argumentative essay on school uniforms should be abolished

• EssayBasics.com
• Pay For Essay
• Write My Essay
• Homework Writing Help
• Essay Editing Service
• Thesis Writing Help
• Write My College Essay
• Do My Essay
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Write My Research Paper
• Assignment Writing Help
• Essay Writing Help
• Call Now! (USA) Login Order now
• EssayBasics.com Call Now! (USA) Order now
• Writing Guides

School Uniform Should Be Abolished (Essay Sample)

Table of Contents

Introduction

A uniform best represent the brand of the academic institution because it is where students will wear the color and the design that best symbolizes any institution. If a school policy wants their students to obey the rules and regulations, wearing of uniform will reflect how students obey and respect their institution as part of their learning routine. Uniforms are not only applied at school, but at several institutions as well. Employees have their set of uniform, which provides an essential structure to ensure that the quality of their responsibility is always expected and met. In this case, school uniform enables the society to value the significance of a brand to their country because it seeks to collaborate their needs and conduct to fulfill the interests of the public.

School uniform should be abolished because it can lead to several risks against the safety of the students while going to their respective classrooms. This is because there are recommended fabrics by the school that can generate allergic reactions to students who developed allergies due to a congenital anomaly. Another risk is when the school is located in a community wherein there is an outbreak of a highly contagious disease such as dengue fever, which could a fatal disease whenever it affects a young child. School children between ages 6 and 15 are highly vulnerable to dengue fever because their body is not that mature enough to fight any pathogenic microorganisms that affect their health. This is because boys and girls wear uniforms that expose their feet, which allow low-flying mosquitoes to take their chances of biting their legs and exposing the virus inside their body.

The fabric of school uniform is thin enough to expose the children to several illnesses. Some children have a low immune response to an extreme environment, allowing their bodies to be always vulnerable to infection. An example is when the student is exposed to snow while wearing their uniform, which can easily catch a cold after the exposure. There is an extreme weather event that makes it difficult for the students to wear their uniform because whenever it rains heavily, students usually catch a fever. In this case, the school fails to secure the safety and security of the students, especially if they became wet from the heavy downpours. Girls who are required to wear skirts that are above their knees usually attract sex offenders that can risk their safety such as when they are vulnerable walking alone.

Some schools already ban wearing uniforms for their students because they believe that it is one of the best ways to ensure that students will not be exposed to any criminal elements of the law. This is similar with the college students who are no longer required to wear their uniforms whenever they attend classes on a regular basis. In the modern era, there are more schools who are also considering on banning school uniforms to the students. This is because modernized schools are now associating the move to further promote liberalism to the society without limiting the rights of every student inside the campus. For this reason, students can learn comfortably because they do not need to follow strict orders from the school administration that promote their dedication to focus on their subjects when attending classes (Finkelman & Kenner, 2010).

• Finkelman, Anita Ward & Kenner, Carole (2010). Professional Nursing Concepts: Competencies for Quality Leadership. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Home » Tips for Teachers » Why Students Should Not Wear Uniforms: A Thoughtful Exploration with 9 Reasons, Studies and Statistics

Why Students Should Not Wear Uniforms: A Thoughtful Exploration with 9 Reasons, Studies and Statistics

In the ongoing debate about school uniforms, a significant voice often goes unheard – that of the students themselves. The argument against mandatory school uniforms is not just about fashion or personal preferences; it delves deeper into fundamental issues of self-expression, equity, and the very purpose of education. This article, “Why Students Should Not Wear Uniforms,” seeks to uncover the less discussed but crucial aspects of this debate, presenting a comprehensive view that challenges the traditional perspective favoring uniforms.

At the core of the anti-uniform stance is the belief in the importance of individuality and personal growth during the formative years of schooling. Uniforms, often seen as a tool for homogenization, can stifle the self-expression and creativity that are essential in nurturing young minds. By enforcing a standard mode of dress, schools may inadvertently suppress the diversity and individuality that should be celebrated within educational environments. Moreover, the imposition of uniforms can raise significant financial burdens for families, create unnecessary resistance to authority, and overlook important cultural and religious considerations.

I am seething about this poor young girl who has been put in isolation because she’s not wearing a school uniform bought from the right place, school uniforms are far too expensive for a lot of people in this country in the most ridiculous you can get just as good from supermarke — James Whale (@THEJamesWhale) September 17, 2023

This article aims to explore these perspectives, offering insights into why the policy of mandatory school uniforms might be an outdated approach that overlooks the broader objectives of education and personal development. As we delve into this topic, we invite readers to reconsider the conventional wisdom on school uniforms and reflect on the potential benefits of a more flexible and inclusive approach to student attire.

After reading this article you’ll know:

• Educator and Industry Expert Perspectives →
• 9 Reasons Why Students Should Not Wear Uniforms →
• Opposing Perspectives on School Uniforms →

Uniforms in Education: Educator and Industry Expert Perspectives

Teachers and educational experts are increasingly questioning the rising trend of school uniforms in U.S. public schools. While the period from 1999-2000 to 2017-18 saw an increase from 12% to 20% in schools adopting uniforms, there’s growing concern about their impact on student individuality and expression. In 2015-2016, uniform policies were enforced in 25% of public primary schools, 20% of middle schools, and 12% of high schools, with a notable prevalence in urban and high-poverty schools . Experts argue that such policies, while aiming for uniformity, might inadvertently suppress student creativity and self-identity, vital for holistic educational development.

Here’s the perspective of educational field experts on the matter:

“I completely disagree with uniforms on every level. Supporters of uniforms say that they reduce bullying with regards to fashion, but there is a great deal of evidence that says it just pushes that bullying underground. Instead of being bullied about something superficial like the shirt you are wearing, bullies just go to the tried and true body image shaming. Glass? Overweight? Acne? Too many freckles? Hair colour? Too tall? Too short? What school administrators see is a surface level reduction in bullying, followed by them patting themselves on the back and ignoring the problem completely.” — Scooter Campbell , assistant language teacher

“While uniforms are supposed to build a sense of community, they may have the opposite effect. Fashion is one way that students express themselves, and that may be an important part of the school experience. When students can’t show their individuality, they may not feel like they belong as much. School uniforms may not be the most effective way to improve student behavior and engagement.” — Arya Ansari, assistant professor of human sciences at The Ohio State University

“I really don’t care whether or not a student’s shirt is tucked in, as long as they are learning. I don’t care whether or not a student has on the right belt, as long as I can’t see their underwear. I don’t care if a boy has earrings, facial hair, or painted nails, as long as he’s not painting them in my class. I don’t care if a girl has bright pink hair, a tank top, and ripped jeans, as long as bosoms and butt cheeks are covered and secure. I don’t like hoodies on heads in my classroom because it makes it too easy to hide Airpods, but I don’t care if the sweatshirt has a hood. As long as it’s not a top hat or sombrero that blocks the view of the students behind them, I don’t care if my students wear hats or beanies in my class.” — New Orleans Mom Guest Author

The video below explores the debate on the impact of school uniforms on academic performance. It delves into whether mandating uniforms in schools truly enhances students’ learning and overall academic success.

Want to know how to be a strict teacher? Read our dedicated article .

9 Reasons Why Students Should Not Wear Uniforms

Let’s explore the reasons against mandating school uniforms for students. Understanding these arguments provides valuable insights into the broader educational and social implications of uniform policies.

1. Expression of Individuality

The concept of “Expression of Individuality” in the context of school uniforms is a vital aspect of student development and autonomy. When schools impose uniforms, they inadvertently restrict a key channel through which students express their individuality and creativity. This freedom of expression is not merely about fashion or aesthetics; it’s a crucial part of a student’s journey towards self-discovery and confidence building.

Key aspects of individuality expression through clothing include:

• Personal Identity Formation: Choosing what to wear allows students to explore and affirm their personal identities and tastes.
• Creativity and Innovation: Fashion is a form of art. Allowing students to select their own clothes fosters creativity and innovation, skills highly valued in many aspects of life and work.
• Cultural Expression and Diversity: Clothing can be a powerful expression of cultural heritage. A diverse dress code celebrates and acknowledges the rich tapestry of cultures in the student body.

Beyond these points, individuality in clothing choices helps prepare students for future environments where they must make decisions about their personal and professional presentation. In many modern workplaces, the ability to express oneself appropriately through attire is valued and can impact career progression and personal branding.

Furthermore, enforcing a uniform policy can subtly imply that conformity is more important than individual thought and expression. This is at odds with the educational goal of fostering independent, critical thinkers who will contribute uniquely to society.

