2185716

What Not to Wear

“Girls, have some self-respect when getting dressed in the morning.” the seventh grade

teacher announced. I turned to look at what provoked her demand: one of my female peers was

wearing a tank top. The teacher, a young female, was summoned from her classroom by my male

educator to inspect potential dress code violations. That day, the clothing item in question was a

basic camisole, worn by half the girls in my grade level, including myself. As the teacher

surveyed the given wardrobes, she sorted the passing and failing outfits, the difference between

most being an inch of fabric on the strap. My friend slipped her jacket back on at the command

of my teacher, covering her exposed shoulders. Her reddened face fell in shame; the attention of

the entire class had been directed at her “inappropriate” violation of clothing. At twelve years

old, we were a class of young, impressionable girls, unconsciously noting social and societal

cues on how to present ourselves. From school to the media, conflicting messages were sent to us

in our most vulnerable state. Fashion magazines celebrated clothing, yet bashed women who

violated unwritten rules. At an unknown point, outfits became inappropriate and indecent; the

line between trendy and provocative was seemingly invisible, yet still existed.

This lecture–directed only at the girls in the classroom–molded my outlook on clothing in

relation to self respect. Did my clothing really reflect my self-worth? Did the amount of respect I

received depend on my wardrobe? For years, I allowed these thoughts to occupy my mind,

influencing the way I presented myself and how I perceived others. Finally, I began to question

why I had these thoughts in the first place and how many other girls felt the same. This inquiry

led me to my ultimate question:​ How do school dress codes affect young people’s perception of

gender roles and body image, as well as their learning environment?

1
 2185716

First and foremost, clothing is protection–a barrier between humans and nature. Over

time, clothing has come to hold cultural and societal significance, as it is used to establish

identity and convey messages. Just as clothing varies between cultures, it varies between

environments. Different styles are associated with different activities, making it socially

unacceptable or inappropriate to wear particular fashions in certain settings. One setting which

typically holds clothing to strict standards is school. Whether it is skirt length or strap width, the

majority of schools regulate clothing worn by students. In the United States, approximately 57%

of public schools enforce a dress code, a percentage which has increased over the past decade

(Toppo). Awareness of the inequalities regarding school dress codes has also increased over the

last decade, as more students and parents challenge the bias and lessons imbedded in the

practice.

Dress codes are utilized to create cohesion by eliminating signs of class within a

community. Policies aim to promote equality in educational environments, evening the playing

field between students from different socioeconomic divisions (Perry). Between 2015 and 2016,

approximately 22% of public schools required uniforms, a steady increase since the 1990s

(Digest of Education). However, majority of schools in America, particularly public schools,

reject the enforcement of uniforms, favoring dress code policies. Dress codes enable a degree of

self-expression, while still enforcing a standard of dress (Kennedy).

When examining how dress codes impact students, it is crucial to understand the capacity

of clothing. "Enclothed cognition" is the phenomenon of how clothing choices impact attitude,

confidence and health (Ferguson). According to the ​Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,​

enclothed cognition consists of two elements–“the symbolic meaning of the clothes and the

2
 2185716

physical experience of wearing them" (Adam and Galinsky). Characteristics of clothing are

reflected in the subject wearing them, as Professor Karen J. Pine states, "When we put on a piece

of clothing we cannot help but adopt some of the characteristics associated with it, even if we are

unaware of it” (Pine). Furthermore, clothing influences how one is perceived and treated by

others (Ferguson). The expression granted through fashion is immense, and a strong connection

exists between self-expression and dress code policies.

The suppression of self-expression was famously addressed in the 1969 Tinker v. Des

Moines Independent School District Supreme Court case, when 13-year old Mary Beth Tinker

was suspended for wearing a black armband in protest of the Vietnam War. Citing that her

school was restricting her political speech, Tinker filed a First Amendment challenge and the

case went to the Supreme Court, where she won (Bugg and Rowland). According to William

Buggs, dress codes tell young students “that their government discourages free expression and

has no interest in producing a new generation of outspoken individuals like Mary Beth Tinker.

