THE COURTROOM

STRICT IMPOSITION OF CORPORATE DRESSING IN VET SCHOOL, DISCIPLINE OR PREJUDICE?

Strict Imposition of Corporate Dressing in Vet School, a Discipline

…Elyon

‘You are addressed the way you dress’

My lord, I appeal to your conscientious mind to cite some references before proceeding. Dress code exist for all professions as a means of identification, exuding dignity and presenting the worth and value of the professions. No one need to describe any of the personnel before recognizing what they do and that alone is a show of ideal professional. You will not need to be told someone is a lawyer, Engineer or Medical personnel before you identify any of them.

Corporate dressing in Vet in the first place should not be something that has to be imposed before being adopted by all students and staffs equally because it portrays our noble identity as a matter of external outlook and impression on the members of the society or the clients. Our nobility is not complete if we cannot present ourselves in a way that is dignifying. Casual wears or shabby dress does not differentiate Vet students from any dick and harry out there on the streets, and if such is the case, we should be sure that no one will give us our much desired value. Therefore it is a matter of necessity to dress corporately, hence the imposition. 

In the myriads of ethics and etiquette that comes along with professional courses, the emphasis on dressing cannot  be exaggerated and as such, none of them tolerate otherwise than what they have chosen as their dress pattern. Corporate dressing is the pattern chosen in vet school and as much as possible, should be strictly followed because it completes others and speaks much volume about the profession. Following ethics and etiquette for a profession is a reflection of being disciplined because one is able to fit into the shape of the profession. 

Studying carefully, freshly admitted student for the study of medical course and Law likewise will readily embrace corporate dressing because the level of discipline in medical or law profession has boiled down to the least level and with no choice but to be corporate in appearance. However, the reverse is the case in vet school because even till the final year, students are still being forced to see the need to appear corporate. Such is an indicator that it must be strictly imposed if by nature vet students will not readily accept it.  

With this my lord, I conclude that the faculty management is right to strictly impose corporate dress code with ties on vet students and that, in a way to build disciplined vet doctors in training with regards to the nobility of the profession.

Thank you my lord.

Strict Imposition of Corporate Dressing in Vet School, a Prejudice.

…Martial

“The illusory reality tends to become whatever you are prepared to accept.” “It is amazing how complete is the delusion that our professional dexterity is a subject of how corporately we can dress.”

My lord, I deemed it fit to highlight the quotes above before I begin to lay down concrete facts in support of my stance that the strict imposition of corporate dresses in vet school is a total prejudice because they represent the perfect description of how erroneously motivated the stance of my opponents are. This has been a subject of great controversy as students endlessly flout this regulation, trading the needless discomfort for ease. A lot of blame has so far been put on our doorstep, but it is rather incomprehensible why the management has never shown any concrete step in seeking reasons why this is happening, but rather sit in their well-aerated, mostly fully air-conditioned offices and dash out rules. The concept of imposition of corporate dresses in vet school has been fallacious right from its genesis, which has always been the needless comparison with our colleagues in Medicine and Surgery. Yet, we find it very inconvenient to accept the fact that our working environment, style and clientele do not only differ from each other but the exact opposite. Does our intrinsic inability to accept the truth renders the truth invalid? Of course not! Medical doctors don’t have to chase donkeys around under the hot sun. While we do all the rigors in the field, our so-called colleagues only need an enclosed, often air-conditioned apartment to carry out their duty. Hence, a compelling need for some differences in our dress codes. During the course of this hearing my lord, my opponent, in his illusory sense of realism, has tried to confuse us with the same faulty analogies which has inspired this dispute right from the outset but failed to mention the fact that engineers are safer without ties, therefore, their dress code at work may not necessarily include ties. As a matter of fact, a general saying in engineering is: “wear a tie, and people will smell the rookie from a mile away.” Besides having to study under extremely harsh conditions here, if using neckties could predispose us to hazards from our patients, then why should we always use them? Let’s take a minute break from the routine dogmatism that typifies us here and be realistic with ourselves. For the fear of truth, people do not want to be asked questions. In cases where certain questions have been asked, I have seen such being met with vicious and beastly responses which umpteen times do not address the questions. The fact still remains that: does a medical doctor need to go out in the field under the hot sun and forcefully restrain hundreds of their patients or does a lawyer need to restrain their clients before they can perform their duty? If yes, then the analogy is justified, but if no, there is then no basis for the comparison. Do not get me wrong my lord, it is always very important to dress smartly and responsibly but the part where we have to endure a great deal of discomfort to satisfy our obsession with neckties is the part I really do not understand. Neckties will not fool our clientele for long. Besides, I strongly believe its enforcement in some aspects of Veterinary Medicine is absolutely inappropriate.

Thank you my lord.

This is an argument between two individuals and does not represent the stance of this press organisation on the topic being discussed.