In essence, the freedom to choose one’s attire is not just a matter of personal taste but a crucial element in nurturing confident, creative, and culturally aware individuals. Schools, by embracing this diversity in student clothing, can enhance the educational experience and better prepare students for the varied and diverse world beyond their gates.

2. Financial Burden

The requirement of school uniforms can impose a significant financial burden on families, an aspect that often gets overlooked in the uniform policy debate. In the United States, over half of parents , at 55%, perceive school uniforms to be costly. This financial strain is not just about the initial cost of purchasing uniforms, but also encompasses several hidden expenses that accumulate over time.

Key points illustrating the financial burden of school uniforms include:

• Initial and Replacement Costs: Uniforms, especially those with specific designs or logos, can be expensive to buy. Additionally, as children grow or uniforms wear out, they often need replacing, adding to the financial strain.
• Multiple Sets Requirement: To maintain a clean and presentable appearance throughout the week, families typically need to purchase multiple sets of uniforms, further escalating the cost.
• Special Care and Maintenance: Some uniforms require special laundering or care, which can add to the overall expense, either in terms of higher home utility bills or professional cleaning services.

Moreover, these costs can be particularly burdensome for families with multiple children or those on a limited income. Research from the University of York highlighted that school uniforms present unmanageable costs for low-income families. The study found that purchasing uniforms imposed sudden and significant financial burdens, leading families to make sacrifices on essentials like food and heating, and in some cases, to enter into debt.

In addition to the direct financial impact, there’s also the consideration of opportunity cost. Money spent on uniforms could have been allocated to educational resources, extracurricular activities, or savings for future educational expenses.

In conclusion, the mandatory school uniform policy can lead to significant and often underappreciated financial pressures on families, making it a substantial reason for reconsidering such policies, especially in schools that serve economically diverse or disadvantaged communities.

3. Comfort and Practicality

The issue of comfort and practicality is a significant concern in the debate against mandatory school uniforms. Students spend a substantial part of their day in school, and their attire plays a crucial role in their overall comfort and ability to engage effectively in various school activities.

Key aspects highlighting the importance of comfort and practicality include:

• Physical Comfort: Uniforms, often designed with a one-size-fits-all approach, may not suit every body type, leading to discomfort. Comfortable clothing is essential for students to focus and participate actively in their learning.
• Suitability for Varied Activities: School life involves a range of activities, from sitting in classrooms to physical education and outdoor play. Uniforms might not be practical for all these diverse activities, impacting students’ ability to participate fully.
• Weather Appropriateness: Uniforms may not be designed for all weather conditions, which can affect students’ comfort and health. For example, a uniform might be too warm for summer months or insufficiently protective during colder weather.

Additionally, practicality concerns extend to the maintenance of uniforms. They often require regular washing and ironing, which can be time-consuming for families. Also, the need for specific uniform attire for different school events or days (e.g., physical education uniforms) adds to the complexity and impracticality of the uniform system.

In essence, prioritizing comfort and practicality in student attire is not only a matter of convenience but also impacts their academic engagement and well-being. Allowing students to wear clothing that is comfortable, suited to a variety of activities, and appropriate for the weather can enhance their school experience, making them more receptive to learning and participating in school life.

4. Lack of Preparation for Real World

The argument that school uniforms do not adequately prepare students for the ‘real world’ is increasingly relevant in today’s diverse and flexible professional environment. In many modern workplaces, the ability to choose and present oneself appropriately is a valued skill, reflecting individual judgment and adaptability.

Key points underscoring this lack of preparation include:

• Diversity in Workplace Attire: Modern workplaces often have varied dress codes, ranging from formal to casual. Uniform policies do not expose students to the decision-making process involved in dressing for different occasions and environments.
• Personal Branding: In many careers, personal style is an integral part of professional branding. Uniforms do not allow students to explore and develop their personal style, which can be a disadvantage in professions where self-presentation is key.
• Adaptability and Decision-Making: Choosing appropriate attire for different settings teaches adaptability and decision-making skills. Uniforms eliminate these daily choices, potentially leaving students less prepared to make such judgments post-graduation.

Norman Isaacs, the principal at Millikan Middle School in Sherman Oaks, California, opposes school uniforms . He argues that students should be taught to make decisions and choices rooted in their own values instead of adhering to arbitrary rules. He believes this approach is essential for students to develop independent thinking and self-discipline.

In conclusion, while uniforms might simplify wardrobe decisions during school years, they can inadvertently hinder the development of skills necessary for navigating the varied and often nuanced dress codes encountered in adult life, especially in professional settings. Allowing students the freedom to choose their attire is more aligned with preparing them for the real-world scenarios they will face after graduation.

5. Equality Issues

The topic of equality in relation to school uniforms is multi-faceted and complex. While uniforms are often championed as a tool for promoting equality, they can, in fact, inadvertently highlight and exacerbate existing socioeconomic disparities among students.

Key points illustrating the equality issues associated with school uniforms include:

• Highlighting Economic Disparities: The quality, newness, and upkeep of uniforms can become a marker of economic status. Students from less affluent backgrounds may struggle to keep their uniforms in pristine condition, inadvertently highlighting socio-economic differences.
• Access to Uniforms: The cost of uniforms can be prohibitive for some families, particularly those with multiple school-age children, leading to inequality in access.
• Uniform Assistance Programs: While some schools offer uniform assistance programs, reliance on such programs can inadvertently stigmatize students, creating a sense of otherness rather than unity.

Moreover, the notion that uniforms inherently promote a sense of equality among students is debatable. While uniforms may superficially level the playing field by unifying student attire, true equality and respect among students stem from an inclusive school culture that values diversity, not just from masking individual differences with standard clothing. For example, in schools like Archer , the uniform policy doesn’t restrict branded shoes or accessories, allowing students to display wealth through these items. This often leads to a sense of inequality, as students become aware of and feel pressured by the presence of expensive items, undermining the supposed leveling effect of uniforms.

In summary, while the intention behind school uniforms may be to create a level playing field, they can sometimes have the opposite effect by highlighting economic disparities and creating barriers to access. A more effective approach to promoting equality in schools involves addressing these deeper issues directly, rather than masking them with a uniform policy.

6. Resistance to Authority

The imposition of school uniforms can sometimes foster resistance to authority among students, particularly as they grow older and seek to assert their independence and individuality. This resistance is not just a matter of rebellion; it often stems from deeper feelings of autonomy and self-expression being suppressed.

Key points related to resistance to authority include:

• Asserting Independence : As children mature into teenagers, they naturally seek to express their individuality. Uniforms can be perceived as a restriction on this expression, leading to resistance as a form of asserting independence.
• Questioning Rules and Uniformity: Older students often begin to question the rationale behind various rules, including dress codes. Mandatory uniforms can become a focal point of this questioning, symbolizing a broader struggle against perceived unnecessary authority.
• Impact on Student-Teacher Relationships: Strict uniform policies can create an adversarial dynamic between students and school authorities, impacting the overall school environment and student-teacher relationships.

The resistance to uniforms and, by extension, to school authority, can have wider implications. It can detract from the educational experience, creating an environment of conflict and tension rather than one of learning and growth. Additionally, this resistance can carry over into other aspects of school life, affecting participation in school activities, respect for school rules, and overall school morale.

In essence, while the aim of school uniforms may be to promote discipline and unity, they can sometimes yield the opposite result, particularly among older students. Recognizing and respecting students’ growing need for self-expression and autonomy is crucial in fostering a positive and productive school atmosphere.

7. Cultural and Religious Concerns

Addressing cultural and religious concerns is crucial when considering the impact of mandatory school uniforms. Uniform policies can sometimes conflict with students’ cultural and religious practices, leading to feelings of exclusion and a lack of representation.

Key points highlighting cultural and religious concerns include:

• Respect for Cultural Attire: Many cultures have traditional attire that holds significant meaning. Uniform policies can prevent students from wearing these culturally important garments, leading to a loss of cultural expression.
• Accommodating Religious Dress Requirements: Some religions have specific dress codes, such as headscarves or particular garments. Uniforms that don’t accommodate these requirements can impede religious freedom and expression.
• Impact on Inclusivity and Diversity: A uniform policy that doesn’t consider cultural and religious diversity can create an environment where students feel their identities are not acknowledged or respected.

Furthermore, navigating these cultural and religious nuances requires sensitivity and understanding from educational institutions. When schools fail to accommodate such diversity, it can lead to a sense of alienation among students from different cultural or religious backgrounds. This alienation can affect their sense of belonging and engagement within the school community.

