(This post is my own personal opinion and it holds no other purpose but to express my sentiments)
I get it. School rules are necessary and should be followed to the letter. Rules are issued to instill discipline among the members of the school community, be it for the students or the faculty alike. Discipline is "the desired and/or expected norm of conduct." The importance of having rules is clearly enunciated in the case of DLSU vs. CA where the court, in stressing its importance said : "the essential establishment of rules...may be regarded as vital, not merely to the smooth and efficient operation of the institution, but to its very survival." The court could not be any clearer than that.
I get it. School rules are necessary and should be followed to the letter. Rules are issued to instill discipline among the members of the school community, be it for the students or the faculty alike. Discipline is "the desired and/or expected norm of conduct." The importance of having rules is clearly enunciated in the case of DLSU vs. CA where the court, in stressing its importance said : "the essential establishment of rules...may be regarded as vital, not merely to the smooth and efficient operation of the institution, but to its very survival." The court could not be any clearer than that.
Rules are an integral part of schools for their smooth operation. They are imposed to establish to provide order and harmony among each member.
Imagine a world where there are no rules. Each one will be acting on his/her own
regardless of whether or not such an action is to the detriment of someone, especially another person in the community. Eventually, there will be nothing but chaos. Even the universe has its
own rules or laws, the very reason why we live the way we do.
In order for rules to be effective, they should have
teeth. A rule that is ignored is
inutile. However, to make rules really
earn its teeth, they have to be known by every member and that there should be a clear reason for their imposition - one must
not run in the hallways, this is not a playground and one could get hurt; one should take or use somebody else’s property
without permission of the owner – that would be stealing. There should be a clear reason why this or
that is forbidden. It could either be
harmful for the doer or to somebody else.
When the rules are clear and the reason for its imposition
is known and accepted, there will be no problem. However, sometimes, rules can be as
abstract and unclear. When this happens, each one can have their own interpretation until it becomes a free-for-all which only brings more confusion
rather than enlightenment.
There are rules which could be obscure to the point of being illogical to the members of the organization.
Often, these rules are viewed as whimsical or capricious as the members
do not understand why this is being implemented. Examples of these could be the rule on hair color, or one's choice in clothes when a standard uniform is not required. Let us take hair color for example. What
if there was a rule forbidding someone to teach with his/her hair dyed blonde? Following the logic posed earlier, it could
be assumed that this is so because blonde hair is bad. But why? Often, they say, "this" is not a teaching hair color - if there is something like that. What if the person is a natural blonde? He/She shoud not teach because she possesses bad hair. But is this right? Can one not teach effectively because the color of his/her hair is not the prescribed one? Should the person color his/her hair black because that is the accepted hair
color for teachers - in the Philippines, at least? Why is it bad to
have blonde hair in the first place? Does it hamper one’s thought processes? Does that impair a person's judgment? Is
it too jarring for students that they cannot follow the lesson because the
teacher’s hair is not "au naturel"?
Sadly, these are unacceptable because they do not follow the wishes one, if not all, in the administration. They probably think this does not display good taste? Just because most
Filipino hair is black, we assume that any other hair color is not acceptable? Is
this not just a matter of opinion? This
fact goes with the choice of clothes and the like. I have been poring over this and came to one
conclusion. It is bad enough when a
person forces his/her own morality on another. It is even worse when one dictates his/her own
personal tastes on anyone. Just as I do not
adhere to censorship, I do not want others meddling with my personal life. I may
not be cool in my choices of clothes, or they may frown on the food that I eat
for these are too oily and dangerous to my health or they may not like how I behave in public. But as long as I am not a risk to someone, I don’t
care! I am proud that I can be who I
am. My personal tastes are my own. Allow
me to enjoy my freedom. Let me suffer the consequences of my choices. I made them on my own. To standardize such would be synonymous to
animals, who, after having engaged in a
mating ritual, returns to the anonymity of the flock. That is not me. I want to retain my identity wherever
I go at any time in my life. And so,
unless the harming consequences of these rules can be explained to me with
clarity and with a very convincing argument, I say let me be!
