Bio
I'm a pedagogy specialist, which means I help university instructors improve their teaching. As the contributing editor for Research, Academia, and E...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

What's appropriate attire for K-12 students? From thongs to veils, everyone has an opinion

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 4
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Uniforms and thong underwear and niqab, oh my!

The news sites and blogosphere lately have been abuzz with the topic of what constitutes appropriate attire for students.

In West Virginia, as elsewhere in the U.S., school officials are sick and tired of seeing students in "vulgar" clothing such as thong underwear, cleavage-featuring shirts, and baggy pants. This has been a problem with college students in my neck of the woods, although lately I've been seeing fewer thongs sticking out of young women's jeans and more butt crack. (I've always said you don't know your students until you've stared down their butt cleavage over your lunch in the student union.)

Such exposed skin and underwear has led many school districts to consider implementing polices requiring school uniforms. I barely missed this reform myself in Long Beach, California, where, when I was a few years into high school, the district mandated uniforms for K-8 students in order to cut down on gang-related violence. Since then, a few high schools in the district have also adopted uniforms, although students always find ways to subvert uniform codes and their more byzantine cousins, the lengthy public school dress codes that list forbidden items. When I was in high school, girls in gangs, or whose boyfriends were in gangs, would sometimes come to school wearing a forbidden Raider's football team jacket over a similarly verboten halter top. Classy, n'est-ce pas? And yet--creative and subversive in a way that I kind of admire because during my teen years I never had that kind of chutzpah.

I've always been conflicted about dress codes and especially about mandated uniforms for students. I think I might have appreciated a uniform policy in grades 4-6, when I enrolled in classes at a school in a neighboring attendance district, one whose students' families were better off than mine. Getting picked on for not having the latest clothes was demoralizing. (I was fortunate that my parents could buy me at least last season's fashions; some parents can't even afford uniforms for their students.) At the same time, I try to be a champion of personal, independent expression, especially when clothes are used in an attempt to subvert administrative decree. (Sometimes students get a bit, um, flagrant in rebelling: in South Wales earlier this month, students burned their blazers.)

As a third-wave feminist who values the diverse perspectives of women around the world, but also as someone who lacks any substantive religious background, I have conflicted feelings over the UK government's recent decision not to ban veils in schools, a possibility they had been considering because of the growing popularity among some British Muslim women of niqab, a veil that covers the face. A women's rights group in Quebec is also trying to ban hejab as well as yarmulkes, and the Turkey, Tunisia, and France have already banned the veil in public schools and/or elsewhere. The movement to ban veils is spreading. For example, a recent survey of Danes showed 46 percent favor a ban on headscarves in schools, and the Dutch also have mixed feelings about burqas. There has also been at least one case in Spain. Italy, too is struggling with issues surrounding the assimilation of Muslim women.

Zeynab of the fabulous blog Muslimah Media Watch gives a nice summary of the issue, explains one part of these bans that is particularly problematic, and wonders where mainstream U.S. feminist organizations would stand on the issue:

Filing “hejab bans” under religious discrimination isn’t fully incorrect, but neither is it fully correct. Making the hejab bans a religious issue implies that hejab is mandatory and part of Islamic belief. While many Muslim women see it as a mandatory obligation, many Muslim women do not: Islamic scholars still debate verses in the Holy Qur’an and ahadith that pertain to the idea of a woman covering herself. There are many devout Muslim women who don’t observe hejab for whatever reason, and decrying hejab bans on the pretext of religious freedom leaves these women (who are potential allies) out.