In summary, while school uniforms are often intended to create a cohesive and unified appearance, they can inadvertently undermine the rich cultural and religious diversity within the student body. An inclusive approach that respects and accommodates these differences is essential for fostering an educational environment that values and celebrates diversity.

8. Psychological Impact

The psychological impact of school uniforms on students is an important aspect to consider, particularly as it pertains to their self-image, confidence, and overall mental well-being. Uniforms, by their very nature of imposing a standard appearance, can have various unintended negative psychological effects on students.

Key points regarding the psychological impact include:

• Self-Image and Confidence: Uniforms can affect how students perceive themselves, especially if they feel the uniform is unflattering or doesn’t reflect their identity. This can lead to issues with self-esteem and confidence.
• Conformity vs. Individuality: The emphasis on conformity through uniforms may conflict with a student’s desire for individual expression, leading to internal conflict and stress.
• Stress on Families: The pressure to maintain a set standard of uniform can also place stress on families, particularly if they struggle financially or have time constraints, affecting the student’s home life and mental well-being.

Additionally, unflattering or restrictive uniforms can deter students from participating in sports , creating a psychological barrier. For example, an auto-ethnography highlighted the psychological barrier posed by an unflattering sports uniform to fat children’s participation in and enjoyment of physical activity.

In conclusion, while uniforms are often intended to eliminate distractions and create equality, they can have significant psychological impacts on students. These impacts can range from affecting self-esteem and personal identity to creating stress and anxiety. Considering these factors is crucial in evaluating the overall effectiveness and appropriateness of uniform policies in schools.

9. Not Environmentally Friendly

The environmental impact of school uniforms is an often overlooked yet critical aspect of the debate surrounding their use. The production, maintenance, and disposal of school uniforms carry significant environmental implications, making them a less sustainable option for student attire.

Key points highlighting the environmental concerns include:

• Resource-Intensive Production: The manufacturing of uniforms often involves resource-intensive processes, using materials that are not environmentally friendly and consuming large amounts of water and energy.
• Frequent Replacement and Waste: As children grow, uniforms need frequent replacing, contributing to textile waste. Unlike everyday clothing, which can be handed down or repurposed, specific school uniforms have limited use beyond the school environment.
• Chemical Usage in Maintenance: The maintenance of uniforms, especially those requiring special care, can involve the use of harsh chemicals and detergents, further contributing to environmental harm.

Furthermore, the environmental impact of uniforms extends beyond their production and maintenance. The disposal of outdated or worn-out uniforms poses a challenge, as they are often not made from biodegradable or recyclable materials, adding to landfill waste.

In summary, considering the environmental footprint of school uniforms is essential in the context of growing concerns about sustainability and environmental conservation. Moving towards more eco-friendly clothing options or implementing uniform recycling programs could be steps in mitigating the environmental impact associated with school uniforms.

Addressing Opposing Perspectives on School Uniforms

While the debate around school uniforms has varying opinions, it’s essential to consider the opposing views. Below, we explore common arguments in favor of mandating school uniforms, coupled with counterarguments that provide a different perspective on the issue.

1. Uniforms Save Time

The perceived time-saving aspect of school uniforms is often debated. While it’s argued that uniforms can save time in choosing outfits for school, this benefit is minimal as students still need casual attire for outside school hours.

Furthermore, uniforms can actually add to the workload of teachers . They often spend a significant amount of time enforcing uniform policies and addressing infractions such as improper dress. This enforcement can detract from the primary focus of teaching and reduce the time available for actual lesson delivery.

2. Uniforms Improve Attendance and Discipline

Proponents of school uniforms often claim they instill discipline by requiring students to adhere to dress codes. However, true discipline is more effectively cultivated through internal motivation and understanding the reasons behind rules , rather than mere conformity to a uniform. Encouraging critical thinking and self-discipline is more beneficial for students’ overall development.

This perspective is supported by research using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study , which showed that school uniforms had no effect on students’ behavior across various dimensions, including internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, and social skills. This finding was consistent through kindergarten to the end of fifth grade, even after accounting for a range of factors that could influence behavior.

3. Improving Safety and Security

The argument that uniforms aid in identifying who belongs on campus and enhance security is subject to debate. While it may assist in spotting intruders, a more effective approach to safety involves a robust security system and active community engagement.

Fostering a safe school environment is better achieved through open communication and trust among students, staff, and the community. The effectiveness of uniforms in improving security is not universally acknowledged and is often viewed as a measure to enforce conformity rather than a genuine strategy to enhance safety.

Interested in exploring different teaching methods? Take a look at our comprehensive guide featuring 15 distinct teaching styles.

Useful Resources

• National Center for Education Statistics
• School uniforms: A history of ‘rebellion and conformity’ by BBC
• Educational Statistics by Statista

The case against school uniforms is compelling. Uniforms often fail to achieve their intended goals of promoting equality, saving time, and enhancing safety. Instead, they may inadvertently perpetuate socioeconomic disparities, add burdens to educators and students alike, and provide a false sense of security. Emphasizing personal expression, fostering genuine equality, and focusing on more effective educational strategies would be more beneficial for student development and school environments.

If you want to learn more about dress code for teachers, check out our article “ How to Meet the Teacher Dress Codes in Diverse Learning Environments in 2023″ .

• “Back-to-school: share of children wearing school uniforms in the United States from 2008 to 2018”, Statista
• “School uniforms”, National Center for Educational Statistics
• “Dressed for Success? The Effect of School Uniforms on Student Achievement and Behavior”, National Bureau of Economic Research
• “Do you think students need to wear a school uniform? Why or why not?”, Quora
• Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University
• “Dress Code, Stress Mode: A Teacher’s Perspective on the Uniform Debate”, New Orleans Mom
• “School Uniforms Are Expensive Statistics [Fresh Research]”, Gitnux
• “Buying school uniform post-lockdown ‘unmanageable’ for low income families”, phys.org
• “School Uniforms: Do They Reduce Violence–Or Just Make Us Feel Better?”, EdWeek
• “Do uniforms really create socioeconomic equity?: Designer items while in uniform”, The Oracle
• “Reviewing School Uniform through a Public Health Lens: Evidence about the Impacts of School Uniform on Education and Health”, Public Health Reviews
• “School uniforms save time”, Parlia
• “Early Childhood Longitudinal Program (ECLS)”, National Center for Educational Statistics
• “School Uniforms: A Safety and Security Issue”. The Raider Voice
• Recent Posts

Simona Johnes is the visionary being the creation of our project. Johnes spent much of her career in the classroom working with students. And, after many years in the classroom, Johnes became a principal.

• Exploring the Evidence: 7 Comprehensive Reasons Why School Should Start Later for Enhanced Student Well-being and Academic Success - February 15, 2024
• Why Students Should Learn a Second Language for Future Success: Exploring the 7 Benefits - February 12, 2024
• 9 Reasons Why Teachers Should Accept Late Work: Balancing Discipline and Flexibility in Education - January 31, 2024

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Password reminder

Argumentative essay on school uniforms: advice for both sides.

There are problems, when the correct side doesn`t seem to exist. Those issues are the most appropriate to be written about in argumentative essays. Thus, you can support your point of view writing an argumentative essay on school uniforms. Having taken any side you will be able to use convincing arguments.

The School Uniform Issue

Before you actually start telling your point of view and providing arguments, explain the situation to your reader. It is also necessary to tell different points of view on the issue in general. Thus, in your introduction you should tell that there is a discussion about wearing uniforms. Some people think that students must wear it, and other have an opposite opinion. It is necessary to finish your introduction with a well-written thesis statement, showing your approach and main arguments.

Arguments for School Uniforms

If you think, that it is necessary for students to wear uniform, here are some arguments for you to use while writing.

Argument #1: Safety

When all of the students are dressed the same way, it is easily to recognize a stranger. This decreases the crime rate and contributes to students feeling safer at schools.

Argument #2: Proper Accents

School is not a podium and its main aim is to teach students, not to give them a possibility to show off. If students are dressed the same way, they understand better the purpose of coming to school and their attention won`t be distracted to some side things.

Argument #3: Equality

Wearing the same uniform solves the issue of social inequality between students. There won`t be students, who dress more fashionable, or whose clothing is more expensive. This will reduce the pressure to the students from less successful families.

Argument #3: Spirit of Unity

Uniform introducing contributes to team building. Students feel a part of a big friendly team, which has common aims and pride.

Argument #4: Saving Money

The school uniform helps parents to save money on clothing. They can simply purchase 2 sets instead for school instead of paying hundreds to provide their children with lots of outfits to wear.

