If there’s one constant at LFA, it’s a population disillusionment with the dress code. Too much, too little, too sexist, too *fill in the blank*. Satisfaction and dress code never seem to go hand in hand in our community. Why? 

In all certainty, vagueness is the culprit. It seems as though the vast majority of the dress code lives in a gray area of the unsaid. LFA students who identify as female are most likely all too familiar with the concept of having a minimum of three finger thickness in a tank top and an arms length skirt or dress. This concept has been backed with dress codings from teachers. However, no such distinction exists within the dress code. No discussion of strap width exists, simply the necessity to have any. 

Also confusing is the prohibition of T-Shirts. Though it is widely accepted that T-Shirts not of graphic nature (namely for female identifying students) are adequate clothing, it is still written into the dress code that T-Shirts are not allowed. What is allowed is a dress shirt or blouse. But when the line between these types of shirts and  t-shirts becomes blurred it leaves further wiggle room in the dress code. However this wiggle room can then lead students to being reprimanded for taking advantage of it. 

Newly added to the dress code is the ability to wear any sweatshirt, LFA or not. It could be said that this change was an effort to make it simpler on students and teachers because too many students simply chose to wear them before they were included in the dress code. But this quite literally negates the entire purpose of a dress code, or at least what LFA touts the dress code to mean. Continually it is expressed that the purpose is to enforce Business Casual dress to make a more seamless integration into the professional world. Of course, there are more contributing factors such as tradition and the nature of private schools themselves but at its core business casual appears to be the driving force behind the dress code. Sweatshirts are not business casual. Arguably even less so than a t-shirt. Sweatshirts as well can have the same content on them as graphic T-shirts. So why discriminate against one as opposed to the other. If there are going to be constant amendments to the dress code then what is the purpose of it? Its existence then falters from the law to mere suggestion due to this constant fluctuation. 

Most importantly, despite the fact that dresscode is becoming continually more subjective and simultaneously inclusive in its language, in practice dress code points are still dispensed with the utmost consideration of gender. Specifically, the female identifying portion of the LFA population still confronts the brunt of criticism when it comes to their clothing choices. How can teachers and staff categorize and quantify dresses and skirts that are too short if the dress code doesn’t even do it itself. “Body parts that should otherwise be covered” as stated on LFA’s website, is simply what is described in the dress code as related to bottoms. A statement where practically no specificity can be found outside of the obvious. 

Students subsist on a communal understanding or “version” of what the dress code is as do administrators and teachers. While it makes perfect sense that the dress code is a living, breathing document, it seems to be changing to make what is widely understood less so. Thus, if it’s going to be enforced it should be in the dress code. Write in the three finger rule. Write in when T-shirts are acceptable. Write in the goal of the dress code so that students feel less penalized for no reason. Remove the obscurity and simply say it how it is.