Staff Editorial
The policy for appropriate exercise attire is anything but appropriate. Its claim to protect students from infection is far-fetched and it contradicts the university’s tradition of not having a dress code.
Upon returning from break, students were shocked to walk past clip-art posters announcing the new exercise attire policy banning “booty shorts” and tank tops.
Campus Recreation did not do its homework before enacting the change. Not only did Campus Recreation fail to conduct adequate research before enacting the new rule, but the policy did not pass dean of Student Affairs Mark Davis’ inspection.
Upon Davis’ request for more information, on Friday Campus Recreation revoked the new exercise attire policy that was to be effective Monday, Jan. 15th in the Firestone Fieldhouse Weight Center and Drescher Fitness Center. The policy is on hold while Campus Recreation collects more data about the relationship between disease and exercise clothing.
The exercise policy banned tank tops, spaghetti straps, sport bras, swimsuits and shirts showing mid-riff or armpits, allowing only full t-shirts with sleeves and appropriate length shorts.
According to Campus Recrea-tion, the purpose of the policy was to prevent disease transmission (staph infections, ringworm, etc.), create a welcoming environment and to protect exercise equipment.
Unless Campus Recreation is worried that students will catch a spaghetti strap on the elliptical machine, then banning sleeveless t-shirts will do little to guard against infection. Although scientific studies support that greater skin exposure increases the risk of contracting a staph infection or ringworm, the additional protection provided by a t-shirt is minimal.
In addition, though skin exposure may increase infection risk when using weight training machines, skin exposure is inconsequential on most cardio machines (treadmill, elliptical machine, etc.).
The new attire policy was not in response to a skin infection outbreak on campus. Director of Campus Recreation Catherine Cramp said it was preventative. Before unveiling another dress code, Campus Recreation will thoroughly research the presence of infection on campus.
Cramp denied that the attire policy was related to Pepperdine’s Christian mission or a desire to see students dress more conservatively. This seems ludicrous, however, because the very motto of Campus Recreation is Isaiah 40:29-31, which speaks to finding strength in God.
Christianity permeates life at Pepperdine; it is unreasonable to deny its influences on the attire policy. Campus Recreation should at least be transparent about its motives.
The implications of enforcing an attire policy in the gym span further than Campus Recreation. The lack of dress code distinguishes Pepper-dine from other conservative, Church of Christ schools, presumably to affirm self-expression.
It is inconsistent for the university to allow students to wear skimpy tees and shorts in class but not in the gym. The miniscule protection against disease provided by the proposed attire policy does not justify this inconsistency.
Campus Recreation should not single-handedly create a more “welcoming environment,” as the policy states. What is “welcoming?” Certainly, an attire policy is hardly welcoming. Campus Recreation should ask students what they think is welcoming.
According to an article published by University of South Carolina, the most effective methods to protect against disease in gym are hand washing and sanitizing equipment. Attire is not mentioned. If Campus Recreation is concerned about disease, perhaps it should be stricter about gym hygiene, not attire.
It is wise for the administration to request more information before enacting the attire policy. May the next policy be the product of thorough research as to the true risk of the spread of disease on campus, as well as consultations with students.
01-18-2007