Arguments against School Uniforms

Most students do not like wearing school uniforms, so they tend to take this side more often.

Argument #1: Limit of Expression

The first and the main argument is that school uniforms limit possibilities for students to express their personalities. This contradicts the opportunity to free self-expression supported by law.

Argument #2: Social Issues

This is a common thing, that there are better and worse schools. Therefore, students from different ones will be easily recognized in society, and members of worse schools will be pressed.

Argument #3: Contradiction to Free Education

The education is free of charge according to law. However, the introducing of the school uniforms will make parents buy at least two sets of school uniform. If a student is changing schools, this will be an issue.

Argument #4: Personality Growing Up

Adults can make their own choice on what to wear. Thus, as students are told what to wear in school, this may prevent their psychological growing up.

Points to Include to an Argumentative Essay on School Uniforms

To improve your essay on school uniforms:

• Include numbers and other statistical data. Numbers help to support your opinion more efficiently.
• Separate different arguments into separate paragraphs. This will contribute to clarity of your point.
• Contact a professional writer for assistance. He will help you to organize your thought into a better coherent and convincing text.

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be published.

Contact information:

Home — Essay Samples — Business — Dress Code — Argumentative Essay On School Uniforms

Argumentative Essay on School Uniforms

• Categories: Dress Code

About this sample

Words: 699 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 699 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Business

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 2303 words

5 pages / 2157 words

2 pages / 940 words

4 pages / 2024 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Dress Code

The significance of a dress code in the professional world is often underestimated. It is not merely about attire but is a reflection of one's commitment, respect for the workplace, and a fundamental aspect of professionalism. [...]

The notion of dress code protests has become a focal point of discussions surrounding personal expression, social norms, and institutional authority. This essay delves into the complexities of dress code protests, analyzing [...]

Dress codes and policies have become a common topic of debate and discussion in various industries and organizations. One such case study involves a company that implemented a strict dress policy for its employees. This essay [...]

Have you ever felt restricted by your school's dress code policies? Do you believe that students should have the freedom to express themselves through their clothing choices? The debate over school dress codes has been a [...]

It is a style that consists of a blazer and pant. Usually the pants are of different colour from the blazer. The pant can be jeans, khakis or slacks. The shirt can be a Polo shirt, open-collar blouse or dress shirt. The [...]

According to Andy Jankowski, Managing Director at Enterprise Strategies, who spoke at a recent Future of Work conference, companies will be looking to employ “disruptors”- those who respectfully challenge the status quo and find [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Do uniforms make schools better?

by: Marian Wilde | Updated: March 1, 2024

Print article

Schools, parents, and students frequently clash over the issue of regulating what students may and may not wear to school. These controversies often pegged to the culture war of the moment touch on everything from gender and sexuality to politics, race, and religion. In 2021, a group of about 50 students in Georgia protested their middle school’s dress code for being discriminatory against BIPOC girls by wearing t-shirts every Friday emblazoned with the words “sexist,” “racist,” and “classist.” In 2022, a fight between students, staff, and police officers broke out at a Pennsylvania high school when hats and hoodies were banned as part of a revision by the school board to the school’s dress code. And in 2023, two Michigan middle schoolers, via their mother, sued their school district after they were banned from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts.

Are school uniforms the best solution to this contentious debate? If every student is wearing the same outfit, will a host of campus problems be solved? Researchers are divided over how much of an impact — if any — dress policies have on student learning. There are multiple studies with conflicting conclusions, plus books such as 2018’s The Debate About School Uniforms , but the argument wears on, with a list of pros and cons on each side.

Why do some public schools have uniforms?

In the 1980s, public schools were often compared unfavorably to Catholic schools. Noting the perceived benefit that uniforms conferred upon Catholic schools, some public schools decided to adopt a school uniform policy.

President Clinton provided momentum to the school uniform movement when he said in his 1996 State of the Union speech, “If it means teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.”

The pros and cons of school uniforms

According to proponents, school uniforms:.

• Help prevent gangs from forming on campus

• Encourage discipline

• Help students resist peer pressure to buy trendy clothes

• Help identify intruders in the school

• Diminish economic and social barriers between students

• Increase a sense of belonging and school pride

• Improve attendance

Opponents contend that school uniforms:

• Violate a student’s right to freedom of expression

• Are simply a Band-Aid on the issue of school violence

• Make students a target for bullies from other schools

• Are a financial burden for poor families

• Are an unfair additional expense for parents who pay taxes for a free public education

• Are difficult to enforce in public schools

Uniforms vs. dress codes

Schools and districts vary widely in how closely they adhere to the concept of uniformity.

What’s a dress code?

Generally, dress codes are more relaxed than uniform policies. Sometimes, however, dress codes are quite strict with requirements that are potentially viewed as biased based on race or gender. In 2020, two Black male students in Texas, cousins with West Indian heritage, were suspended for wearing dreadlocks in supposed violation of the district’s hair and grooming policy, part of the dress code. The elder one, a senior, was told he couldn’t attend prom or graduation until his dreads were trimmed. In 2022, girls on the track team at an Albany, NY high school were sent home for wearing sports bras at practice.

Uniforms are certainly easier for administrators to enforce than dress codes, largely because the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) can be depended upon to protect a student’s “right to express themselves.” The ACLU believes dress codes are often used to, “shame girls, force students to conform to gender stereotypes… punish students who wear political and countercultural messages. Such policies can be used as cover for racial discrimination… Dress codes can also infringe on a student’s religious rights…” To successfully enforce a dress code, insists the ACLU, the school must prove the student’s attire, “is disruptive to school activities.”

The ACLU’s dress code stance is regularly supported by federal courts , like the 2023 lower court ruling in North Carolina that ended a charter school decree that girls couldn’t wear pants to school. ACLU lawyers claimed this violated Title IX because the dress code “discriminated against female students by limiting their ability to fully participate in school activities, such as using the playground.” The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to take up a case challenging the lower court’s ruling.

Check with your school to see what the dress code is, as they can be fairly specific. In Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example, the dress code prohibits :

• Symbols, mottoes, words or acronyms that convey crude, vulgar, profane, violent, death-oriented, gang-related, sexually explicit, or sexually suggestive messages.
• Symbols, mottoes, words or acronyms advertising tobacco, alcohol, or illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia.
• Symbols, mottoes, words or acronyms identifying a student as a member of a secret or overtly antisocial group or gang or that identifies a student as a member of an organization that professes violence or hatred toward one’s fellow man.
• Visible and permanent tattoos/brands incompatible with the standards set forth herein shall be covered to prohibit their display.
• Excessively large or baggy clothes

What’s a uniform?

School uniforms worldwide can widely range from nondescript to bizarre. (Extreme examples from China, Australia, and the UK on this YouTube video ) Most public school outfits in the USA are quite casual, with a “ common type ” for boys often a polo shirt in a solid color, with pants in khaki, black, or navy blue. A girl’s uniform is often a skirt and a white buttoned-up shirt. Dress shoes are frequently required for both genders.

In the United States, low-income families spend an average of $249 on a child’s school uniform annually, far less than the typical Australian student’s $578. But still, the cost is sometimes viewed as unfair because public education is intended to be free, paid by tax dollars, not “a stress for families on lower incomes.” The ACLU believes that public schools should provide free school uniforms , because the expense is unconstitutional, and it increases wealth inequity.

What research says about school uniforms

In 2006, Virginia Draa, professor at Youngstown State University, reviewed the impact of school uniforms at 64 public high schools that had larger percentages of economically disadvantaged and minority students than other urban schools. Her conclusion surprised her: “I really went into this thinking uniforms don’t make a difference, but I came away seeing that they do… I was absolutely floored.” Her analysis determined that the schools with uniforms improved their students attendance, and graduation rates rose an average almost 11 percent.

In 2022, Ohio State University and University of Pennsylvania researchers reached a contrary opinion in their report titled “ School Uniforms and Students Behavior: Is There a Link? ” Their view was that, in general, evidence that school uniforms improve social skills in the students was “inconclusive.” The solitary praise they provided to uniform-wearing was noting there was “some indication that low-income students in schools that required uniforms demonstrated better school attendance than low-income students in schools that did not.”

What to believe? Jury is still out.

What do students think about uniforms?

A student discussion: pros and cons of uniforms

Editor’s note: This video is part of our high school milestones series about communication skills. The students in this video discuss the pros and cons of school uniforms.

A University of Nevada, Reno, survey of 1,848 middle school students, published in 2022, revealed that 90 percent did not like wearing a uniform to school . Only 30 percent believed the uniforms “might reduce discipline issues, a mere 17 percent thought the uniform helped them focus at school, 34 percent believed their school was safer due to the uniforms and 37 percent said, “I worry less about my appearance” due to the uniform requirement.”

