|
The purpose of a dress code is to ensure that students
will be dressed decently and respectably in the school environment
- a view that is completely logical. It is entirely understandable
that students should be compelled to dress in a manner that
is respectful to themselves and their peers. Regardless,
the reality of the situation is that the new dress code
at Martingrove does little to accomplish this goal; the
code is un-enforced, ambiguous, misguided, and unclear.
In order to be effective, the dress code must be enforced
past the first week of school. The mood was hopeful during
that first week when inappropriately- dressed students were
dealt with accordingly. Since then, despite the best efforts
of the administration, many flagrant infringements of the
dress code have gone unpunished; students have been given
few reasons to obey the rules.
The dress code is also riddled with ambiguity. At one point,
it states: "No shirt, sweater, sweatshirt or jacket
hoods are to be worn in the up position," suggesting
that shirts, sweaters and sweatshirts cannot be worn in
this dubious "up" position. Perhaps the code intends
that hoods attached to any of these types of clothing cannot
be worn over the head, but, according to the way in which
it was expressed, this is not clear. In addition, tops "may
not contain inappropriate or offensive language or depictions
of any kind." Therefore, tops having any completely
inoffensive depictions are strictly prohibited by the dress
code. This trend of ambiguity is apparent throughout the
document and hinders any attempts at enforcement.
Other sections of the dress code are misguided. Coats and
jackets are "not to be worn while student is in the
classroom". Not only does this section fail to accomplish
any of the written goals of the code, but if security is
the concern, then coats and jackets should not be worn anywhere
within the building.
The dress code also requires that pants and shorts must
have a "crotch no lower then [sic] mid thigh".
Again, the justification for this stipulation is unclear.
Equally unclear is the requirement that pants must also
be of an "appropriate fit". It can be construed
to target either excessively tight-fitting pants, baggy,
wide-legged pants, or all three. In any case, it is open
to misinterpretation and should be more specific.
The obvious aim of many clauses in the dress code is to
force students to adequately cover their bodies. However,
the author of the code never makes this clear or complete.
An excellent example is the code's failure to address indecently
low-cut tops. Tops must "extend from the hips to the
upper back and chest and have two straps." According
to this statement, tops need only extend to the chest, which
is defined by the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary as "the
part of the mammalian body between the neck and the abdomen."
Given this definition, a top need only extend to one's abdomen,
leaving the breasts completely exposed, and still fit the
criteria of the dress code.
If the author avoided the euphemistic word, 'chest' and
used 'breasts' instead, the code would be far clearer. However,
such direct language is rare in the dress code. Accordingly,
offensively low-cut tops still abound at MCI, protected
by the vagueness of the dress code.
A better solution yet would be to stipulate what parts
of the body must be covered. Currently, the dress code attempts
to describe every piece of "acceptable" clothing;
however, this is nearly impossible. Instead of demanding
that skirts and shorts are to be "mid thigh or longer",
the code should instead indicate that the upper thigh must
be covered, regardless of the type of garment. Not only
could this be applied to any type of lower-body covering,
it also eliminates the ambiguity.
The dress code at Martingrove is a worthwhile, but poorly
implemented, idea. Fortunately, according to a reliable
source, it will be revised at the end of the year. Only
then could it possibly be respected by students and enforced
by staff.
Other Articles
|
