This is a public tertiary institution. The students are adult citizens with the right to choose their cultural expression, in sartorial matters. Only the law can impose mandatory constraints.

What business does anyone have with someone who decides to wear an anklet? Who does that threaten? These are adult citizens.

When one person says to another that his or her hair is unkempt, what exactly is the objective criteria at play? A throwback to colonialist condescension around indigenous African hairstyles?

You say in this hot country, people cannot wear shorts? Why exactly? Somehow, they can wear shorts in primary and secondary schools? But as soon as they get to university, that becomes problematic. Why?

Do we realise that by banning shorts, you also ban the wearing of traditional cloth?

We could go on. Beyond the impositions of the law, anything else must be the outcome of negotiations, not imposition.

Thankfully, in its latest memo, the university seems to acknowledge errors in both reasoning and execution.

People arguing that a university is a place to teach adult citizens how to dress professionally amuse me. Really?

The university should also be a place to model proper behaviours and values. Those who wield authority should lead the way in exemplifying conduct that lives and breathes the ethos of democratic compromise, negotiations, and dialogue.

Universities should not become training grounds for Gestapos.

Thanks for getting me to write something on the matter. I will share it with some other friends.