An earlier study, also in Nevada, displayed similar unpopularity with newly instituted uniforms among middle school students. However, when the researchers looked into school discipline and local police records and compared them to the prior year’s data, discipline referrals were down 10 percent, there were 63 percent fewer police log reports, and incidences of graffiti, fights, and gang-related activity were all down.

It’s a big issue

A new trend is the mounting pressure to establish dress codes for teachers. Apparently, the same casual mindset toward revealing outfits is cropping up in the ranks of our teachers.

The debate over uniforms in public schools encompasses many larger issues than simply what children should wear to school. It touches on issues of school improvement, freedom of expression, and hot-button culture wars. It’s no wonder the debate rages on.

Homes Nearby

Homes for rent and sale near schools

Why your neighborhood school closes for good – and what to do when it does

5 things for Black families to consider when choosing a school

6 surprising things insiders look for when assessing a high school

Surprising things about high school

Yes! Sign me up for updates relevant to my child's grade.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up!

Server Issue: Please try again later. Sorry for the inconvenience

• Essay Samples
• College Essay
• Writing Tools
• Writing guide

Creative samples from the experts

↑ Return to Essay Samples

Argumentative Essay: School Uniform

The idea of school uniforms seems like an antiquated concept for many North Americans. Unless a child attends private school, it is not normally practiced by children and families. Yet around the world, wearing school uniforms is the norm. Students studying in schools requiring school uniforms generally perform very well academically and seem happy wearing the same outfit every day. There are many benefits to wearing school uniforms that schools in Canada and the United States should incorporate into their public schools.

One of the biggest concerns in schools these days is bullying . Students are harassed physically, verbally, and socially. The latest trend in bullying is cyberbullying. Often, the cause of bullying stems from people being different for not wearing the “right” clothes. If someone looks richer, most people feel like they have a higher social status or more power. To the contrary, uniforms allow children to learn on a more level playing field, with less judgment about clothing choices, brands of clothing, or physical appearance.

A lot of students who wear uniforms claim that they feel more proud of their school. Wearing school colors gives students a feeling of being more connected to their school and classmates. If there is a sense of community and connectedness among the students, the use of foul language, gang behavior, and crimes like vandalism are largely eliminated. Wearing school uniforms can also help people gain more self-confidence because they know they are a part of something bigger.

One of the main concerns people have about wearing school uniforms is conformity. People fear that by making children look the same, their individuality will be suppressed. However, this is not the case. Accessories, such as bracelets and hair clips, can jazz up a school uniform. Besides, students can wear their own clothing after school and during weekends. An individual’s personality is not wholly expressed by fashion alone. Personality is determined by the way a person moves, feels, thinks, and talks. Wearing a school uniform neither defines a child’s personality nor erases it.

There are even more advantages to wearing school uniforms in public schools in addition to those previously mentioned. It means lower costs for parents during back-to-school shopping. However, the idea that bullying might be alleviated is the leading reason why schools should implement the wearing of uniforms. The other is the fostering of school pride. Students will not lose their personality but will merely learn new ways to express themselves.

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

• Free Essays Download
• Writing Tools List
• Proofreading Services
• Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.

Argumentative Essay on School Uniform

School uniforms are becoming a popular pattern in schools. Students are also surprised that many guards disagree with the requirement for school uniforms, stating that uniforms take away the right to express themselves. A school uniform is not a bad thing to have. Indeed, uniforms limit what students should decide to wear in class invariably, yet they do not prevent them from learning; the only explanation is they are in school. Students treat the school as a style show, so discarding that puts students fully exposed to homework. Even though expecting students to wear a school uniform may only hurt their self-expression, the uniforms are positive. They reduce student bullying activities, join community classes and give the school a professional look.

A well-known dispute over school uniforms is that they take away students’ right to express themselves. Indeed, school uniforms reduce what students need to wear. However, they can, in any case, have their way of expressing themselves. Students can still express their decision style by how they style their hair and what extra items they decide to wear. Their choice of shoes, moreover, is a form of self-expression. Students can make uniforms their style without compromising the quality of clothing. Just because a student cannot wear the most stylish trousers at school does not violate their rights. A school is a place for learning. Outside of school, kids can dress up and put themselves there in any way they like if it’s not a big deal.

Wanting a school uniform draws the gun out of bullying. Accidents often choose children depending on what they wear. What happens if they wear the same thing? Everyone will be dressed in the same way, which leaves little room for an appointment. Threats would not be necessary to appoint a person the way he would if the uniform were not needed because everyone would look the same, including potent jerks. When people seem to be the same, there is nothing that different children can draw attention to; moreover, ridicule. Having uniforms in schools also erodes the line of social class symbols. Typically, children expected on social media will be wearing the best clothes. Poor people, lower social classes will wear the latest post from the nearest Wal-Mart. School uniforms include social media classes. Everyone will be wearing the same clothing from a few stores that sell school uniforms. No one can have the option of determining a person’s social status by looking at what the other person is wearing. Everyone will come together in one place, and everyone will be the same. There are no upper or lower classes that separate students.

Schools in need of uniforms look neat and orderly. Schools that do not require uniforms have a couple of children who do not care about how they dress or how they dress. Children walk around with their pants down and clothes come out. A few children will be wearing dirty logos on shirts or jackets. That makes the school look bad and has a bad reputation. Schools with uniforms Each learner dresses appropriately for the uniform. The school looks organized and very progressive. Students who do not need to go into what they will wear to class will add to the school curriculum, which promotes improved grades. The school will look better, show understanding and school.

In general, school uniforms are a wonderful thing to have, even though the argument that school uniforms do not respect a student’s right to speak will not end. There are inspiring ideas in every way than schools that need school uniforms. School uniforms are required for students to wear dumpsters that stalk other students depending on their wearing. Uniforms are subject to social classification, mainly determined by the type of clothing a person wears. To wrap things up, school areas that require their students to wear school uniforms have a typical school look. The school uniform is a good thing, as it removes offensive openings, determines the class category, and makes the school look competent.

Download Pdf of Argumentative Essay on School Uniform

If you want to Download the Pdf of Argumentative Essay on School Uniform then click on the given link it is free of cost.

All Argumentative Essay

4 thoughts on “Argumentative Essay on School Uniform in 600-700 Words | Free Pdf”

Hii, Thanks for visiting our blog to know the “Argumentative Essay on School Uniform” and if you have any doubts or suggestions. Please comment below.

What is the author’s name that wrote this paper?

The author’s name is Pawan Saini

To provide the author’s name, kindly specify the paper or topic you are referring to. We’re here to assist you!

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

• Share full article

Is Guyana’s Oil a Blessing or a Curse?

More than any single country, Guyana demonstrates the struggle between the consequences of climate change and the lure of the oil economy.

With the discovery of offshore oil, Guyana is now building a natural gas pipeline to bring the byproducts of oil production to a planned energy plant. Credit...

Supported by

By Gaiutra Bahadur

Photographs by Keisha Scarville

• March 30, 2024

Basjit Mahabir won’t let me in.

I’m trying to persuade Mr. Mahabir to open the padlocked gate of the Wales Estate, where he guards the ramshackle remains of a factory surrounded by miles of fallow sugar cane fields. The growing and grinding of sugar on this plantation about 10 miles from Georgetown, Guyana’s capital, ended seven years ago, and parts of the complex, its weathered zinc walls the color of rust, have been sold for scrap.

I plead my case. “I lived here when I was a little girl,” I say. “My father used to manage the field lab.” Mr. Mahabir is friendly, but firm. I’m not getting in.

The ruins are the vestiges of a sugar industry that, after enriching British colonizers for centuries, was the measure of the nation’s wealth when it achieved independence.

Now the estate is slated to become part of Guyana’s latest boom, an oil rush that is reshaping the country’s future. This nation that lies off the beaten track, population 800,000, is at the forefront of a global paradox: Even as the world pledges to transition away from fossil fuels , developing countries have many short-term incentives to double down on them.

Before oil, outsiders mostly came to Guyana for eco-tourism, lured by rainforests that cover 87 percent of its land. In 2009, the effort to combat global warming turned this into a new kind of currency when Guyana sold carbon credits totaling $250 million, essentially promising to keep that carbon stored in trees. Guyana’s leadership was praised for this planet-saving effort.

Six years later, Exxon Mobil discovered a bounty of oil under Guyana’s coastal waters. Soon the company and its consortium partners, Hess and the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation, began drilling with uncommon speed. The oil, now burned mostly in Europe, is enabling more global emissions — and producing colossal wealth.