And no administrative convenience justifies that message” (Bugg and Rowland). Moreover,

clothing plays a large role in development and identity. When developing personal identity, peers

are a large influence, as forming relationships is a “major developmental task of adolescence”

(Swafford et al). The most common aspect of conformity is dress; students are most likely to

conform to peer culture through clothing. This developmental task “may be resolved or hindered

by clothing choices, as these choices are a reflection of individual expression and are important

in peer integration and acceptance” (Swafford et al).

Additionally, dress codes follow traditional gender roles and normalize cisgender beliefs,

or beliefs of those whose gender identity matches their biological sex. For adolescents struggling

3
 2185716

with their gender identity, the pressure of sex stereotypes can be traumatizing. Sex stereotypes

are perpetuated as dress codes are based on assumptions of how each gender should dress and

act. Transgender and non-binary students are often restricted, unable to match their identity to

the rules (Brodsky and Evans 27). Within the District of Columbia public schools, 35 percent of

dress codes have rules specified for students based on gender. Pressure to conform to sex

stereotypes can be traumatizing to students. Studies have shown that girls perform worse in

science and math if forced to wear gender-specific clothing (Brodsky and Evans 27). Boys and

girls are expected to conform to specific gender roles, adopting clothing which correlates with

stereotypes of their biological sex. Many schools ban earrings, enforcing that boys maintain a

“manly appearance.” The same for girls, who are often expected to dress femininely (Nittle).

Boys with long hair have be sent home from school, along with boys who wear “feminine”

fashion, such as skirts or skinny jeans. The policies lack tolerance to diversity and stick to social

norms (Bates).

When diversity is not reflected in dress code policies, students of color suffer the

consequences. African American males and females report a higher likelihood of being dress

coded, as well as increased risk of discipline (Pavlakis). Increased violations result from policies

which target students of color. Reflections of cultural heritage are often banned, particularly

hairstyles. Dreadlocks, cornrows, twists, or mohawks and afros are often labeled “extreme or

distracting” (Mandal). The policies single out African-American students and make them more

susceptible to suspension, funneling into the issue of racial bias in American schools. According

to the National Women’s Law Center, “black girls are five times as likely as white girls to get

suspended in schools across the country” (Dvorak). In addition, the National Women’s Law

4
 2185716

Center also reported that 68 percent of public schools in District of Columbia which had dress

codes published online banned hair wraps or head scarfs (Brodsky and Evans 10). Since head

scarves and wraps are typically considered cultural and not religious, African American girls are

often barred from wearing them. Schools are mandated to remain neutral on the topic of religion

by the The First Amendment of the Constitution, however it is often misinterpreted and

administrations attempt to prohibit all religious expression. Students have therefore been

punished for wearing headscarves, hijabs, crucifixes and yarmulkes (Mandal). In a study of

public school dress codes across America, it was found that:

Words like “clean”, “neat”, and “distracting” have been used to police Black boys and

girls, removing them from class, threatening them with suspension, and literally cutting

their hair all for wearing their hair the way it naturally grows out of their head. Similarly,

words like “safe” have been used to regulate clothes that reinforce “[ideas of]

criminality” like the hoodies, sagging pants, and oversized t-shirts worn primarily by

boys of color. (Thomas)

Hairstyles and clothing which are culturally related to African Americans are often in

violation of dress code, which commonly use stereotypical language and reinforce prejudice

ideals.

Jennifer Boyden, Director of Early Intervention Services at Kidango, Inc., a childcare and

health service facility, shared her knowledge on how dress codes impact students and children

over an email interview. Boyden has a Master’s Degree in Educational Leadership and

specializes in early intervention, mental health and family child care home education programs.

Boyden explained how self-esteem and appearance can impact learning, “When children don’t

5
 2185716

confidently explore their world, their development is affected.” Boyden revealed that mental

health issues can significantly impact a person’s ability to learn. “We can definitely look at the

damage that certain stereotypes have caused; rape culture, boys will be boys, slut shaming, etc.

