The title of this post is the very simple, one line abstract to the following article:
Jensen, Erik M., "Law School Attire: A Call for a Uniform Uniform Code"
.
Oklahoma City University Law Review, Forthcoming Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1020738
Here is an extended extract from Jensen's introduction to a very funny article (with the footnotes removed):
A T-shirt says hot stock options, but a tie says A401(k) plans.
Well, yes. That's it exactly. Style of dress matters, and clothing in American law schools should reflect good, traditional values. A tie with regimental stripes has a lot more class than a polo shirt or any other form of Apimp chic. Legal-academic attire should complement the majesty of the law.
In short, we need a uniform uniform code (UUC) to regulate law school attire.
Not for students. I give up on them. Sure, I'd be happy to return to a world in which male students appeared each day in coat and tie, and female students wore the feminine equivalent. In fact, I'd be happy to return to a world in which students were dressed at all in the spring, summer, and fall. Studying taxation has to be easier if the person sitting next to you isn't exposing his or her buttocks. And, although underdressed students wind up learning something about the bottom line, I suppose, how can they understand the concept of white-collar crime?
But time doesn't run backwards, eggs can't be unscrambled, and body parts won't be put back inside student clothing. It's 2007, after all, and students are busting out all over.
The students may be a lost cause, but the professoriate is something else. It's been said that "[a]cademics are still the worst-dressed middle-class occupational group in America" - we're "poorly groomed, . . . schlumped over and practically drooling" - yet we're the folks who should be the role models. Instead, not only do we dress badly - "struggle no. 1" facing the president of the American Association of University Professors is that "other leaders expect him to wear a tie from time to time" - but we've also convinced everyone else to worship grunginess. As clothing theorist Nicholas Antongiavanni explains, "[M]any came to believe the protestation of academics that taste was nothing but a fraud perpetrated by the great to keep down the people."
Whatever the students do, we ought to have standards. (Even crash dummies have dress codes.) In Philip Roth's The Professor of Desire, Professor David Kepesh proposes to tell his literature students that "however you may choose to attire yourselves - in the getup of garage mechanic, panhandler, tearoom gypsy, or cattle rustler - I still prefer to appear before you to teach wearing a jacket and a tie. Right on.
Besides, the world of law practice may be moving back to serious dress. Indeed, parts of that world stood fast all along, with no flip-flops. Paul Fussell writes that, "[d]espite some relaxation of rigor, it remains true that the dark business suit (or its female equivalent) is still close to obligatory, at least in businesses that have little truck with novelty, like serious law, most banks, and the upper reaches of the securities markets."
Serious law? That's what we do in law school (except for the international law types). But we don't dress seriously.
Again, you download the whole article here (and if you are legal academic who appreciates laughing at your profession - and possibly even yourself - I recommend you do).
After reading Jensen's article, I began to wonder how Australian legal academics would stack up against their US equivalents. I think it probably depends a little bit on the Law School. When I studied law at the University of Queensland, I think every lecturer I had wore a tie on the days when they were lecturing, but they didn't feel the need to wear a tie when they weren't teaching or if they only had tutorials on that day. Of course, some wore a tie every day (generally some of the older members of staff and some of the professors). So when I studied at Columbia University I was quite surprised when most of my lecturers didn't wear I tie at all, even when they were lecturing to large groups. Those who did wear ties tended to be adjunct professors who came straight from work into the classroom.
When I took up an appointment at the Queensland University of Technology in the Law School, I followed the example set years earlier at the University of Queensland, so I wore a suit and tie when I was lecturing, but was happy to discard the tie on days when I only had tutorials or was not teaching at all. I persisted with this approach for my first semester of teaching, before realising no-one else seemed to adopt this approach; indeed, several of my colleagues used to poke fun, in a good humoured way (I think), when I was seen walking around the school in a coat and tie. So since then I usually wear trousers (occasionally even jeans) with a shirt (frequently quite bright, usually designed by Tommy Hilfiger). I wouldn't say I'm the most casually dressed member of the staff - indeed far from it (I can think of one colleague who seems to only ever wear jeans and a t-shirt) - but I am beginning to think that perhaps my attire doesn't "complement the majesty of the law". Or maybe my internet law focus just isn't serious law?
So, I don't normally do this, but I thought I would poll my colleagues, students and readers as to whether what I wear to work is appropriate for a law lecturer (given the majesty and seriousness of the law and all that). So, vote away ...