The find is projected to become Exxon Mobil’s biggest revenue source by decade’s end. The deal that made it possible — and which gave Exxon Mobil the bulk of the proceeds — has been a point of public outcry and even a lawsuit, with a seeming consensus that Guyana got the short end of the stick. But the deal has nonetheless generated $3.5 billion so far for the country, more money than it has ever seen, significantly more than it gained from conserving trees. It’s enough to chart a new destiny.

The government has decided to pursue that destiny by investing even further in fossil fuels. Most of the oil windfall available in its treasury is going to construct roads and other infrastructure, most notably a 152-mile pipeline to carry ashore natural gas, released while extracting oil from Exxon Mobil’s fields, to generate electricity.

The pipeline will snake across the Wales Estate, carrying the gas to a proposed power plant and to a second plant that will use the byproducts to potentially produce cooking gas and fertilizer. With a price tag of more than $2 billion, it’s the most expensive public infrastructure project in the country’s history. The hope is that with a predictable, plentiful supply of cheap energy, the country can develop economically.

At the same time, climate change laps at Guyana’s shores; much of Georgetown is projected to be underwater by 2030.

Countries like Guyana are caught in a perfect storm where the consequences for extracting fossil fuels collide with the incentives to do so. Unlike wealthy countries, they aren’t responsible for most of the carbon emissions that now threaten the planet. “We’re obviously talking about developing countries here, and if there’s so much social and economic development that still needs to happen, then it’s hard to actually demand a complete ban on fossil fuels,” says Maria Antonia Tigre, a director at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Still, she insists, “we’re in a moment in the climate crisis where no one can get a pass.”

This struggle between the existential threats of climate change and the material gains dangled by fossil fuels bedevils rich countries, too. The International Energy Agency predicts that oil demand will peak in five years as big economies transition to renewable sources. But it is a transition of indeterminate length, and in the meantime, the Biden administration approved drilling in the Alaska wilderness just last year, and the United States is producing more oil than ever in its history. A country like Guyana, with an emerging economy, has even more reason to jump at temptation.

The country has already been transformed. Next to its famously elegant but decaying colonial architecture, new houses, hotels, malls, gyms and offices of concrete and glass crop up constantly. Trucks carrying quartz sand for all this construction judder along the highways. While nearly half of Guyanese still live below the poverty line, the country is bustling with possibility, and newcomers arrive from around the world. During a five-month stay there, I met a logistics manager from Sri Lanka, a nightclub singer from Cuba, a Briton developing a shrimp farm and a Nigerian security guard who joked that a sure sign that Guyana had become a hustler’s paradise was that he was there.

As I survey the stranded assets of the sugar works on the Wales Estate, imagining the steel pipes to come, the gleaming future Guyana’s government promises feels haunted by its past as a colony cursed by its resources. The potential for the petroleum boom to implode is in plain sight next door, where Venezuela — which has recently resurrected old claims to much of Guyana’s territory — is a mess of corruption, authoritarian rule and economic volatility.

For centuries, foreign powers set the terms for this sliver of South America on the Atlantic Ocean. The British, who first took possession in 1796, treated the colony as a vast sugar factory. They trafficked enslaved Africans to labor on the plantations and then, after abolition, found a brutally effective substitute by contracting indentured servants, mainly from India. Mr. Mahabir, who worked cutting cane for most of his life, is descended from those indentured workers, as am I.

Fifty-seven years ago, the country shook off its imperial shackles, but genuine democracy took more time. On the eve of independence, foreign meddling installed a leader who swiftly became a dictator. Tensions between citizens of African and Indian descent, encouraged under colonialism, turned violent at independence and set off a bitter contest for governing supremacy that continues to this day. Indigenous groups have been courted by both sides in this political and ethnic rivalry.

It wasn’t until the early 1990s that Guyana held its first free and fair elections. The moment was full of possibility. The institutions of democracy, such as an independent judiciary, began to emerge. And the legislature passed a series of robust environmental laws.

Now that Exxon Mobil has arrived to extract a new resource, some supporters of democracy and the environment see those protections as endangered. They criticize the fossil-fuel giant, with global revenue 10 times the size of Guyana’s gross domestic product, as a new kind of colonizer and have sued their government to press it to enforce its laws and regulations. The judge in one of those cases has rebuked the country’s Environmental Protection Agency as being “submissive” toward the oil industry.

Addressing some of these activists at a recent public hearing, Vickram Bharrat, the minister of natural resources, defended the government’s oversight of oil and gas. “There’s no evidence of bias toward any multinational corporations,” he said. Exxon Mobil, in an emailed statement, said its work on the natural gas project would “help provide lower-emissions, reliable, gas-powered electricity to Guyanese consumers.”

The world is at a critical juncture, and Guyana sits at the intersection. The country of my birth is a tiny speck on the planet, but the discovery of oil there has cracked open questions of giant significance. How can wealthy countries be held to account for their promises to move away from fossil fuels? Can the institutions of a fragile democracy keep large corporations in check? And what kind of future is Guyana promising its citizens as it places bets on commodities that much of the world is vowing to make obsolete?

A land of new possibilities

Oil has created a Guyana with pumpkin spice lattes. The first Starbucks store appeared outside the capital last year; it was such a big deal that the president and the American ambassador attended the opening. People still “lime” — hang out — with local Carib beer and boomboxes on the storied sea wall, but those with the cash can now go for karaoke and fancy cocktails at a new Hard Rock Cafe.

The influx of wealth has introduced new tensions along economic lines in an already racially divided country. Hyperinflation has made fish, vegetables and other staples costlier, and many Guyanese feel priced out of pleasures in their own country. A new rooftop restaurant, described to me as “pizza for Guyana’s 1 percent” by its consultant chef from Brooklyn, set off a backlash on social media for serving a cut of beef that costs $335, as much as a security guard in the capital earns in a month.

This aspirational consumerist playground is grafted onto a ragged infrastructure. Lexus S.U.V.s cruise new highways but must still gingerly wade through knee-deep floods in Georgetown when it rains, thanks to bad drainage. Electricity, the subject of much teeth-sucking and dark humor, is expensive and erratic. It’s also dirty, powered by heavy fuel, a tarlike residue from refining oil. In 2023, 96 blackouts halted activity across the country for an average of one hour each. A growing number of air-conditioners taxing aging generators are partly to blame, but the system has been tripped up by weeds entangling transmission lines, backhoes hitting power poles and once, infamously, a rat.

The country’s larger companies — makers of El Dorado rum, timber producers — generate their own electricity outside the power grid. Small companies, however, don’t have that option. This year, the Inter-American Development Bank cited electrical outages as a major obstacle to doing business in Guyana.

The government’s investment in a natural gas pipeline and power plant offers the prospect of steady and affordable power. The gas, a byproduct of Exxon Mobil’s drilling, tends not to be commercialized and is often flared off as waste, emitting greenhouse gases in the process. But at the government’s request, Exxon Mobil and its consortium partners agreed to send some of the natural gas to the Wales site. The consortium is supposed to supply it without cost, but no official sales agreement has been made public yet.

At international conferences, rich countries have pledged to help poorer, lower-emitting ones to raise their living standards sustainably with renewable energy, but the money has fallen short . Natural gas is cleaner than the heavy fuel Guyana now uses, and the country’s leaders claim that it will serve as an eventual bridge to renewable energy. The fact that it’s not as clean as solar or other renewable sources seems, to some local manufacturers, beside the point because the status quo is so challenging.

During blackouts, Upasna Mudlier, who runs Denmor Garments, a textile company that makes uniforms, fire safety jackets and lingerie, has to send home the two dozen seamstresses she employs. That means a big hit in productivity. A chemist in her late 30s, she inherited the company from her father. Ms. Mudlier was nervous about networking in the burly crush of the male-dominated local business elite, but she nonetheless attended an event hosted by a business development center funded by Exxon Mobil. She leaned in, and it paid off: She won a contract to make a thousand coveralls for workers building an oil production vessel headed for Guyana’s waters.

It was a bright spot nonetheless dimmed by her electric bill. An astounding 40 percent of her operating budget goes to paying for power. Ms. Mudlier is eager for the natural gas plant. Cheaper, reliable energy could allow her to price her products to compete internationally.

Textiles are a tiny niche in Guyana, but hers is the kind of manufacturing that experts say Guyana needs to avoid becoming a petroleum state. Ms. Mudlier agrees with the government’s messaging on the gas project. “It will create more jobs for people and bring more investments into our country and more diversity to our economy,” she said.

