In Monday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Mike Nichols writes about a mother and her crusade against school uniforms.
When it comes to school uniforms, I know what I'm talking about. I spent years wearing standard-issue Catholic school plaid skirts.
Were my civil rights violated?
Was I victimized?
Should I sue for reparations?
Nichols writes:
Ronda Berkowitz claims she's not going to sue, but she is ticked off enough to talk to the media about what she considers to be a violation of her daughter's civil rights.
Berkowitz says, "I totally disagree with school uniforms."
I totally disagree with Berkowitz.
At the end of his column, Nichols neatly sums up the virtue of school uniforms.
EXACTLY!
That's exactly what a uniform does.
Instead of school uniforms stripping kids of their individuality, their personalities, talents, and unique characteristics that set them apart from everyone else are allowed to shine.
Does Berkowitz really think that what her daughter wears to school is so important in terms of defining her, that to require a uniform for students infringes on her civil rights?
I've always thought that using self-expression as an argument against school uniforms is ridiculous.
What could be more superficial?
Rather than taking away kids' freedom of expression, I think the uniforms actually serve to free them from the constraints of a shallow culture grounded in materialism.
The emphasis can more readily be placed on their special qualities as individuals when the focus is taken off their clothes.
Uniforms are actually an opportunity for meaningful self-expression.
I never felt violated wearing my plaid skirt.
I never felt limited.
If anything, uniforms helped teach me to look beyond the material trappings of the surface and get to know the person.
I didn't lose my identity because I wore a uniform.
I really think it played a significant role in allowing me to truly express myself and in giving me confidence in myself as a person.
There's no way I would consider those many years in plaid skirts as a violation of my civil rights.
I didn't look at it as being forced to conform. To the contrary, school uniforms accentuated my uniqueness in ways far deeper than my choice of clothes ever could express.
When it comes to school uniforms, I know what I'm talking about. I spent years wearing standard-issue Catholic school plaid skirts.
Were my civil rights violated?
Was I victimized?
Should I sue for reparations?
Nichols writes:
Ronda Berkowitz is an unhappy mom.
Her daughter is about to enter McKinley Middle School in Racine, where the powers-that-be are planning a uniform policy that, Ronda says, could violate her daughter's civil rights.
"I believe that it really is against my child's civil rights," she told the Racine paper. "They should be able to express who they are through the way they dress. The child should be able to choose what they wear, within reason."
...Ronda, when I talked to her over the weekend, said she will not sue.
But she really does believe that making a kid wear a uniform is a civil rights violation.
She used the example of a kid who likes to wear soccer garb.
"Should I have him not wear his soccer stuff, which is his identity and part of him?" she asked me.
"They should be able to proudly display their accomplishments and that is, to me, part of their civil rights."
..."I totally disagree with school uniforms," is the way she put it, "totally disagree."
"Basically, they should be able to express themselves within guidelines, and a uniform does not allow them to do that."
Ronda Berkowitz claims she's not going to sue, but she is ticked off enough to talk to the media about what she considers to be a violation of her daughter's civil rights.
Berkowitz says, "I totally disagree with school uniforms."
I totally disagree with Berkowitz.
At the end of his column, Nichols neatly sums up the virtue of school uniforms.
What a uniform does, actually, is force kids to express themselves in different - some would say more important - ways.
EXACTLY!
That's exactly what a uniform does.
Instead of school uniforms stripping kids of their individuality, their personalities, talents, and unique characteristics that set them apart from everyone else are allowed to shine.
Does Berkowitz really think that what her daughter wears to school is so important in terms of defining her, that to require a uniform for students infringes on her civil rights?
I've always thought that using self-expression as an argument against school uniforms is ridiculous.
What could be more superficial?
Rather than taking away kids' freedom of expression, I think the uniforms actually serve to free them from the constraints of a shallow culture grounded in materialism.
The emphasis can more readily be placed on their special qualities as individuals when the focus is taken off their clothes.
Uniforms are actually an opportunity for meaningful self-expression.
I never felt violated wearing my plaid skirt.
I never felt limited.
If anything, uniforms helped teach me to look beyond the material trappings of the surface and get to know the person.
I didn't lose my identity because I wore a uniform.
I really think it played a significant role in allowing me to truly express myself and in giving me confidence in myself as a person.
There's no way I would consider those many years in plaid skirts as a violation of my civil rights.
I didn't look at it as being forced to conform. To the contrary, school uniforms accentuated my uniqueness in ways far deeper than my choice of clothes ever could express.
6 comments:
I loved school uniforms! They make all students look equal. It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor. I don't understand this mom's "expressing yourslef" logic! Instead of making it such a big thing, parents should probably focus on quality of education. Well...
Good point. I wonder if this mom puts as much energy into focusing on her daughter's education as she does whining about uniforms and civil rights.
While I support a private school's right to require uniforms in a public school it's state power over individuals. Uniforms do violate personal rights because it's compulsory conformity. A reasonable dress code is one thing, but dictating styles is another. It's like telling people how to wear their hair. I'm old enough to remember when a guy growing his hair like the Beatles was considered subversive and got him kicked out school.
These rules are acceptable in a private school because it's a private institution that people voluntary associate or disassociate with. But a public school, which is mandatory, is able to exercise state power over people. While I'm not arguing for the abolition of public schools, this power should be questioned.
I understand what you're saying about private versus public schools.
I disagree with you about civil rights and uniforms in the public schools.
The state requires "compulsory conformity" all the time. Immunizations are one example. I don't think requiring uniforms is an abuse of the state's power. Not even close.
Also, public schools aren't mandatory.
I think the bottom line is that it is indeed an infrigdement of civil rights.
Anytime, anyone is denied access to a PUBLIC and or CIVIL place of meeting due to religion, race, creed, beleifs, identy, etc., is having their civil rights violated.
Does not matter if uniforms are a plus or negative; the issue lies in what is within the laws; and are laws being broken?
No laws are being broken.
Post a Comment