12/09/2026
๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น | Un******ng the Rules
Discipline should never come at the cost of a studentโs dignity.
Recently, Jamie Alday, a first-year student of Batangas State University - Lipa Campus, publicly expressed her outrage following a reported incident involving campus security personnel. Alday, a transgender woman, reported that she was allegedly instructed to remove her undergarment while wearing her P.E. uniform. She described the incident as humiliating. As the matter remains ongoing, the circumstances surrounding the reported incident should be addressed with fairness and due process.
Still, the reported incident raises an important question about the universityโs dress code and, more importantly, how such policies are enforced. Universities have the authority to establish reasonable standards for student attire, but that authority also carries the responsibility to implement them properly and respectfully.
According to Asst. Prof. Rey Anthony N. Abing, Head of the Office of Student Discipline (OSD), the universityโs existing manual does not contain a protocol requiring a student to immediately remove an undergarment because of a dress-code violation. He explained that the initial action for a student who does not comply with the dress code is to prevent them from entering the university. If a student is allowed to enter despite the violation, the matter may proceed through disciplinary measures, beginning with a written warning for a first offense, a minor offense for a second, and possible suspension for succeeding violations.
The university also provides an avenue for students with legitimate reasons for not wearing the prescribed attire. Abing explained that security personnel may direct such students to the OSD, which can issue a temporary gate pass for situations such as a damaged uniform or the need to have a new one made. These procedures show that dress-code enforcement does not have to rely on improvised or potentially humiliating measures. There are established mechanisms for addressing violations while preserving a studentโs dignity.
The issue, then, is not whether the university should enforce its rules. It should. The more pressing concern is whether enforcement remains proportionate, accountable, and respectful. A student can be corrected without being degraded, and a policy can be upheld without turning its implementation into an experience of shame or humiliation.
This responsibility becomes even more important when dress-code enforcement involves transgender students. Gender expression is not a loophole in institutional rules, nor is it inherently an act of rebellion. For transgender students, the way they dress and present themselves can be an integral part of their identity, which means that strictly binary dress codes can create friction when institutional policies fail to account for diverse gender expressions. What may appear to be an ordinary enforcement of an attire policy can carry a deeper weight when a studentโs gender expression is placed under scrutiny. This is why institutional inclusion cannot remain limited to student conversations or advocacy initiatives. It must be reflected in the universityโs policies, systems, and everyday interactions, while still maintaining reasonable institutional order.
Batangas State University has been recognized as a GAD Champion, and that distinction carries a responsibility beyond demonstrating that gender and development initiatives exist within the institution. Inclusion should be practiced by the people who represent the university on the ground, especially those entrusted with enforcing its policies. Frontline personnel should be equipped not only to identify violations, but also to respond with gender sensitivity, professionalism, and respect.
Administrative accountability is therefore essential. Following The APEXโs publication of its developing story on September 10 regarding the reported incident, the BatStateU - Lipa Campus Chancellorโs Office later issued an official statement on September 12 acknowledging the serious concerns raised. The statement said that the Campus Administration had initiated steps to understand the circumstances and address the concerns, including referring the student to the Office of Guidance Counseling, contacting her parents, and asking relevant personnel to clarify the incident.
These are important steps, and they deserve recognition. But an official statement should not be the end of the conversation. The Leap High Lipa community deserves continued assurance that the matter is being taken seriously, that proper procedures are being followed, and that accountability and justice are being pursued. Transparency does not mean compromising confidentiality or due process, nor does it require prematurely declaring anyone guilty. It means keeping the community appropriately informed about the institutional steps being taken and, when the process allows, what changes will be made to prevent similar incidents.
The university should therefore take this reported incident as an opportunity to review its dress-code provisions, enforcement procedures, and personnel guidance. Clearer protocols, appropriate training, safeguards against humiliating treatment, and meaningful consultation with LGBTQIA+ students can help prevent similar situations. More importantly, the administration must ensure that its commitment to a safe, respectful, and inclusive campus is reflected not only in statements, but in practice. And while the administration carries the responsibility to act, the university community must also refuse to let this matter simply fade into silence.
Calling for accountability does not mean condemning anyone before the facts are established. It does not mean demanding that due process be abandoned. It means refusing to let a serious concern disappear simply because an official statement has been issued. The red spartan community has every right to continue asking questions and calling for meaningful action. Silence should not be mistaken for resolution, and the passage of time should not be allowed to turn a serious concern into a forgotten one.
BatStateU is a state university for a reason. Its responsibility extends beyond producing students who can comply with institutional requirements. It must also provide an environment where students can learn without unnecessary humiliation because of how they look, dress, or express themselves.
True order relies on mutual respect, not humiliation.
A studentโs gender expression does not determine their academic ability, character, or worth as a member of the university. If the university wants its policies to be respected, it must also ensure that the people implementing those policies understand the difference between disciplining a student and humiliating one.
Because truly, the question is not whether rules should exist. They should.
The question is whether following those rules should ever require a student to surrender their dignity. It should not.
A dress code is a rule. It is never a license to humiliate.