At the end of the day, many of these beliefs can potentially lead to trauma, which definitely

affects development,” stated Boyden. “If you look good, you feel better. It’s not just a wives tale

… there are facts to back it up,” Boyden states, referencing Jill L. Ferguson’s “How Clothing

Choices Affect and Reflect Your Self-Image.” One issue Boyden reported is that, “Girls still

aren’t heard. We are frequently dismissed as “crazy”, “irrational”, etc. This can be brought full

circle to the issue of dress codes. If women complain that there is a double standard regarding a

standing dress code, it is likely dismissed.” In relation to the benefits of dress policies, Boyden

added, “I am regularly on site at a high school in East Oakland where gang culture is a very real

threat to all students, even during school hours. The colors worn by students serve to identify

them as gang affiliated. I know that the lack of dress code regularly identifies the “haves” from

the “have nots”.”

While dress codes intend to prevent disruptions in learning environments, it is noted that

policies can have the opposite impact. A study of public schools in the District of Columbia

found that three in four schools’ dress code stated students can be taken out of class due to dress

code infractions (Barrett). When taken out of class due to clothing, administration

unintentionally tells students that their clothing is more important than their education. Another

study of the dress codes in District of Columbia schools found that 74 percent of the public high

schools allowed punishments which resulted in missed class or school (Brodsky and Evans 24).

With the racial bias that dress code displays, girls of color are almost always the ones missing

6
 2185716

school. Missing school causes students to fall behind, making it harder to graduate and succeed.

In the United States, African American women who do not graduate from high school are 2.2

times more likely to be unemployed than white, non-Hispanic women (Brodsky and Evans 28).

In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union found that one North Carolina charter school

illegally discriminates against female students, banning them from wearing pants. Skirts limit

movement and restrict girls during school activities during recess and sitting on the floor. Girls

reported being uncomfortable and cold during the winter (“Decoded Dress”). When students are

uncomfortable, they are unable to learn and develop in their educational environment. According

to a report which studied public schools across the United States, “when people are consciously

thinking about their appearance, they perform worse on various cognitive tasks like math tests

and are more likely to experience eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression (Thomas).

A local expert on child and adolescent psychology is Dr. Kaitlin Tully. Tully is a clinical

psychologist of the Child and Family Psychiatry Department at the Walnut Creek Kaiser Medical

Center. During a sit-down interview, Tully explained, “Across the board gender stereotypes and

societal norms affect childhood and teenage development–whether delaying it or pushing it

forward.” Tully described how sex stereotypes are present in modern society and education,

“Sexism and stereotypes are perpetuated in schools in many ways–dress code being one, as it’s

often unequal and gender-based.” For young girls, dress codes tell them that they are responsible

for inappropriate behavior and that it is on them to cover up if distracting male students, Tully

revealed. “Another way sexism is perpetuated is how teachers interact with students, as well as

their expectations,” stated Tully.

7
 2185716

Female students continually cite that dress policies sexualize them for common clothing

options, claiming that basic clothing is “alluring” or “distracting” for male students (Pavlakis and

Roegman). Dress codes rely on subjective interpretations of language such as “inappropriate,”

and “immodest.” Language used in rules often caters to heterosexual, cisgender males, as it

implies that girls are responsible for male behavior and reinforces the perpetuated idea in

American society that males have less self-control (Chemaly). Dress codes indicate to young

girls that the education of males holds more importance. Likewise, the practice teaches girls to

be compliant to objectification, as if boys are “biologically programmed to objectify and harass

them” (Bates). The attitudes and behaviors taught to young girls extend into adulthood,

promoting acquiescence to future harassment and assault.

Dress codes are one example of how socialization can reproduce a pattern of silence,

compliance and shame. According to a June 2016 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

report, “three out of four targets of harassment never come forward because they fear they won’t

be believed, no action will be taken or, worse, they will face social or professional retaliation”

(Chemaly). In addition, over 40 percent of those who do report harassment claimed they were

punished for doing so (Chemaly). The power dynamic exhibited in dress code enforcement

teaches young girls that they do not have control over their bodies, but rather they must follow

the orders of those who are older and more powerful than them. Dress code policies promote the

narrative that victims of harassment, assault, and rape are at fault due to their clothing, rather

than the perpetrator (Pavlakis and Roegman). Similarly, a 2007 study conducted by the

American Psychological Association found that the objectification of women can “undermine

8
 2185716

confidence in and comfort with one’s own body, leading to a host of negative emotional

consequences, such as shame, anxiety, and even self-disgust,” (Halkidis and Shruti).

