My daughter K had picked out a cute, purple twirly skirt to wear with her obligatory Frozen t-shirt to preschool.

Me: Let’s find a pair of shorts to wear, too.

K: Why? I CAN’T wear SHORTS! *audible sigh* It’s a twirly skirt! I can’t wear shorts with a twirly skirt! I won’t be able to twirl! Me: I am sorry honey, it’s a rule.

To be specific, the dress code at my daughter’s preschool stated:

Please have your child wear shorts under their skirts.

Why? Why does a toddler or preschooler need to wear shorts under her skirt? And I have changed “their” to “her” deliberately, because this rule applies mainly to girls.

Is it for safety reasons? I can’t think of a safety concern related to visible underwear when child sits or twirls. Fewer layers actually might help potty learning or recently potty trained children avoid accidents.

Too distracting for the other preschoolers? This might be the case, but in my experience preschoolers are generally a distracted bunch regardless of what their peers are wearing. And, I am pretty sure they’ve seen plenty of pairs of underwear while in a co-ed classroom that is potty learning together. Or at home. Or any time they watch prime time television or see a magazine or walk through the mall. Plus, on water day, they all wear swimsuits to play in the sprinklers/pool. How is that different than underwear?

Or my least favorite rationale – it’s not lady-like. What is “lady-like” and why should we promote this as a value? What kind messages do we send a young child when we teach them that their body is something about which they should feel ashamed? That they need to wear shorts under their twirly skirt, because showing their underwear, while sitting criss cross applesauce during circle time, is indecent or something that should make them feel embarrassed? And when a dress code only applies to girls, what kind of message does that send? That girls should be ashamed of their bodies, but not boys? Or worse, that girls are responsible for what boys might do if they dress the wrong way.

My research into dress codes reveals (pun intended) a set of policies that:

reinforce archaic, religious and/or subjective views of what’s appropriate or decent, which generally relates to how much skin is showing or shape is visible on a female body, shame students, primarily girls and young women, reinforce the idea that girls are responsible for the behavior of others (you were asking for it), and reinforce the idea that boys can’t control themselves and aren’t responsible for their actions (her skirt didn’t fit, you must acquit!).

It’s sad that rape culture begins in preschool. It’s also sad that many dress codes are based on outdated and often faith-based values like modesty and chastity, while ignoring realities such as hot weather, developing bodies, lack of air conditioning, comfort of students, annoying characteristics of female clothing (e.g. most teen girls have to wear bras. As a bra wearer, I can tell you that it’s nearly impossible to guarantee that my bra straps won’t show at some point). Not to mention stifling self-expression and the ability to discover one’s identity, during a time when young people are trying different things on, while they learn who they are.

Recently a young woman was forced to wear a shame suit (a pair of red sweat pants and a neon yellow shirt with the words “Dress Code Violation” printed in large letters on the chest and leg). She was new to this school, and her skirt was deemed too short and a dress code violation. The Clay County policy reads:

Students shall be dressed so they will not present a clear danger to health and safety; should be tailored in such a manner that because of fit, design, color, texture, or inadequate coverage of the body does not create a classroom or school disruption as determined by the administration….Shorts, dresses or skirts will be 3 inches from the top of the knee; leggings may be worn under approved dress code garments only;

Can someone please explain to me how a neon yellow shirt designed to embarrass and shame a student is less disruptive to a learning environment than a skirt that shows one more inch of leg than what is allowed by an arbitrary policy? Anyone? I’ll wait. And how can it be appropriate to violate her privacy by announcing to the school that she violated the dress code?

What’s become clear is that dress codes are largely discriminatory, sexist and arbitrarily enforced. In many schools, it’s entirely up to the administration or teacher to determine what is or is not appropriate and when a student gets punished. What’s also disturbing is the dress codes that are transphobic – requiring that a student conform to the gender on their birth certificate, rather than their gender identity. And racist – requiring that a young Native American boy cut his hair and a young black girl go home because her dreads (read: black hairstyle) are “faddish” and do not comply with the dress code.

The Courts have largely upheld the right of schools to create and enforce dress code policies, as long as the purposes of doing so are clearly connected to student safety and maintaining an orderly school environment. As such, schools have been able to create and enforce policies that are clearly discriminatory, despite the fact that no large-scale studies have demonstrated a conclusive link between school dress codes or school uniforms and improved student achievement or a reduction in violence.

And when research shows that body shame can lead to issues such as low self-esteem, disordered eating and depression in girls and young women, I think we need to explore the connection between the messages we send our children when they are young and their future self-esteem, empowerment and health.

For now, I will talk with my daughter about how rules are sometimes unfair and when it might be appropriate to stand up to those in power when rules are discriminatory or violate our rights. And, I will let her wear her twirly skirt without shorts, when she’s not in school.

Suggested sound track:

Featured image: Danny Choo

Cute kid image: Steph, all rights reserved.