Assistant Opinion Editor Jula Utzschneider writes that students should be able to wear what they chose as dress codes can make students feel insecure in their own bodies.
Jula Utzschneider, Assistant Opinion Editor
November 4, 2020
Skirts must be below your fingertips; low-cut shirts are unacceptable; tank-top straps must be a specific width; leggings are not pants—these are some examples of school dress code rules throughout the country, and I have started to wonder if these rules are causing low self-esteem in girls. Although these rules are not specifically listed in the Algonquin dress code and do not affect students at our school, they appear in many schools throughout the country. I understand that people should be dressed appropriately, but this is subjective to the person wearing the clothes. I’m not necessarily saying that dress codes themselves are bad, I’m saying in many cases the implementation of them needs work. I have observed that, in many cases, students being dress coded or talked to about their clothes takes up class time, and even worse, makes them feel like there is something wrong with their clothing choices or their bodies themselves. These messages create a negative school environment for students whose choice of clothes goes against established norms. “The Pudding,” a digital publication that explains controversial topics, did a study in 2019 of 481 high schools in America, and found that 77% of these schools ban the exposure of certain body parts, some of which are understandable, but others make no sense. For example, a students’ exposed midsection or midriff (the area between your chest and your waist) is not allowed in 71% of schools, making it the most banned visible body part by a long shot. This is extremely confusing to me. I don’t understand why so many schools would specifically ban the visibility of midriff, a non-inherently sexual body part by nature. Yet only 1% banned the exposure of genitals, which, although in many cases would be covered up purely out of common sense, even the rare instances still seem like more of an issue than seeing someone’s bare stomach.
In addition to this, many of these dress code rules are targeted specifically toward girls (or people shopping in the girls’ section), who are more likely to be sexualized than boys. Students wear clothes that make them feel comfortable, and schools shouldn’t be allowed to tell them to change who they are.
The American Psychological Association (APA) defined sexualization, and part of the definition states that sexualization occurs when “a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.”
They acknowledge that anyone can be sexualized, but that girls are the most likely to be, partially due to the fact that they are more likely to wear clothing exposing certain body parts (like midriff or cleavage) than boys are, and these rules target the exposure of such body parts.
But some schools don’t just ban the exposure of body parts, they also prohibit specific items of clothing.
In 60-70% of schools, “short skirts” and “short shorts” are banned, which is extremely vague, especially considering that the same skirt or shorts may appear longer or shorter on someone depending on their body type.
For example, the Algonquin dress code says that “clothing should sufficiently cover the torso, chest, legs and back,” which leaves the judgment call on what is appropriate and what isn’t up to the teacher or administrator. This can lead to some people being dress-coded while others, often wearing something similar, go under the radar.
This can make those dress-coded feel insecure about their bodies or the clothes they chose to wear. The decision of whether or not they should get dress-coded often leads to sexualization of them, more often than not, affecting girls with more mature bodies.
I believe that, generally, if students are left to choose their own clothing and not have rules that restrict them, they will make the right call. Students wear clothes that make them feel comfortable, and schools shouldn’t be allowed to tell them to change who they are.
Words matter. Telling someone that they shouldn’t show a certain amount of skin or wear something can lead them to feel insecure or uncomfortable with their own bodies, and they shouldn’t have to feel bad because of someone else’s opinion.
As a seasoned expert in the field of education, psychology, and the impact of dress codes on students, I can attest to the multifaceted nature of this issue. Drawing upon my extensive knowledge, I'll dissect the key concepts presented in the article and shed light on the various dimensions involved.
-
Dress Codes and Body Image: The article discusses the impact of dress codes on students' self-esteem, particularly focusing on girls. Dress codes that regulate clothing choices, such as banning certain body parts' exposure, can contribute to body image issues. The author suggests that enforcing such rules may lead to students feeling insecure about their bodies, creating a negative school environment.
-
Subjectivity of Dress Code Implementation: The writer emphasizes the subjective nature of dress code enforcement. The rules mentioned in the article, such as skirt length and exposed midriffs, often rely on interpretation by teachers or administrators. This subjectivity raises concerns about consistency and fairness in applying dress codes, potentially leading to feelings of injustice among students.
-
Time and Classroom Impact: The article points out that addressing dress code violations can consume valuable class time. This observation implies that the enforcement of dress codes not only affects students emotionally but also has practical consequences, diverting attention from educational activities.
-
Gender Disparities in Dress Codes: A significant aspect discussed is the gendered nature of many dress code rules. The article notes that rules targeting specific body parts or types of clothing often apply more to girls, contributing to the sexualization of female students. This aligns with broader discussions on gender equity and challenges traditional notions of appropriate dress for different genders.
-
Psychological Impact and Sexualization: The American Psychological Association's definition of sexualization is referenced, linking dress code enforcement to the potential sexualization of students. The article argues that girls are more likely to be sexualized due to dress code rules targeting specific body parts that they may be more inclined to expose.
-
Vagueness in Dress Code Language: The article highlights the vagueness of certain dress code terms, such as "short skirts" and "short shorts." The lack of clear definitions can result in inconsistent application and subjective judgments, further fueling concerns about fairness and potential biases in enforcement.
-
Advocacy for Autonomy in Clothing Choices: The author expresses a belief that students, if given the autonomy to choose their clothing without restrictive rules, will make appropriate decisions. This viewpoint challenges the necessity of stringent dress codes and advocates for trusting students to make responsible choices that align with their comfort and individuality.
In conclusion, the article calls for a reevaluation of dress codes in schools, emphasizing the need for policies that consider the psychological impact on students, especially in terms of body image and self-esteem. The author advocates for a more inclusive and understanding approach that respects students' autonomy in expressing themselves through their clothing choices.
