Schools dress codes should be better enforced

I'm just gonna start out by responding to her newer arguments then extending out my responses that she dropped.Her Argument: Distraction First, there's really no distraction. It's hard to get distracted by someone's a** when that a** is planted in a chair. The only places where people could get "distracted" by someone's clothing is where they can see them fully, and that's not in the classroom. Second, trying to enforce this rule in the classroom --- her method of the teachers checking out what each and every student is wearing --- is going to be a larger distraction to the classroom environment than any piece of revealing clothing could ever be. It takes away valuable class time where people could be learning and the teacher instructing to be used by a ruler measuring a skirt. Moreover, teachers trying to check everyone isn't going to work because a) teacher's aren't always in their rooms, meaning that students could potentially walk in before the teacher can "check them", b) if the teachers are the ones making bad decisions, placing the entirety of the rule-enforcing process into their awful hands instead of just most of it is only going to make the problem worse. Her Argument: Makes girls feel bad because the rule isn't being applied when it should be First, this doesn't actually mean that the rule is bad. If people are applying the rule in really bad ways and not where it should be, that doesn't mean that the rule is wrong and it needs to be changed, rather we need to make sure that people are enforcing it in the ways it was meant to be enforced. There's no reason to make it harsher when just applying the current, not-as-harsh rule correctly fixes all the issues my oppnent has. Second, this argument works against my opponent because harsher rulings of a dress code makes the rule entirely sexist(1). The rule is almost entirely used to punish girls for their clothing, and no effort is put to condoning boys who wear clothing that violates the code. Even look at the language my opponent uses to talk about who is affected by the rules: it's entirely feminine (she, her, etc.). This shifts the fault from faulty application of the rules onto the girl's choice in clothing, which is a) sexism, and b) just a wrong placement of blame, otherwise known as "slut shaming". This means that girls will be far more harmed and feel worse with a harsher dress code. With that let's go to my arguments. First, she entirely drops the impossibility argument, saying that the dress code rule is impossible to actually objectively enforce. This si because a) what people consider too short and too long is entirely subjective, b) there's no brightline on how "strict" we should make the rule, and c) even if we make it stricter, that doesn't actually solve the problem.The most important parts here are a) and c). a) is what is causing the problems my opponent complains about. The inherent subjectivity of what we consider to be a violation causes wrong applications of the rules. This means that fixing a) --- i.e. making people not subjective (ignoring for a moment that this isn't possible to do) --- actually fixes the problem, not by changing the rule.c) is also important because even if we do what she's asking us to do, we don't actually fix any of the problems. The reason for that is because a) is the actual problem here, not the dress code. She's trying to fix the dress code, not trying to fix a). Sources:(1) - http://www.theguardian.com...;