Widespread anxiety that the best new jobs would go to foreigners led to a law that sets quotas for oil and gas companies to hire and contract with locals. Komal Singh, a construction magnate in his mid-50s, has benefited from the law. Mr. Singh, who directs an influential government advisory body on business policy, works as a joint partner with international companies building the Wales pipeline and treating toxic waste from offshore oil production.

“We say to them, ‘It’s you, me and Guyanese,’” he told me. “If Guyanese are not part of the show, end of conversation.”

Guyana has lost a greater share of its people than any other country, with two in five people born there living abroad. So the oil boom and the local partner requirement have set off something of a frenzy for passports and have fueled debate over who, exactly, is Guyanese. I met a British private equity manager with a Guyanese mother who obtained citizenship shortly after his second visit to the country. One local partner’s contested citizenship became a matter for the High Court.

With the value of land and housing skyrocketing, some local property owners have profited by becoming landlords to expats or by selling abandoned fields at Manhattan prices for commercial real estate. But to many Guyanese, it has seemed as if “comebackees,” the term for returning members of the diaspora, or the politically connected elite are the most poised to benefit from the boom.

Sharia Bacchus returned to Guyana after two decades living in Florida. Ms. Bacchus, who has family connections in the government and private sector, started her own real estate brokerage. She rents apartments and houses to expats for as much as $6,000 a month.

I shadowed her as she showed a prospective buyer — a retired U.S. Marine of Guyanese descent — a duplex condo in a coveted new gated community. She eagerly pointed out amenities that comebackees want: air-conditioning, a pool and, of course, an automatic backup generator.

“If you lose power at any time, you don’t have to worry about that,” she said, reassuringly.

The ghosts of the past

As glimpses of this new Guyana emerge, the ghosts of the past linger. A year ago, a Georgetown hotel, hustling like so many to take advantage of the new oil money, staged a $170-a-head rum-tasting event called “Night at the Estate House.” I’d been trying, unsuccessfully, to interview Exxon Mobil’s top brass in Guyana. When I heard rumors that its country manager would attend, I bought a ticket and, though he was a no-show, I found a seat with his inner circle.

As we sipped El Dorado rum in the garden of a colonial-style mansion, one of the event’s hosts gave a speech that invoked a time when “B.G.,” the insider’s shorthand for British Guiana, the country’s colonial name, also stood for Booker’s Guiana. Now, the speaker observed matter-of-factly, “it’s Exxon’s Guyana.”

Booker McConnell was a British multinational originally founded by two brothers who became rich on sugar and enslaved people. At one point, the company owned 80 percent of the sugar plantations in British Guiana, including the Wales Estate. The Exxon Mobil executive sitting next to me didn’t know any of this. His face reddened when I told him that the speaker had just placed his employer in a long line of corporate colonialism.

Independence came in 1966, but the U.S. and British governments engineered into power Guyana’s first leader, Forbes Burnham, a Black lawyer whom they deemed more pliable than Cheddi Jagan, a radical son of Indian plantation laborers, who was seen as a Marxist peril. But Burnham grew increasingly dictatorial as well as, in a twist of geopolitical fate, socialist.

Booker, which would later give its name to the Booker Prize in literature, still owned Wales at independence. But in the mid-1970s, Burnham took control of the country’s resources, nationalizing sugar production as well as bauxite mining. Like other former colonies, Guyana wanted to make its break with imperialism economic as well as political.

Burnham pushed the idea of economic independence to the breaking point, banning all imports. Staples from abroad, such as cooking oil, potatoes, wheat flour and split peas, had to be replaced with local substitutes. But Guyana didn’t have the farms and factories to meet the demand, so people turned to the black market, waited in ration lines and went hungry.

Guyana was 15 years free when my family arrived on the Wales Estate, by then part of the nationalized Guyana Sugar Company; my parents, then in their 20s, were young, too. My father, the son of plantation laborers, had just earned a natural sciences degree from the University of Guyana, founded at independence to educate the people who would build the new nation. As field lab manager, he tested sucrose in the cane to determine harvest time and oversaw the trapping of rats and snakes in the fields.

We lived in a former overseer’s house two doors from the estate’s main gate, where Mr. Mahabir now stands sentinel, and my mother taught high school in the guard’s village. My parents had only ever studied by kerosene lamp or gas lantern — but this house had electricity, generated on the estate by burning sugar cane trash.

I can remember at age 6 the cold delicacy of a refrigerated apple, a Christmas present from American aunts. It wouldn’t be long before we joined them.

Rigged elections kept Burnham in power for two decades of hardship and insecurity, both ethnic and economic. As soon as our long-awaited green cards allowing entry to the United States were approved, we left, participating in an exodus that created a “barrel economy,” with many communities sustained by money and care packages sent in barrels from relatives abroad. That exodus gutted Guyana: Today, less than 3 percent of the population is college educated.

Burnham’s death in 1985 touched off a series of events that began to change the country. Within seven years, Guyana held its first free and fair elections. Jagan, by then an old man, was elected president. Soon, a younger generation of his party took office and wholeheartedly embraced capitalism. Private companies could once again bid for Guyana’s vast resources. Corruption, endemic in the Burnham era, took new forms.

Then came proof of the dangers of unchecked extraction. In 1995, a dam at a Canadian-owned gold mine gave way. The 400 million gallons of cyanide-laced waste it had held back fouled two major rivers. Simone Mangal-Joly, now an environmental and international development specialist, was among the scientists on the ground testing cyanide levels in the river. The waters had turned red, and Indigenous villagers covered themselves in plastic to protect their skin. “It’s where they bathed,” Ms. Mangal-Joly recalled. “It was their drinking water, their cooking water, their transportation.”

The tragedy led to action. The next year, the government passed its first environmental protection law. Seven years later, the right to a healthy environment was added to the Constitution. Guyana managed to enshrine what the United States and Canada, for instance, have not.

For a moment, Guyana’s natural capital — the vast tropical rainforests that make it one of the very few countries that is a net carbon sink — was among its most prized assets. Bharrat Jagdeo, then president, sold the carbon stored in its forests to Norway to offset pollution from that country’s own petroleum production in 2009. Indigenous groups received $20 million from that deal to develop their villages and gain title to their ancestral lands, though some protested that they had little input. Mr. Jagdeo was hailed as a United Nations “Champion of the Earth.”

And then Exxon Mobil struck oil.

The vision of a green Guyana now vies with its fast-rising status as one of the largest new sources of oil in the world. The country’s sharply divided political parties stand in rare accord on drilling. Mr. Jagdeo, who is now Guyana’s vice president but still dictates much government policy, is a fervent supporter of the Wales project.

But a small, steadfast, multiracial movement of citizens is testing the power of the environmental laws. David Boyd, the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, describes the country as a front line for litigation using innovative rights arguments to fight climate change. It includes the first constitutional climate change case in the region, brought by an Indigenous tour guide and a university lecturer.

Not all critics of the petroleum development are environmentalists. What unites them is the belief that the nation’s hard-won constitutional protections should be stronger than any corporation.

‘The rule of law is the rule of law.’

Liz Deane-Hughes comes from a prominent family. Her father founded one of Georgetown’s most respected law firms, and in the 1980s, back in Burnham’s time, he fought against repressive changes to the constitution. She remembers her parents taking her to rousing rallies led by a multiracial party battling Burnham’s rule. When she was 13, she came home one day to find police officers searching their home. “I lived through the 1980s in Guyana,” says Ms. Deane-Hughes, who practiced at the family firm before quitting the law. “So I do not want to go back there on any level.”

I talked to Ms. Deane-Hughes, now an artist and jewelry designer, on the sprawling veranda of a colonial-style house built on land that has been in her family for five generations. The government has claimed part of it for the natural gas pipeline, which crosses private property as well as the Wales Estate. But the issue, she told me, is bigger than her backyard.

Last month, Ms. Deane-Hughes joined other activists, virtually, at a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, making the argument that oil companies have compromised environmental governance in Guyana. This coterie of activists have spoken out and filed suits to bring the corporation under the scrutiny of the country’s laws and regulations.

Ms. Mangal-Joly, who responded to the cyanide disaster that prompted those environmental laws, says the government has failed to fulfill its oversight duties. As part of her doctoral research at University College London, she found that Guyana’s Environmental Protection Agency had waived the environmental assessments for every facility treating toxic waste or storing radioactive materials produced by offshore oil production.

The gas plant, too, has been given a pass. In January, the E.P.A. waived the environmental assessment for the proposed Wales plant because Exxon Mobil, although it isn’t building the plant, had done one for the pipeline.

