MANIFESTO CALLING TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO OF THE DRESS CODE POLICY
The current Dress Code policy promotes the maturity and responsibility of the student body. By gaining the academic freedom in making decisions on the way to dress, we empower the student body to treat this privilege as a responsibility to make accountable decisions.
Before 2006, De La Salle University had a stricter form of Dress Code that governed the student body. Students were prohibited from wearing certain types of clothes, such as skirts/shorts with hemlines higher than three (3) inches above the knee cap, blouse/shirt showing the midsection while standing/walking, flip flops and etc. Under the discretion of the Discipline Office, those who are said to have violated any of the provision/s were given a minor offense. This policy, however, was changed and by School Year (SY) 2006-2007, the University adopted a different form of Dress Code. In the SY’s 2006-2009, if anyone is offended by the clothes worn by a student, he/she can ask for a Dress Code Reminder (DCR) form from the Student Council (SC) to be issued to the “offender”. The accumulation of three (3) DCR forms would result to the student being referred to the Office of Career and Counseling Services (OCCS) to enable him/her to explain and be heard for the choices made. Such policy was implemented because the Student Handbook Board believed that there is a need for the violators to be reminded that they may have offended the sensibilities of other people. This year, the Student Handbook is being revised and discussions regarding the Dress Code Policy Implementing Guidelines (DCPIG) have begun.
The Student Council is against the implementation of the DCPIG for the following reasons. First is that everyone is entitled to practice the “right to freedom of opinion and expression”. As it is stated in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”, no one, therefore, exempted from practicing this right.
Second, Lasallians are mature individuals. The student body knows the possible consequences of wearing certain types of clothes. As much as it can be said that having a dress code is a preparation for the professional world, once in the situation, students know how to comply. Simple attire requirements for OJT, talks, seminars, group reports and alike are followed once asked. Lasallians know what “professionalism” is.
Third, DLSU has adopted the Transformative Learning (TL) pedagogy as a framework for teaching two (2) years ago. This framework promotes critical and progressive thinking among students and the university. It also, according to Cummins & Sayers, builds “student awareness of democratic ideals and gives them the academic and critical literacy tools they will need for full participation". This framework is in line with the Theory of Constructivism. Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning claims that this theory believes that “people should construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences”. TL should allow the students to develop their inherent knowledge and gain new views. Jack Mezirow, an Emeritus Professor of Adult and Continuing Education who has initiated a transformative learning movement in adult education, defines TL as being “about helping learners to critically reflect on, validate, and effectively act on their interpretations and ways of thinking. It involves critical and autonomous thinking, something that all educators hope to inspire in their students.” This framework is very liberal in essence, whereas the proposed DCPIG is very conservative. The implementation of DCPIG, therefore, contradicts the purpose and goals of the framework. It does not promote but rather hamper critical and autonomous thinking. A chance to embrace liberty and the opportunity to learn appropriateness, respect, and responsibility should not be hindered by such policies.
Fourth, the University promotes holistic development but the DCPIG prevent such personal and educational growth from taking place since the students and organizations need to work with such a limiting policy. A research stated that people wearing casual clothes that they feel comfortable in have positive effects on their performance and on the individual as well. According to the respective researches done by Sweeney, Gutierrez and Freese, if an individual feels better and is more comfortable, he/she will be more productive. A policy that hinders students, in general, from wearing what they choose to could have negative effects on the quality of their performance. McPherson on the other hand found out that “wearing casual clothing can boost morale, improve quality, encourage more open communication, and increase productivity by creating a more comfortable environment”.
Lastly, there are other universities that don’t have a dress code but still, have upheld their name, reputation and have been known for their quality of education and students. Examples are Harvard University and Stanford University, which asks students to simply dress casually. In the University of Iowa, “Students are taught that what matters has more to do with the ‘content of their character’ than anything external”. Our very own University of the Philippines has no form of dress code being followed, and yet, has not been judged on the kind of students and professionals they mold. This supports the argument that what the students wear does not define them and the university they are in. What students wear does not define what they learn, and it doesn’t make anyone less intelligent, nor does it affect the quality of education the university offers.
We call on all the sectors to recognize the right, the maturity and the sense of responsibility of every Lasallian. Each is capable of making decisions and mature enough to realize that there is a need to be responsible for any action taken. Again, the current Dress Code policy promotes the maturity and responsibility of the student body. By gaining academic freedom in making decisions on the way to dress, empowers the student body to treat this privilege as a responsibility to make accountable decisions. The current policy is a shift from the punitive approach of giving punishments to violations, to being transformational since it is done through reminders, peer encouragement and counseling with the goal of instilling correct values and sensitivity in each Lasallian. The solution to the current predicament is to have a better implementation of the current Dress Code policy, rather than shifting to a punitive and limiting one.
Bibliography
3. Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning, http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/
4. Cummins, Jim & Sayers, Dennis (1995), Brave New Schools, St. Martin's Press: New York.
5. Different Correspondences
6. Sweeney, T. (1999). Proceed with caution. Credit Union Management, 22(6), 38-39.
7. Biecher, E., Keaton, P. N., & Pollman, A. W. (1999). Casual dress at work. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 64(1), 17-20
8. McPherson, W. (1997). “Dressing down” in the business communication curriculum. Business Communication Quarterly, 60(1), 134-146
9. Kappa Omicron Nu Honor Society, http://www.kon.org/urc/maloney.html
10. DLSU SC Constitution
11. Faculty Focus, http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/instructional-design/transformative-learning-qa-with-patricia-cranton/
12. Columbia University, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/tc/parker/adlearnville/transformativelearning/mezirow.htm
