I agree with the fact that uniforms add a sense of ‘belonging’ to a profession. Many a litigator see their black robes with a sense of immense pride.
And I have no issues with students being asked to wear a uniform, say, once a week. For that sense of belonging, pride.
But lets take the argument further: Why do we study law? To become a lawyer? A litigating lawyer who dons black robes or a law firmite dressed in impeccable formals?
What about a law journalist? What uniform does he wear? Lets give him a jhola , shall we? What about an academician? What will she wear? And well, a would-be judge? What should we prescribe for her/him? A wig?
Given the various options a law student has, I think it will be very restrictive to dress her up in an attire.
A law school is not meant to fit you into a profession; it exists to give you myriad skills: the skills to reason, to argue, to defend; to be a free thinking individual.
And you know, what a free thinking individual should wear? Shorts, will be my answer (kidding).
And that’s the issue here. Prescribing a uniform for a day is alright; restricting a student’s choice to wear something pretty decent (shorts), an authoritarian act. Till a student dresses decently and does not offend anyone, no one should have a problem.
PS 1: the best academic at NUJS is known to go into staff meetings, in, you guessed it right, shorts.
PS 2: a uniform may add a sense of belonging to the profession, but its not a pre-requisite to being a competent professional. No potent rays are emitted from the combination of a white shirt and a black pant which makes you a better lawyer.
I can very well be nude and be the most diligent student in class. Decorum and sanctity of a classroom do not come from the dresses its students wear but from their conduct.
You must of course not offend anyone from what you wear. Do shorts offend anyone? I don’t think so. And what is offensive? Like porn, you know it, when you see it.
Have a counter-view? Send it to email@example.com. We’d love to publish that too.