The non-clothing aspects of the uniform policy are arbitrary, biasedly enforced, and do not have a good reason to be instituted. Their place within the policy should be reconsidered, and maybe removed.

By non-clothing aspects, I mean everything OUTSIDE OF the polos, spirit shirts, hoodies, pants, shorts, skirts, socks, and shoes. The rules regarding accessories and body parts such as the ‘no tattoos’, ‘no unnaturally colored hair’, ‘no more than 1 bracelet’, ‘no dark nail polish’, ‘no excessive makeup’, ‘no large hoop earrings’, 'no facial jewelry', etc, are arbitrary. They are based on the whim of the group of individuals that created the policy.

People defend the strict uniform policy by saying it reduces peer pressure, improves student conduct, makes wardrobes easier to chose, and helps uniformity and a positive school image. I respond to this by saying of course they do, but the non-clothing aspects do not contribute meaningfully to these reasons. Peer pressure exists through allowed accessories, student conduct is not improved or diminished by accessories, accessories are optional parts of the ‘wardrobe’, and the school image is promoted through our students being thoughtful, articulate young adults and not what clothes we wear.

The enforcement on these arbitrary rules is also severely biased. Any TJCA student that has had this rule enforced can tell you something along the lines of “So-and-so did the same thing and I only got caught because I was X”.

These arbitrary rules do not align with the intrinsic truth (because they are arbitrary) and should not be instituted. However, they are. Something ought to be done to reverse this moral wrong, instead of appealing to tradition.

The undersigned agree that the non-clothing aspects, as defined clearly above, should have their inclusion within the uniform policy re-thought out, and perhaps even removed from the policy.