by Devin Cornelius ‘12

Students entered this school year donning their favorite summer outfits, all of which were picked out with last year’s dress code in mind; meaning no shirts with spaghetti straps or expressing profanity and no skirts and shorts shorter than finger tip length. Unbeknownst to students, the school’s Instructional Leadership Team, social studies teacher Christine McKeldin, a staff liaison, and the SGA were busy developing a new dress code during the summer.

Upon opening their agenda books on the first day, students found a briefer policy generally stating that pants are to be worn around the waist and offensive, strapless or midriff-revealing shirts are not allowed. To replace a variety of more specific violations, the policy more broadly says that clothing must not be “distracting.” The new policy aims, “to be more realistic about the choices available to students,” said Assistant Principal Renée Brimfield.

The policy was also modified to retire certain rules and practices which seemed unfair. The “finger-tip-length” rule, for instance, was unfair towards girls with longer arms. Rather than demanding a specific length, the new policy asks students to look “appropriate” clarified Brimfield.

Although the policy was intended to expand and permit students’ freedom of expression, there seem to be more violations and complaints from students than usual. Students are even feeling more limited than in previous years. “The policy is so vague now that I’m not sure what’s allowed. Every staff member has a different view of what’s distracting and what’s a violation,” said senior Amanda Lin, who wore shorts that were judged to be too short and feels her dress code violation was unjust.

Principal Bill Gregory, in his remarks at the Senior Class meeting in the cafeteria earlier this month, said that he wants to see students sporting “business casual.” The term, commonly used in the professional workplace, refers to attire deemed informal and comfortable while still being dignified and conservative. Although such phrases as “not distracting,” and “business casual” were intended to give students parameters for acceptable wear rather than rigid rules, some students and school staff are worried about consistency in enforcement. One teacher might view an outfit as “distracting” when another does not.

“At the start of the year, I was a little unsure of some aspects of the new policy,” said math teacher Michelle Harriger who met with Gregory for further clarification and now feels fully informed.

With a more interpretational dress policy, students are given more choices for attire. However, staff members also have more flexibility to deem an outfit as inappropriate. “My clothes were within policy I think. My teachers didn’t say anything to me, except for a staff member I didn’t know. I feel like I’m getting in trouble for opinion rather than a written rule,” said senior Courtney Brown, who wore a shirt viewed by a staff member as distracting and was made to wear a t-shirt over top of it.

Brimfield acknowledges the leeway implied in the new dress policy but feels that staff members are indeed implementing it accurately.

Furthermore, there may be instances where an outfit’s appropriateness changes throughout the day, causing one teacher to notice a violation while another may not. “Outfits often shift as students walk, throw book bags over their shoulders, etc. Consequently, it may seem to students as though an outfit which was overlooked by one teacher is considered inappropriate by another,” said Harriger.