Some common sense objections to the school uniform policy

The Evangeline Parish School Board’s policy committee recently approved an update to the district’s uniform dress code, allowing students parishwide to wear sweatshirts as part of their school uniforms. The sweatshirts, however, must match the approved uniform colors—blue, gray, white, or khaki—that have been part of the policy since its inception in 1999.
That detail is important. The purpose of a uniform is right there in the word itself: “uni,” meaning one or the same. A variety of colors or styles undermines the intent of uniformity. The more options students are given, the less “uniform” the appearance becomes. Such “choices” makes the school uniform code anything but “uniform.”
The widespread adoption of uniforms in public schools can be traced back to 1999, following the tragic shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. At that time, many districts—including Evangeline Parish—introduced uniform dress codes as a way to promote safety and reduce visible social differences. Reports following the Columbine tragedy noted that the shooters wore dark trench coats that made them stand out from their classmates, many of whom dressed in more traditional “prep” styles. The idea behind uniforms was to reduce such contrasts and, hopefully, lessen divisions among students.
Over the years, supporters of school uniforms have argued that they promote equality, reduce distractions, and create a sense of belonging and school pride. By eliminating obvious socioeconomic differences, uniforms can help students focus more on academics and less on fashion competition. They can also make it easier for staff to identify students on campus or during emergencies.
However, there are also strong arguments against strict dress codes. Critics point out that uniforms can limit self-expression, add financial strain for families—especially those with multiple children—and do not necessarily stop bullying. Bullying is a complex social problem that stems from behavior and attitudes, not clothing. Students who wish to bully others will always find something to criticize, whether it’s dirty or worn clothing, hairstyles, or even school supplies.
In fact, some of the poorest students in our schools may own only one uniform shirt and one pair of pants, which they must wear day after day. When those clothes become worn or too small, those students are often the ones most likely to be teased. The truth is, uniforms alone cannot eliminate cruelty or prejudice.
From a practical standpoint, uniforms also represent an additional cost for families. While all children need clothing, uniform attire cannot double as everyday wear for most students. Very few young people are going to wear their school polos and khakis outside of school hours. For parents already stretched thin, uniforms represent an extra financial demand, not a replacement for regular clothing.
And if the goal of uniforms is truly to ensure fairness and prevent social divisions, then why are there exceptions for spirit shirt days, jeans days, or Homecoming dress-up days? If bullying and peer pressure are the main concerns, are they somehow acceptable on Fridays or during Homecoming week? And what of the students who do not purchase spirit shirts (many for financial reasons), which change every year?
As a retired public school teacher with 37 years of classroom experience, I’ve seen both sides of the argument. I understand the appeal of uniformity—but I also recognize that differences in appearance can serve a purpose. When a student chooses not to comply with dress expectations, that behavior can be a valuable signal to educators that something may be wrong. Non-conforming students often draw attention to themselves, and that can alert teachers to potential behavioral or emotional issues before they escalate.
During my years teaching in a large St. Mary Parish high school—one with more students than the entire population of Basile—it was always difficult to identify students outside my own classes when discipline issues arose while I was on duty at recess and lunchtime. There were no uniforms at that time, and I often had to rely on what a student was wearing to describe them to administrators: a tall white blonde male student in a blue and red striped long sleeved collared Gap shirt, for example. In a school with identical uniforms, that description would have been far less helpful.
In the end, the debate over school uniforms comes down to balance—between safety and self-expression, between equality and individuality. Uniforms can serve a purpose, but they are not a cure-all for the deeper challenges our schools face, such as poverty, discipline, and respect for others.
Whether students are wearing blue, gray, white, or khaki sweatshirts, what matters most is that we continue teaching them kindness, understanding, and responsibility—the qualities no school uniform can ever enforce.
When I was a student, we had a very strict code, but no uniforms. In fact, I can remember when girls could not wear pants, and no one was allowed to wear shorts.
If I were on the school board, I would be promoting and enforcing a “dress code” but not school uniforms. For example, the current code specifies that male students can not wear beards, but it is not hard to see on campus or at Friday night football games that this simple and easy to enforce code is not being followed.
It is past time to restudy the usefulness and purpose of a school uniform policy.