Rogarian Argument Jessica Ledgerwood
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Ashford University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
ESL
Subject
English
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by GrandArmadillo4054
1
Jessica Ledgerwood
English Composition II
02/19/2024
Pro-Uniform vs. Ant-Uniform
The contention on school dressing policy is age-old and transverse across social, legal, political, and economic lenses. The proponents of a uniform dress code argue that it fosters self-confidence and eliminates socioeconomic differences among learners, positively affecting academic performance. The opponents cite the First Amendment and argue that the dress code infringes on personal freedom and restricts diversity in the school environment. Both sides give credible and well-supported arguments that have shaped the conversation and
legal policies on dress codes. Some institutions have adopted less popular and anti-uniform policies and offer case studies to investigate and understand the role and impact of uniforms. However, the main distinction between the proponents and opponents is the basis of observation and reference of economic, cultural, social, or behavioral impact. In a policy report, Wendell Anderson takes a pro-uniform stance and supports the dress code as a canon for exploring order and uniformity to enhance teaching and learning.
On the other hand, Samantha Deane takes an anti-uniform stance. She argues that schools should train children to face and embrace diversity, and a forced uniformity undermines the objectivity of schools as interactive social spaces. However, as a matter of contention, dress codes exist in a well-guarded space with social theories, policies, and legal foundations. This shows the need for continued discourse to create a collective understanding
of dress codes and adopt a shared consensus.
The age-old dress code policy stems from a rich history of exploring the connection between dressing and behavior. According to Anderson, "the dictum "Dress right, act right" was heard often in schools in the 1950s and '60s during campaigns to curb juvenile
2
delinquency" (4). It explains the basis of the dress code as inspired by a motion to eliminate chaos in institutions and improve learning outcomes. President Clinton later sanctioned the idea in 1996 following decades of school dressing prohibitions and scuffles between institutions, learners, and other stakeholders. The key advantages of uniforms include diminishing exclusion based on dressing, reduction in gang affiliation, decrease in violent activity, and enhanced focus on learning. Also, uniforms have been linked to higher student performance, an observation disputed by opponents and critics stating that the link between dress code and academic performance is undefined. Also, uniforms are cost-effective in the long run and promote access to education by reducing absenteeism. Anderson explores the process of defining dress code as a shared activity. He suggests exploring commonalities and developing targeted and effective dress codes and dress policies that align with learners, parents, teachers, regulators, and other stakeholders. Deane contests the argument for dress code by establishing that it does not create cohesion but enhances differences by omitting differences. He notes that "I argue not that children consciously experience school uniforms as uniforming, but that school uniforms and their preceding policies assume that confronting strangers—an imperative of living in a democratic polity—is something that requires seeing sameness instead of recognizing the difference. (111). The supposed rustication for the dress code is to create uniformity and inclusion. However, according to Deane, it enhances a blind understanding of diversity and denies young learners the opportunity to explore diversity and understand social, political, and economic differences. It is a missed opportunity to teach about diversity and the values and ability to confront differences. Deane anchors the argument in social justice; "social justice is about recognizing grave injustices between individual persons and groups of people living in or being prevented from living in the world." (111). It is fundamentally lacking to teach children to conform and ignore the depth and role of individuality in society. A dress
3
code postpones the craving for diversity and undue pressure on learners to integrate into society after graduation. Deane focuses on the impact of uniforms in creating a forced sense of cohesion while ignoring the specific and crucial elements of diversity. A dress code is contentious, and decades of conversation and discussion have yet to foster common ground. According to Anderson, dress code invites commonality and a sense of belonging and responsibility, enhancing learning outcomes (4). According to Deane, it is a distraction that ignores diversity and forces leaders to reject their individuality for a common idea of acceptance (119). However, the authors agree that there is a need to examine profoundly and exploit common ideologies across the divide. The shared objective of improving student safety and academic performance should guide dressing policies. Also, rethinking dress codes in line with diversity is crucial in teaching societal, racial, cultural, political, and economic differences that are relevant and key to a cohesive society. Conclusively, dress policies are well-thought-out guidelines supported by age-old research and findings. It was invented to solve safety concerns in schools and promote inclusive education. Therefore, the anti-uniform arguments are relevant and vital as they present alternative ideas to help create better, more inclusive school-dressing policies. The fundamental concept is understanding the role of dressing policy as a facet to support the primary objective of education in society.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
References
Anderson, W. (2002). School Dress Codes and Uniform Policies.
Policy Report
.
Deane, S. (2015). Dressing Diversity: Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms.
Philosophical Studies in Education
,
46
, 111-120.
1.
How does the Rogerian model of argument help you better understand the topic being discussed? Why is it a good practice to acknowledge both sides of the argument? (3-4 sentences) Hearing both sides of the argument before being set on your chosen side is very important. It allows you to view all the facts and analyze where both sides come from. It is important to hear both sides of the argument to avoid being persuaded by one side and being biased in your argument. 2.
How might the Rogerian approach help you gain insight into your own argumentative essay? (2-3 sentences). I will use the Rogerian approach in my argumentative essay to avoid any bias in the essay. The Rogerian approach is a great technique to help you efficiently produce an argumentative essay.