args

Mandatory School Uniforms are beneficial to schooling

I find it interesting that my opponent cautions to "keep personal bias out" when he has assumed the USA as the situation of his entire argument, in addition to citing two conservative - family values based sources. However his point is well taken. Then my opponent brings up a set of wondrous statistics - according to him the institution of school uniforms in Long Beach, California caused "overall school crime decreased 36 percent. Fights decreased 51 percent, sex offenses decreased 74 percent, weapons offenses decreased 50 percent, assault and battery offenses decreased 34 percent, and vandalism decreased 18 percent." This would be great - if it was because of the school uniforms. It wasn't. Several educational professionals noted that "it was curious" that school uniforms were cited as being the reason for the crime rate drop when "a $1 million grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation for the improvement of teaching methods" was entirely disregarded. Hmm, teachers vs uniforms, I wonder which could be more effective. (1) In fact, a University of Notre Dame study conducted on the fact "belies the claims that uniforms improve discipline: Our findings indicate that student uniforms have no direct effect on . . . behavioral problems" (1) Now my opponent excuses the cost of school uniforms, another extra cost for parents - or, as my opponent notes correctly, on the already financially burdened school system. This in addition to the cost of casual clothes, which readers will know from life experience (remember being 16) are going to be worn in lieu of uniforms at any time a student is not in school or returning home. Gavin de Becker is yet another celebrity writer whose credibility is Oprah Winfrey. The topic he does speak to is fear in America and, especially after Sept. 11th 2001, he does it very effectively. "Let's take Dress codes and uniforms can make school more about the learning and less about the symbolic individual expression of fashion. Students are left to communicate through language as opposed to clothing, style, designer names, bandanas, or gang colors. Dress codes help make everyone a student, as opposed to some kids being rich, some being tough, or anti-this, or pro-that. It is unifying-as the word uniform implies. Other places young people visit will still allow personal expression through fashion, but just as some professions wear business attire, and police, nurses, and firefighters wear uniforms, the school uniform is emblematic of what one does. At school, kids are there to be students." Let us ignore a blatant disregard for individualism here. What de Becker forgot to mention is that there are plenty of ways for students to separate themselves with school uniforms on. Necklaces, hair colour, length, and a variety of other characteristics are enough to create cliques if that is what students want. Who is to say that speaking doesn't create differences between students? Far more so, in fact, than does what one is wearing. But this leads us to my main point, which is that in real life students will have to deal with people being different. Not necessarily after graduating high school either. In fact, there is no reason that things couldn't go the other way - students who have unwashed uniforms, or individuals outside of school might be treated worse because they do not have uniforms. Individualism. This is a core and too often disregarded part of humanity. People will be different (see above) and it's up to us to show the youth of our society how to be tolerant of each other in present and future. What if students encounter a highschool dropout on the way back from school? What about people from other schools? What about weekends? Won't gang members recognize each other regardless? This is interesting because it relates to totalitarian societies as well - anyone who even attempts to be an individual at any time is discriminated against, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, you name it they all had uniforms and they were proud of them and anyone who didn't was evil. This is in fact a strong argument against private schools generally - one of the main functions of school is to integrate different people in different parts of society and teach them to tolerate one another. In private schools, especially ones with uniforms, this often does not happen and it is worse with religious schools, where individuals are taught their religion and not exposed to different cultures or views of them. As for the workplace, my opponent's entire argument is focused on the idea that A) Individuals are ALL going to go to post - secondary institutions where conformity is seen as important and B) Inhibits other forms of expression. First of all, very few jobs are public service, so I see little relevance there - those that want to go into public service will have that mind set, but seeing as how few individuals are police/fire/ambulance see little relevance here - a minority of us will also end up wearing bandanas and playing guitar :) - should everyone in school have to because a few do? But then we go to business, where I can make a similar argument. Small business and individual entrepreneurship are core capitalistic values, and since we're dealing with this debate in a somewhat Americentric/capitalistic way I think my opponent has undermined his own argument - the individualism that my opponent is really fighting against is very necessary in capitalism. In fact, small businesses employ at least half of all Americans (3) and someone, somewhere, some individual began those businesses and they were an individual, and those they employ may wear uniforms or, often, they may not. My opponent has now said two contradictory statements - that clothing causes disparagement between individuals AND that it stops them from voicing opinions - which is it? Or shall we speak to the truth of the matter which is that usually nobody cares? I say usually because clothing can represent something else - a rebellion against the norm, the kind of individualism which is, as I have mentioned, critical to capitalism and, of course, democracy. One of the few similarities between the two is that both are focused on new ideas, and clothing can be a way to represent that just as speech can. Speech is more effective, but nobody merely does not put up their hand in class and question something just because of the shirt they are wearing! This is what separates an authouritarian society from a libertarian one, a closed minded one from a productive one. If students are taught in school, through the implementation of school uniforms and various other pointless and often excessive rules introduced in school that they cannot be individuals and that that isn't important, then that is what they will believe as adults. I despise the designer label thing as much as the next guy - uniforms won't take that away, there is a life outside of school for students, where I would say they do a good part of their learning. If we teach the youth of our society that they all must conform to the same standards or be picked on by teachers and fellow students alike then they will grow up to be less interesting, less creative individuals and the economy will suffer. One last thing - is my opponent planning on consulting students? How about parents? And if not, when does school go from being something society gives to it's younger members to being a kind of mandatory service age 7 - 16, and why make it seem more that way when many already think that way? Given the evidence, as well as the fact that in viewing and voting on this rational debate our viewers have already shown that they believe in individualism and individual thought, I urge them to vote against. 1) http://www.gate.net... 2) http://www.barnesandnoble.com... 3) http://usgovinfo.about.com...