Self-esteem and body image are likewise correlated to dress policies. Students who are

“curvier” or plus-sized are more likely to be dress coded compared to their less curvy peers

(Thomas). Those who are more physically developed are viewed as promiscuous by adults, being

disciplined more often for clothing which is tight or revealing (Brodsky and Evans 27). A study

of 481 American public schools found that when examining clothing for girls sizes eight through

fourteen, 41 percent of clothing in teen stores did not meet analyzed dress code policies and were

considered sexualized (Thomas). Even “girls” clothing, in stores such as Abercrombie Kids,

were considered “inappropriate” and could not be worn to school, sexualizing clothing made for

girls younger than 13 years old (Thomas). With the disconnect between clothing options and

dress code policies, young girls are sent conflicting messages about their fashion and bodies.

The sexualization which stems from dress codes is harmful to both male and female

students. The negative impact of sexualization on cognitive and physical function impacts how

boys and men interact with women. The ability to interact intellecutually is necessary for

intimacy with female partners, demonstrating the hinderance of sexualizaton on development

(Harbach). When male students observe educators focusing on girls’ bodies, they learn to

sexualize them. Boys also are able to evade responsibility, as they learn that girls are at fault

when educators call them “distracting.” These lessons translate into student and adult interaction,

as a National Women’s Law Center found that “1 in 5 girls ages 14-18 has been kissed or

touched without her consent” (Brodsky and Evans 27).

9
 2185716

Attitudes regarding sex, gender, race and identity all begin forming at a young age. Many

of the attitudes seen in America, from the objectification of women to prejudice against different

cultures, can be attributed to the attitudes taught to young children. Dress codes hold the

potential to improve learning environments by promoting safety, equality, and acceptance. At the

moment, however, school dress policies are reinforcing shame, and silence in young girls, people

of color, and LGBTQ youth. Students are forced to conform to societal standards regarding race,

religion and gender. Learning environments are not benefiting from current policies, but instead

students are uncomfortable, violated and targeted. Educators should be teaching students how to

recognize their worth, not diminishing it due to their clothing choices. In a time of social change

and empowering movements, adolescents should be given power over their appearance. When

establishing dress codes in schools, administrators must think about the message they send to

young children, and the attitudes they wish to reinforce.

10
 2185716

Works Cited

Adam, Hajo, and Galinsky, Adam D.. “Enclothed Cognition.” ​Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology​, vol. 48, no. 4, 2012, pp. 918–925., doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.008.

Barrett, Kira. “When School Dress Codes Discriminate.” ​NEA Today​, 24 July 2018,

neatoday.org/2018/07/24/when-school-dress-codes-discriminate/. Accessed 18 Jan. 2019.

Bates, Laura. “Everyday Sexism Project: Dress Codes and Rape Culture.” ​Time​, Time, 22 May

2015, time.com/3892965/everydaysexism-school-dress-codes-rape-culture/. Accessed 4

Mar. 2019.

Boyden, Jennifer. Personal Interview. 28 February 2019.

Brodsky, Alexandra, and Nia Evans. ​Dress Coded: Black Girls, Bodies, and Bias in D.C.

Schools​. National Women's Law Center, 2018.

Bugg, William, and Lee Rowland. "Should schools have dress codes?" ​New York Times Upfront,​

30 Jan. 2017, p. 22+. ​Student Resources In Context​,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A482392438/SUIC?u=wal55317&sid=SUIC&xid=1d

54d5d0. Accessed 5 Feb. 2019.

Chemaly, Soraya. "What school dress codes have to do with Harvey Weinstein."

Washingtonpost.com​, 20 Oct. 2017. ​Student Resources In Context,​

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A510610014/SUIC?u=wal55317&sid=SUIC&xid=0e

87a5f1. Accessed 6 Feb. 2019.