The issue of banning hejabs (or any other religious garb or symbols worn on the body) is really an issue of personal freedom, but banning the hejab specifically targets women. The reality of a hejab ban is that a government would (or does, in Turkey’s & France’s cases) not allow women to

  • 4
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
writergal8 5 pts

Not to be rude or anything, but I've found that uniform policies at public schools tend to be very sloppy compared to Catholic and prep school uniforms. Even in Ontario, Canada, where Catholic schools have historically been fully funded by the government (we don't have an official policy separating Church and State up here) PUblic school kids tend to war polo/golf shirts over khakis while Catholic and prep uniforms (especialyl prep uniforms) are more traditional, where kids wear dress shirts TUCKED IN to their pants or skirts. Younger girls often wear tunics (jumpers).

As for covering, religious freedom, etc....people up here are debating the whole case of "reasonable accomodation" and many feel that we're going too far to accomodate religious and cultural minorities. Religious Muslims share many rules with evangelical Christians (such as the prohibition of alcohol), yet Muslims are the first to voice. An eatery at the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus serves halal meat, yet the Muslim students' association refuses to endorse the restaurant because it also serves alcohol*. How come evangelical Christian groups aren't chiming in to this? They don't endorse booze either, yet they don't complain. Evangelical Christians have not historically been part of the "elite" (the old guard elite were mostly mainline Protestant (Anglicans (known as Episcopalians in the US), United Church of Canada (made up of Methodists, Congregationists and some Presbytarians) and Presbytarians) North America, so they're technically a religious minority as well.

* Toronto Star article: http://www.thestar.com/article/268445

My most recent post about accomodation, multiculturalism, etc: http://notreallymillennials.blogspot.com/2007/10/m... ( http://notreallymillennials.blogspot.com/2007/10/m... )

my blogs:

Writing Blog ( http://writergal8.blogspot.com )(for updates on my writing and media plugs about my book)

Shorty Stories ( http://shorty-stories.blogspot.com ) (a blog for petite activism)

Clamo88 5 pts

Personally, I don't get why people make a big deal out of a head scarf.

This is America....land of the free. If a woman feels compelled to cover up for her religious beliefs, who am I to say she can't? I don't want people telling me how to practice my faith, so I am certainly not going to tell someone how they should practice theirs, especially over a piece of fabric.

There are many Christan sects in which women wears bonnets and hats or don't cut their hair. It's hard not to see this as particularly anit-muslim.

Wheat Among Tares ( http://wheatamongtares.blogspot.com )

Bridget Magnus 5 pts

In addition to the dress code of our school district, each school can add items to the "banned clothing list." Frankly, as many items as are on the list at our local junior high school, uniforms would be almost liberating! I could go on about the ways uniforms could help a school -- and there are many ways to help out families who can't afford uniforms (you know you can get typical "uniform" items at Target now, right?)

And as for thongs, what exactly are school officials doing looking at students' underwear? Underwear should not be visible; if it is, send them home, make mom bring appropriate clothing, or force the kid to wear an "I violated dress code today" oversized t-shirt.

But on to the substance of your post, head coverings. I use the generic term because there are regional variations (the funny things you learn living in Dearborn MI). Almost every dress code makes allowances for religious observance: no jewelry except for watches and religious medallions is a rule I recall from one school. Every few years, some school gets in trouble for not allowing a Native American boy to wear braids and eventually has to allow it. I can't honestly see why head coverings are any different except that only women wear them. So forbidding them in fact has a doubly discriminatory effect. Telling these girls they cannot cover their hair will not bring them out of the backwards, sexist, discriminatory world we imagine they inhabit; it will only make them stay at home.

kperfetto 5 pts

I don't even want to touch the religious issues...but as someone who had to wear a uniform to school from grades 1-12, I really don't have a problem with dress codes for students. I mean, is it really violating someone's right to personal expression to ban visible thongs?

Dress codes and uniforms don't always solve the problem of haves vs have-nots, though. It just makes things like bags and shoes more important. Wearing the wrong shoes (Payless knock-offs of Bass Weejuns (sp?), I think) was social suicide. I wish I were exaggerating.
Available Light ( http://kathy-p.blogspot.com ) & Five Dollar Radio ( http://fivedollarradio.blogspot.com/ )