When schools propose new policies, especially those affecting children, parents often feel compelled to speak up. This was the case for Ira Latham, a father from Gilbert, Arizona, who took an unconventional approach to voice his concerns about a proposed change to the school dress code. His bold actions during a routine school board meeting left a lasting impression and sparked a heated discussion about the impact of relaxed dress code policies on students and educators alike.
The meeting, held in the Higley Unified School District, began as a discussion about revising the district’s dress code, which had been in place since 2001. The proposed updates focused on allowing students more freedom in their clothing choices, emphasizing that private areas and undergarments must be covered but permitting visible waistbands or straps as long as undergarments were not worn as outerwear. These changes represented a significant departure from the stricter policy of the past, which prohibited exposing the chest, stomach, and midriff.
Latham, a father of four students in the district, strongly opposed the new guidelines. To illustrate his concerns, he arrived at the meeting dressed in formal attire but later revealed a crop top and short shorts underneath. Standing at the podium, Latham stated, “This would be suitable in a classroom under the new policy,” before dramatically shedding his outer clothing to showcase his outfit. The spectacle was designed to highlight what he perceived as the overly permissive nature of the proposed changes.
Latham explained that his actions were intended to demonstrate the potential issues with the updated dress code. “As a parent, I want the district to create policies that help my kids concentrate in class and foster a safe environment while minimizing unnecessary distractions during lessons,” he said. He argued that the vague language of the new policy placed an undue burden on teachers, requiring them to interpret and enforce the rules on a case-by-case basis.
The demonstration elicited mixed reactions from the board members. Board President Tiffany Schulz expressed disapproval of Latham’s methods but defended the updated dress code, emphasizing its aim to address the perceived unfairness of the previous policy. Schulz pointed out that the old dress code disproportionately targeted female students and argued that teachers should focus on education rather than monitoring students’ clothing choices. “It’s not appropriate to tell people to dress a certain way just to avoid making others uncomfortable,” Schulz stated, adding that such scrutiny often left female students feeling self-conscious and judged.
Not all board members agreed with the relaxed approach. Anna Van Hoek sided with Latham’s concerns, emphasizing the importance of teaching students self-respect and professionalism through a more modest dress code. “If we want our kids to be ready for college and careers, they need to learn self-respect, and that includes dressing in a way that doesn’t unnecessarily showcase their bodies,” Van Hoek argued. She suggested that maintaining a straightforward and modest dress code would better prepare students for the expectations of the professional world.
Despite Latham’s passionate objections and Van Hoek’s support, the revised dress code passed in a narrow 3-2 vote. The Higley Unified School District adopted the new guidelines, even as some parents and educators expressed concerns about the potential for increased distractions in the classroom.
The debate in Gilbert is part of a larger national conversation about school dress codes. While some districts, like Higley, are moving toward more inclusive and lenient policies, others are doubling down on stricter regulations. For example, districts in Mississippi, including Madison, Rankin, and Hinds counties, have implemented policies banning crop tops entirely and requiring all shirts to fully cover students’ stomachs. These districts also prohibit pants with holes and enforce strict length requirements for skirts.
Latham criticized the new Higley policy as overly permissive. “The dress code they’ve implemented is more like a public pool rule than an educational policy,” he told reporters. “It essentially boils down to making sure kids cover their underwear, and that’s about it.”
Supporters of the updated dress code, including Schulz, countered that the changes aim to foster inclusivity and reduce stigma surrounding certain clothing styles. Schulz argued that students should be free to express themselves without fear of judgment or discomfort. “These are just kids,” echoed another board member, Amanda Wade. “While school might be the closest thing to a job for them right now, they still deserve some freedom to explore and express themselves.”
The controversy in Gilbert underscores the challenges school districts face in balancing diverse perspectives. For parents like Latham, a stricter dress code symbolizes structure, focus, and preparation for life beyond school. For others, like Schulz and Wade, modernizing dress codes reflects a commitment to equity, individuality, and respect for personal expression.
Ultimately, the debate over school dress codes extends far beyond clothing. It touches on issues of identity, respect, and how best to prepare students for the future. While Higley Unified School District has made its decision, the broader conversation is far from over. Across the nation, schools continue to navigate these challenges, striving to create policies that reflect the needs and values of their communities while prioritizing students’ well-being and success.
