw conclusion about socio-economic status is naive.
The same can be said about identifying gang members. While it may be
challenging to recognize a gang member from afar in a uniform, students who
attend school together will undoubtedly know who belongs to a gang. A uniform
does not overpower a voice and affiliations, beliefs, and ethics are all communicated
with more than clothing. More than likely it would be the teachers and
administrators left in the dark, unable to detect gang affiliation, than the students
who are supposedly being protected from fear.
Overall, advocates of dress codes repeatedly mention safety as a contributing
factor in the reduction of school violence and the inclination of school safety.
Supporters quote statistical evidence in hope of providing concrete proof that dress
codes make a difference. Some of them cite impressive numbers such as a 50percent reduction in both fights and muggings and a staggering 74-percent
decrease in sexual offenses one year after the district implemented a uniform
policy ("Disadvantages & Advantages of High Schools Adopting Dress Codes").
However, as Fritscher points out in her article, it is difficult to pinpoint if dress codes

are the sole, or even the major, contributor to the claimed decrease. Schools are
more than likely attacking the problem from several angles, such as increased
security measures or awareness education, leaving the amount of impact that dress
codes have inconclusive.
Another key feature for promoters of dress codes is decreased distraction for
students. To help students focus on learning and not on their friends halfexposed underwear the administrators at Chaparral and Mesa Verde middle
schools try to enforce strict dress codes policies on their respective campuses.
("Dress codes reduce distractions for students"). Unfortunately, the dress codes that
back this idea are generally unequal, listing several additional prohibited features of
clothes commonly worn by women than men. The association of distraction is
commonly in reference to boys being distracted by their girl classmates that have
areas of skin exposed. Not only is this view utterly heterosexist, but it also reduces
boys to slathering sex fiends with no self-control and then tells girls they are
responsible for those boys behavior which is disparaging to all parties ("4 Lies
About School Dress Codes That Cover Up Their Oppressive Effects").
The idea that girls need to cover their bodies to keep boys from being
distracted has severe implications of body shaming and misogyny. Recently a
student named Reese Fisher, faced with an impending new dress code, rallied her
classmates to speak out against its inherent inequality. The dress code is
important as it promotes a comfortable and professional learning environment,"
Fischer wrote in a(n)Instagram post. "However, there is nothing comfortable or
professional about being told you're 'asking for it' or 'selling yourself in the wrong
way' or being told your body is 'gross ("The Amazing Way Teens Are Protesting A
New Dress Code Policy"). She urged her classmates to incorporate a red A, a la

Scarlet Letter, to show solidarity in their protest. Several other students have
followed suit at different schools, attaching hashtags such as #imnotadistraction to
their discussion, in an attempt to raise awareness. So are dress codes really causing
less of a distraction, or is there more to it?
When a teacher pauses instruction and sends a student to administration for
wearing a spaghetti strap, or a certain color t-shirt, is this more or less of a
distraction that is being created? When the amount of instructional activity that is
lost on dolling out punishment for dress code violations is measured, it is not clear if
a dress code truly decreases disciplinary problems. The questions posed, combined
with a myriad of other important points such as freedom of expression, religious and
cultural oppression, and financial burden, leave the dress code issue an incessantly
debated hot topic. To determine a rigid affiliation with the supporters, or the
contesters, seems next to impossible. Students will no doubt have to conform to
either explicit or implicit dress codes many times in their lives, but is it necessary
for the school system to impose their own? If only it were as simple as Thoreaus
indication to avoid the institution that judges the worn and not the wearer
themselves.

References

Disadvantages & Advantages of High Schools Adopting Dress Codes. (2015, August
23). Retrieved
November 14, 2015, from http://www.livestrong.com/article/1004855disadvantages-advantageshigh-schools-adopting-dress-codes/
Dress codes reduce distractions for students. (2015). Retrieved November 14, 2015,
from
http://www.mpacorn.com/news/2013-0920/Schools/Dress_codes_reduce_distractions_for_
students.html
4 Lies About School Dress Codes That Cover Up Their Oppressive Effects. (2014,
December 11).
Retrieved November 16, 2015, from
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/12/school-dress-codemyths/
School Uniforms, Dress Codes & Book Bags - School Security. (2015). Retrieved
November 18, 2015,
from http://www.schoolsecurity.org/resource/uniforms/
The Amazing Way Teens Are Protesting A New Dress Code Policy. (2015, October 2).
Retrieved
November 10, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/teens-wearscarlet-letters-toprotest-new-dress-code-policy_560eb0e3e4b0af3706e07cc3