The E.P.A. defended the decision. “It is good and common practice” to rely on existing environmental assessments “even when done by other project developers,” wrote an agency spokeswoman on behalf of its executive director. The agency asserted its right to waive assessments as it sees fit and noted that the courts hadn’t overturned its exemptions, saying, “This no doubt speaks to the E.P.A.’s high degree of technical competence and culture of compliance within the laws of Guyana.”

Ms. Mangal-Joly notes that the power plant sits above an aquifer that supplies drinking water to most of the country. “Our water table is shallow,” she says. “There’s a generation, and generations to come, that will not inherit clean water. We are despoiling a resource far more valuable than oil.”

The waiver infuriated Ms. Deane-Hughes. And the independence of the board that hears citizen concerns struck her as a sham. Its chairman, Mahender Sharma, heads Guyana’s energy agency, and his wife directs the new government company created to manage the power plant. At a hearing of the board, Ms. Deane-Hughes cited the mandate against conflicts of interest in the Environmental Protection Act and asked Mr. Sharma to recuse himself. “I would like you not to make a decision,” she told him.

Six weeks later, the board did make a decision: It allowed the power company to keep its environmental permit without doing an impact statement.

Mr. Sharma, the energy director, dismissed the critics as a privileged intellectual elite sheltered from the deprivations that have led many Guyanese to welcome the oil industry.

At the Inter-American commission meeting, Mr. Bharrat, the minister of natural resources, argued that it is his government’s right as well as its responsibility to balance economic growth with sustainability. “Our country’s development and environmental protection are not irreconcilable aims,” he told them. And he reminded them that they can turn to the courts with their complaints.

Guyana’s highest court has dealt the activists both setbacks and victories. In one of the more consequential cases, activists have thus far prevailed. Frederick Collins, who heads the local anti-corruption group Transparency Institute of Guyana, sued the E.P.A. for not requiring Exxon Mobil’s local subsidiaries to carry a more substantial insurance policy. Mr. Collins argued that the existing $600 million policy was inadequate in the extreme. Major oil spills aren’t rare — two happen worldwide every year. The biggest blowout ever, at BP’s Deepwater Horizon, cost that company $64 billion. The deepwater drilling in Guyana is the riskiest kind.

A retired insurance executive and Methodist preacher, Mr. Collins had been feeling pessimistic about the case ever since the judge allowed Exxon Mobil, with its daunting resources, to join the E.P.A. as a defendant a year ago. In legal filings, the defendants had dismissed him as a “meddlesome busybody” without legal standing to bring the suit.

But in May, the judge, Sandil Kissoon, pilloried the E.P.A. as “a derelict, pliant” agency whose “state of inertia and slumber” had “placed the nation, its citizens and the environment in grave peril.” He found that the insurance held by Exxon Mobil’s local subsidiary failed to meet international standards and ordered the parent company to guarantee its unlimited liability for all disaster costs — or stop drilling. The case is being appealed.

An Exxon Mobil spokesperson said by email that the company’s insurance is “adequate and appropriate” and that a $2 billion guarantee it recently provided, at the order of the court considering the appeal, “exceeds industry precedent and the estimate of potential liability.”

At a news conference, Mr. Jagdeo, the vice president, criticized the ruling and called on Guyana’s courts to make “predictable” decisions. “We are playing in the big leagues now,” he said. “We are not a backwater country where you can do whatever you want and get away with it.”

To Melinda Janki, the lawyer handling most of the activists’ suits and one of the few local lawyers willing to take on the oil companies, the question is whether Exxon Mobil can get away with doing whatever it wants. She helped shape some of Guyana’s strongest environmental laws. “Even though this is a massive oil company,” she said, “they still have to obey the law. The rule of law is the rule of law.”

The dissidents are deploying the law in their fight against the oil giant and the government, but with billions on the line, they’re also combating the currents of public opinion.

A fossil fuel economy in a changing world

For all the misery wrought by sugar during the colonial era, its legacy as an economic powerhouse lingers in local memory.

In Patentia, the village closest to Wales, where I attended first grade, laid-off sugar workers remember the estate as the center of the community. When its 1,000 workers lost their jobs, thousands more were sent reeling, as businesses from rum shops to mom-and-pop groceries folded.

The Guyana Sugar Corporation, then the country’s largest employer, eliminated a third of its work force, leaving about a fifth of the population coping with the effects of unemployment.

The timing of the closures, a year after the oil discovery, raised hopes that the petroleum industry might somehow fill the void. Seven years after the closures, however, most sugar workers haven’t found new jobs. Certainly, very few are employed by the petroleum industry.

Their struggle raises a crucial question for Guyana as it wrestles with the transition from the old economy to the new: How can Guyanese without the skills or education for petroleum jobs benefit? Nested within that quandary ticks another: What if the new economy isn’t so new? What if its petroleum-driven vision of progress is actually already outdated?

Thomas Singh, a behavioral economist who founded the University of Guyana’s Green Institute, has argued for transforming the still-active sugar industry’s waste into cellulosic ethanol, a cutting-edge biofuel. But Mr. Sharma, the energy agency head, says the industry is too small for its cane husks to power very much. Some of the jackpot from Norway for carbon offsets has been earmarked for eight small solar farms, but Mr. Sharma, who drives an electric car and has solar panels at his house, maintains that solar energy is too expensive to be a primary power source, despite arguments to the contrary . The giant hydroelectric project the Norway deal was supposed to fund, powered by a waterfall, has long been stalled.

What dominates the local imagination now is oil and gas. During my stay in Guyana, I kept hearing the calypso song “ Not a Blade of Grass ” on the radio. Written in the 1970s as a patriotic rallying cry and a stand against Venezuela, which threatened to annex two-thirds of Guyana, it has made a comeback with a new cover version. (So, too, have Venezuela’s threats .) The lyrics, to an outsider’s ear, sound like an anthem against Exxon Mobil: “When outside faces from foreign places talk about takin’ over, we ain’t backin’ down.” But in Guyana, it has been invoked recently to assert the nation’s right to pump its own oil. The voices against drilling, however outspoken, remain isolated; the more passionate debate is over whether Guyana should renegotiate its contract to get a bigger take of the oil proceeds.

Oil is seen as such a boon that even questioning how it’s regulated can be branded unpatriotic. Journalists, academics, lawyers, workers at nongovernmental organizations and even former E.P.A. employees confided their fear of being ostracized if they spoke against petroleum.

Since becoming an adult, I’ve returned to Guyana every few years to research the country’s past and its legacies. During this recent trip, an elder statesman I interviewed told me that it was time I moved back permanently. The thought points to a hope, reawakened by oil, that Guyana can reclaim its lost people. But from my recent trips back to the country, it’s hard to tell now what Guyana is becoming, and who will thrive there as it evolves.

The house my family lived in on the Wales Estate still stands. It has been freshly painted and refurbished, with a daunting sign outside threatening trespassers with closed-circuit television, dogs and drone surveillance. It has passed into private hands. Exactly who owns it is a matter of speculation. The rumor in Patentia? A former sugar worker from Wales repeated it to me: “Exxon owns that house.”

Do you have a connection to Guyana?

It’s still early days in Guyana’s transformation, and the events unfolding in Guyana will have a notable impact worldwide. We’d like to hear your perspectives on where the country is heading. We especially want to engage Guyanese people and those with family or ancestral connections to the country.

The Headway initiative is funded through grants from the Ford Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF), with Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors serving as a fiscal sponsor. The Woodcock Foundation is a funder of Headway’s public square. Funders have no control over the selection, focus of stories or the editing process and do not review stories before publication. The Times retains full editorial control of the Headway initiative.

Gaiutra Bahadur is the author of “Coolie Woman: The Odyssey of Indenture.” She teaches English and journalism as an associate professor at Rutgers University in Newark.

A Guide to Sugar and Other Sweeteners

One of the best things you can do for your health is to cut back on foods with added sugar . Here’s how to get started .

A W.H.O. agency  has classified aspartame as a possible carcinogen . If the announcement has you worried, consider these alternatives to diet soda .

A narrative that sugar feeds cancer has been making the rounds for decades. But while a healthy diet is important, you can’t “starve a tumor.”

Sugar alcohols are in many sugar-free foods. What are they, and are they better than regular sugar ?

Many parents blame sugar for their children’s hyperactive behavior . But the myth has been debunked .

Are artificial sweeteners a healthy alternative to sugar? The W.H.O. warned against using them , saying that long-term use could pose health risks.

Advertisement