 |
| university-dress-code-enforcement-highlights.jpg |
Higher institutions, universities, polytechnics, and colleges are meant to be places where character is refined, intellect is sharpened, and discipline is internalised. They are not just centres for certificates, but environments where society expects a certain level of order, responsibility, and maturity to be cultivated.
This is why the debate over campus dress codes refuses to go away. Some argue that students are adults and should therefore be free to dress however they like. Others insist that a dress code is necessary to protect the integrity of academic spaces. The real question, however, is not whether students are adults, but whether adulthood alone is enough to guarantee responsible behaviour.
Adulthood does not automatically translate to maturity. Just as our fingers are not equal, adults are not equal in judgment, discipline, or restraint. Saying “they are adults, they should know better” ignores reality. Students come from different homes, upbringings, belief systems, peer pressures, and social influences. Many are exposed to trends they do not understand, cannot trace, and have never examined critically, all in the name of fashion and freedom.
Higher institutions deliberately do not enforce uniforms like primary or secondary schools. That freedom is intentional. But freedom is never free. It comes with responsibility, boundaries, and consequences. Freedom does not mean dressing naked, dressing to provoke, dressing to seduce, or dressing like criminals and street urchins in a public place, and a respectable environment meant for learning and character formation.
Take sagging trousers as a clear example. Many young men proudly wear sagging trousers today without knowing that the style originated from prison yards in the United States. Inmates were given oversized uniforms without belts because metal objects were not allowed for security reasons. Over time, prisoners became accustomed to trousers hanging below their waist. When they were released, the style followed them into society and later into other places they went to, like pop culture. Today, it is blindly copied as fashion, stripped of context, history, and meaning. That is not self-expression; it is imitation without understanding.
How people dress influences how they are perceived and addressed. This is not cruelty; it is social reality. When individuals dress like strippers, thugs, criminals, or street gangsters, they should not be shocked when they are treated with suspicion or disrespect. It is frustrating to see people invite a specific reaction through their appearance and then complain bitterly when that reaction occurs. Respectable spaces demand a decent appearance.
Universities are not empty playgrounds. They are environments where lecturers, professors, professionals, researchers, and dignitaries interact daily. So it is reasonable to ask why bum shorts, skimpy skirts, transparent materials, revealing tops, or outfits that expose cleavage and thighs should be considered acceptable in such settings. Students in professional disciplines like law and medicine already understand this reality. They know the consequences, and they dress accordingly.
Indecent dressing also creates a distraction, and this should not be dismissed lightly. Not everyone can handle constant exposure to nudity or near-nudity. Places of learning are meant for focus, discussion, reflection, and intellectual engagement. When attention is diverted by deliberate sexual display, learning becomes secondary. It is unfair to turn academic spaces into arenas of provocation and then blame everyone else for reacting.
It would be dishonest to pretend that all indecent dressing is accidental. Some students deliberately dress to attract attention, seek favours, seduce, or gain an advantage. Some leave their homes dressed decently, only to branch off to a friend’s apartment to change into inappropriate clothing hidden in backpacks before entering campus. This behaviour is intentional, calculated, and fully aware.
The issue is not limited to female students. Some male students sag their trousers to expose their underwear, neglect basic grooming, and walk around looking unkempt and disorderly. Long hair itself is not the problem for males; neglect is. Those long hairs should be clean, healthy, neat, and appropriately styled, as needed. Looking like someone who escaped from a psychiatric ward is not freedom; it is disregard for self and environment.
Also read: Dress Code on Campus: Freedom, Discipline, and the Limits of Tolerance
Also read: Dress Code on Campus: When Control Masquerades as Morality
There is room for fashion, creativity, culture, embroidery, and style within academic spaces. No one is arguing against expression. But there must be limits. Transparent fabrics, skirts above the knee, tight body-hugging outfits, exposed cleavage, visible underwear, and sagging trousers should not be tolerated. Security personnel should be empowered to stop offenders at the gate, send them back, and enforce consequences. If embarrassment restores order, it becomes a corrective tool, not cruelty.
When institutions tolerate indecent dressing, they send a coded message that boundaries do not matter. This tolerance breeds deeper problems, such as lecturer-student affairs, grade manipulation, exploitation, distraction, and corruption. These vices do not remain confined to campuses. They spill into society, weakening other institutions, because the very places meant to correct excesses chose to normalise them.
Universities are supposed to shape society, not surrender to it. If institutions fail to enforce basic standards in the name of freedom, they silently erode values and raise a generation that believes anything goes. Young people will copy what they see. They will not understand that the majority is not always right until the damage is already done.
Some adults are shameless. But that does not mean shameless behaviour should be tolerated in public glare, especially within institutions meant to mould character. Indecent dressing, moral recklessness, and disorderly conduct do not become acceptable simply because they are common.
Dress codes are not oppression. They are structured. And structure is the foundation of civilisation.
The core arguments here are actually prevalent in:
- University regulations worldwide
- professional codes of conduct
- workplace dress policies
- courtrooms, law schools, and medical schools
Many countries and institutions enforce dress codes without apology, because they understand that:
- The environment shapes behaviour
- Norms influence conduct, and
- Learning spaces need order
So the position outlined here is neither strange nor radical, and it is not uniquely Nigerian. If institutions meant to shape character refuse to enforce boundaries because students are “adults”, who exactly do we expect to fix the consequences later, society, or the police?
0 Comments