ENTRY # 004
The
Discriminatory
Dress Code
Name: Avinash Melkote
School: Academies @ Englewood
ENTRY # 004
Part I
I oppose the ‘Dress for Success Code’ set by the principal of New Millennium High
School. My strongest allies are the Vice Principal, the Libertarian, and the Student Voice
Newspaper, who arrive at the same conclusion from different viewpoints. The Vice Principal
was denied numerous teaching positions because she had an Afro. The Libertarian feels the dress
code violates America’s progressivism. The Student Voice Newspaper believes that students
should have the “freedom of dressing in a manner they choose.” This dress code epitomizes the
unjust stereotyping of students and resistance to free expression that are common in many
American schools. America is a nation whose culture has long been defined by a willingness to
explore new ideas and change along with the changing times, and this dress code contradicts this
American ideal.
The Libertarian compares the dress code to the “Anglo-Saxon view of appropriateness”
because the dress code represents an antiquated style of dress that contrasts with basic American
freedoms and adaptability to change. The Vice Principal’s position expresses a belief that people
should be judged by their talents and qualifications rather than their style of dress or manner of
expression. Her son is President of the Honor Society, but she argues that his style of dress is
irrelevant by contending that “his brilliance would not be diminished with droopy trousers.” The
Student Voice Newspaper believes that students should have the “freedom of dressing in a
manner they choose.”
A rule prohibiting T-shirts would cause a problem during summer. Some rules may also
involve an intrusion of privacy and discriminatory enforcement if enforced, such as a rule that
pants must not be two inches below the waistline. If school officials were to measure every
ENTRY # 004
person’s waistline or stereotype a person as being affiliated with a gang, many students would
feel a violation of privacy.
In contrast, the supporters of the dress code feel that a person’s way of dressing
influences their behavior. Nelson Angelou, President of the Honor Society, supports the dress
code and argues that it can promote “gentleman” standards. He also feels that the dress code will
act to reduce crime in a Hip Hop culture and prevent the spread of gangs caused by “black males
emulating gangsters and thugs.”
While I certainly support teaching proper behavior to children in America, a “gentleman”
is not necessarily defined as a person who dresses formally. In fact, many people who behave
like ladies and gentlemen dress casually. In addition, many male students with no intention of
“emulating gangsters and thugs” wear hoodies, bandanas, handkerchiefs, and other forms of
casual attire. While some of these students are indeed affiliated with gangs, most of these
students are simply dressing in accord with the current style of dress. It is unfair to stereotype
people dressed in this attire as being affiliated with illicit activities.
A student’s style of dress does not serve to define his/her character. Students of varying
intellect, socioeconomic status, and morality may all embrace a similar style of causal dress. It is
an incorrect stereotype that students not conforming to this dress code cannot be exemplary
students. Allowing students to dress in a manner unique to their manner of expression will not
pose a pedagogical or safety concern as long as their attire does not interfere with the normal
functions of a school. I strongly believe that this discriminatory dress code should be repealed so
that the American tradition of embracing new ideas and changing along with the changing times
can continue to define the identity of our nation.
ENTRY # 004
Part II
Ever since the Standard Operating Procedures were adopted in 1980, there have been
many new advances in technology, including the advent of the internet, social networking sites,
cell phones, text messaging, e-mail, and blogs. The notices could have been disseminated by
sending an e-mail, posting it on a school website, sending automated cell phone messages, and/or
by sending a text message. Many new methods of communication were unimaginable when the
policy was adopted almost thirty years ago, and the policy should be updated to include new
technology. Several outdated provisions prevented the timely and just execution of the Standard
Operating Procedures.
Provision 25 of the procedure stipulates that opposition must be presented within 14 days
after posting. The December 30, 2008 deadline is one day beyond the required deadline since the
new policy was posted on December 15, 2008. The Honor Society and the Multicultural Society
were late in filing their intent to be heard since they filed on January 14, 2009. The Libertarian
Party was also late in filing its intent to be heard since it filed on January 17, 2009. The e-mail
sent by the Geek Squad Society was sent within 14 days, but was not received on time since the
school’s e-mail system crashed. The School Newspaper also mailed its opposition within 14
days, but it was received late because of holiday mail. The policy should be amended to mandate
that any letter or e-mail postmarked on or before the deadline should be accepted rather than
requiring that any opposition must be presented within 14 days of the posting.
Several groups opposed to the new dress code would be unable to attend the hearing
because they would attend the Inauguration Ceremony for the Inauguration of the first African-
American President. This broad discretionary language is discriminatory people in opposition of
the principal’s plan because he scheduled the hearing on a day when much of the opposition
ENTRY # 004
would be absent. The discretionary language in the policy should be amended to mandate that the
principal must reschedule the hearing if any party is unable to attend and has a good reason for
being absent. These amendments are important to ensure that schools throughout America strive
to protect all students’ rights to freedom of expression.