By
Neil Hopwood
editor
On
its surface, the notion of instituting school uniforms at the high school
level seems reasonable, considering the growing gang problem, economic
pressures, general discipline problems, and the sometimes questionable
attire worn by students.
School uniforms have been implemented, apparently successfully, at other
local schools, such as Brockington Elementary Magnet School, Rosenwald
Elementary/Middle School and Spaulding Middle School.
But mandating school uniforms at the high school level is far different
than doing so at the elementary or middle school level. At the lower
levels, kids need far more supervision and guidance, because they just
don’t know any better yet. At those young ages, any distractions,
whether it’s caused by clothing or anything else, can be enough
to disrupt academics.
But by the time students reach high school, the role of adults providing
structure becomes a transitional process. By the time they graduate,
students must be prepared to enter the real world and deal with the
real pressures they will face for the rest of their lives. High school
needs to function as a well-supervised and carefully constructed simulation
of real life, in addition to providing the educations necessary for
students to function as successful adults.
If school uniforms are brought into Darlington High School, the first
time students are allowed to dress as they wish inside school will likely
not happen until college.
Yes, taking away free will, the responsibility to make wise clothing
choices, can reduce certain problems caused by slack or inappropriate
dress. But taking away the responsibility to make choices always reduces
potential problems created by individual and free expression.
Mandating school uniforms amounts to an admission that society cannot
police itself without government intervention, that parents and the
community in general are incapable of dressing their children for school.
Doesn’t it make more sense in an open society at the high school
level to simply develop, then enforce, a dress code that creates the
needed environment at school?
Students, and yes, their parents, at some point need to learn what’s
appropriate to wear, and by mandating school uniforms at the highest
level of public school, that learning and maturing process is simply
obliterated. Operating a free and open society is difficult, and it
opens the door to certain abuses, which is probably why much of the
world lives under the thumbs of dictators and tyrants. It’s easier
to mandate things. But do we need to secede yet more control of our
lives, the responsibilities of being adults, to a state-sponsored authority
such as a school?
Those same freedoms we sometimes abuse also open the door to all of
the wonderful things America also represents—entrepreneurship,
artistic expression, democracy, etc.
There’s a growing consensus, discussed in this paper in recent
weeks in stories about the growing local gang problem, that parents
need to be held more accountable for their children’s behaviors.
The News and Press agreed with that general view in an editorial. But
wouldn’t school uniforms once again strip parents of responsibility,
shift it to a state entity, and give up on society’s obligation
to function independently of such oversight? It amounts to a welfare
program.
The letter sent out to parents asking them if they would support mandated
school uniforms amounts to a loaded poll question. The letter does not
objectively frame the issue, and blatantly expresses support for uniforms.
It virtually guarantees the end result desired by those who are researching
the issue. It might as well read: “Drugs are bad, yes or no?”
Of course everyone would check “yes”.
This does not amount to a liberated and open debate about the issue.
An intelligent and thoughtful debate needs to happen before this issue
is decided. Despite the attractiveness of the potential benefits of
school uniforms, implications must be considered. Pros and cons should
be discussed. Why hasn’t this been discussed in an open forum,
such as during school board meetings?
One line in the letter claims that uniforms will “make economic
disparities between students less obvious”. That of course is
true. But it’s also true that communism does its best to level
the playing field, to reduce “economic disparities”, to
reduce the burden of individual expression.
“Economic disparities” are a fact of life, a perpetual result
of a free market society. There are always those who have more than
others. Pretending those differences don’t exist doesn’t
mean that they don’t, and seems the theater of a closed, regulated,
strangled society, not an American society.
By mandating school uniforms we are conceding that the American way,
that freedom itself, represents an obligation that society simply cannot
bear. The rubber meets the road in our schools. The primary interaction—the
longest interaction—between the state and society happens in our
public schools. Must we concede that that interaction can only succeed
when students and parents are relieved of the responsibility of dressing
themselves?
Look before you leap.
________________________________________
Read Cathy Elliott’s rebuttal editorial in the here.
|