Athletes concerned about required game day attire


The Crusader Staff

In the last few years, our school has gone through several changes in its clothing policy. First it was the required A plus khakis, a mandate that caused many students to purchase several new articles of clothing in order to align with the dress code.

Even though this regulation proved to be a failure, as it was redacted for the 2019-2020 school year, remnants of its rule remain through the uncomfortable legwear that can still be found in nearly every classroom of the school.

Now, our student body faces two new regulations: required Riordan polos and required track suits for athletic teams.

It has been made clear over the last few years that Riordan

students will grumble about even the most insigni cant of changes. The protest of students is nothing new, and as such, the current outcry against these regulations would normally be seen as ordinary and dismissible. But lines must be drawn somewhere, and we, the staff of The Crusader, believe that we must stand in opposition to the new regulations on athletic wear.

We understand the intentions of the new policy are admirable. Our athletic teams should look good, they should look orderly, and they should maintain uniformity. They represent our school, after all. We wouldn’t want them to look sloppy. Our enmity toward this requirement, therefore, is not as a result of its principle, but rather its implementation.

Our primary insistence is that students should not be required to pay for these uniforms. While $70 may not seem like very much, it could be the difference between a student joining an athletic program and wasting their potential. Issuing a mandatory expense to participate in extracurriculars disincentivizes involvement and is consequently antithetical to the mission of our beloved school. Over and over again, students of Archbishop Riordan have been bombarded with the same message: get involved. We are encouraged to throw ourselves into the activities of the school, and to commit our time and energy to all the school has to offer.

If this is truly the intent of the school, then why would it impose a veritable tax on involvement? It simply does not make sense. Besides, the school already provides uniforms to its teams.

Would our school truly consider