11
 2185716

"DECODED DRESS." ​American School & University​, 1 Mar. 2016. ​Student Resources In

Context​,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A449394574/SUIC?u=wal55317&sid=SUIC&xid=24

4425fe. Accessed 4 Mar. 2019.

“Digest of Education Statistics, 2017.” ​National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home

Page, a Part of the U.S. Department of Education​,

nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_233.50.asp?current=yes. Accessed 18 April

2019.

Dvorak, Petula. “Are Black Girls Unfairly Targeted for Dress-Code Violations at School? You

Bet They Are.” ​The Washington Post​, WP Company, 26 Apr. 2018,

www.washingtonpost.com/local/are-black-girls-unfairly-targeted-for-dress-code-violatio

ns-at-school-you-bet-they-are/2018/04/26/623a91dc-4958-11e8-9072-f6d4bc32f223_stor

y.html?utm_term=.0a5853c44190. Accessed 4 Mar. 2019.

Ferguson, Jill L. “How Clothing Choices Affect and Reflect Your Self-Image.” ​HuffPost​,

HuffPost, 5 Feb. 2017,

www.huffpost.com/entry/how-clothing-choices-affect-and-reflect-your-self-image_n_916

3992. Accessed 19 April 2019.

Halkidis, Anna, and Shruti Sathish. “Students Say Dress Codes More for Girls Than Boys.”

Women's ENews​, Red Wheel/Weiser, LLC., 25 Jan. 2016, /. Accessed 4 Mar. 2019.

Harbach, Meredith J.. ​Sexualization, Sex Discrimination, and Public School Dress Codes.

University of Richmond Law Faculty Publications, 2016.

Kennedy, Robert. “Uniforms and Dress Codes - Private School Uniforms and Dress Codes.”

12
 2185716

Private School Review, 1 Mar. 2008,

www.privateschoolreview.com/blog/uniforms-and-dress-codes. Accessed 19 April 2019.

Mandal, Saunak. “Dress Codes and Uniforms.” ​National Youth Rights Association​,

www.youthrights.org/issues/student-rights/dress-codes-and-uniforms/. Accessed 4 Mar.

2019.

Nittle, Nadra. “Students Are Waging War on Sexist and Racist School Dress Codes - and They're

Winning.” ​Vox.com,​ Vox Media, 13 Sept. 2018,

www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/9/13/17847542/students-waging-war-sexist-racist-school-

dress-codes. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.

Pavlakis, Alyssa, and Roegman, Rachel. "How dress codes criminalize males and sexualize

females of color: Too often, school dress codes are enforced in ways that

disproportionately impact students of color--both male and female." ​Phi Delta Kappan,​

Oct. 2018, p. 54. ​Student Resources In Context​,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A562866812/SUIC?u=wal55317&sid=SUIC&xid=79

fd8596. Accessed 4 Mar. 2019.

Perry, Andre. “Dress Coded: Rules and Punishment for Black Girls Abound.” ​The Hechinger

Report,​ 21 May 2018, hechingerreport.org/dress-codes-cant-cover-for-bad-teaching/.

Accessed 17 April 2019.

Pine, Karen J. “Fashion Psychology.” ​Karen Pine RSS​,

karenpine.com/research/fashion-psychology/. Accessed 18 April 2019.

Swafford, Melinda, et al. "The student dress code debate." ​Techniques​, Jan. 2011, p. 10+.

Student Resources In Context,​

13
 2185716

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A245806934/SUIC?u=wal55317&sid=SUIC&xid=69

650f6d. Accessed 6 Feb. 2019.

Thomas, Amber. “The Sexualized Messages Dress Codes Are Sending to Students.” ​The

Pudding,​ pudding.cool/2019/02/dress-code-sexualization/. Accessed 8 Mar. 2019.

Toppo, Greg. “What to Wear? Schools Increasingly Making That Decision.” ​USA Today​,

Gannett Satellite Information Network, 18 Aug. 2013,

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/18/more-school-uniforms/2662387/.

Accessed 8 Mar. 2019

Tully, Kaitlin. Personal Interview. 11 March 2019.

14