should schools require students to wear uniforms essay

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

School uniforms: Do they really improve student achievement, behavior?

This updated collection of research looks at how mandatory school uniforms impact student achievement, attendance and behavior as well as the presence of gangs in public schools.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource April 20, 2018

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/education/school-uniforms-research-achievement/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Decades ago, uniforms were mostly worn by students who went to private or parochial schools. But as local school boards have focused more on improving standardized test scores and campus safety, a growing number have begun requiring school uniforms — typically, a polo shirt of a particular color paired with navy or khaki pants, skirts or shorts. Nearly 22 percent of public schools in the United States required uniforms in 2015-16 — up from almost 12 percent in 1999-2000, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Proponents argue that students will pay more attention to their classwork if they aren’t preoccupied with fashion, and that they’ll be better behaved. Meanwhile, school administrators say uniforms help eliminate gang-related styles and logos. They also make it easier to spot a stranger on campus.

Despite their reported benefits, mandatory uniforms are controversial because a lot of parents and students don’t like the idea of forcing children to dress alike, which they say suppresses freedom of expression. Some families complain about the financial burden of purchasing uniforms in addition to their kids’ other clothing. Years ago, parents also complained that it was difficult to find uniforms, but that ceased to be an issue after large chain stores like Target and Wal-Mart began selling them.

As public schools debate the merits of uniforms — some school boards have been bouncing the idea around for years — it’s important for journalists to know what the research says on this topic. School officials do not always consult academic research before they put a plan on the table.

To help journalists ground their reporting and fact-check claims, Journalist’s Resource has rounded up several academic studies worth reviewing. Reporters may also want to examine reports on uniform use from the NCES, which collects and reports data related to school uniforms, dress codes and book bags in public schools.

——————————–

 “School Discipline, School Uniforms and Academic Performance” Baumann, Chris; Krskova, Hana. International Journal of Educational Management , 2016. DOI: 10.1108/IJEM-09-2015-0118.

Summary: This study examines test scores and student behavior in the United States, Canada and 37 other countries to determine whether uniforms affect student discipline. The researchers found that the highest-performing students are the most disciplined. In addition, “for countries where students wear school uniforms, our study found that students listen significantly better, there are lower noise levels, and lower teaching waiting times with classes starting on time.”

“Dressed for Success? The Effect of School Uniforms on Student Achievement and Behavior” Gentile, Elizabetta; Imberman, Scott A. Journal of Urban Economics , 2012, Vol. 71. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2011.10.002.

Abstract: “Uniform use in public schools is rising, but we know little about how they affect students. Using a unique dataset from a large urban school district in the southwest United States, we assess how uniforms affect behavior, achievement and other outcomes. Each school in the district determines adoption independently, providing variation over schools and time. By including student and school fixed-effects we find evidence that uniform adoption improves attendance in secondary grades, while in elementary schools they generate large increases in teacher retention.”

“Uniforms in the Middle School: Student Opinions, Discipline Data, and School Police Data” Sanchez, Jafeth E.; Yoxsimer, Andrew; Hill, George C. Journal of School Violence , 2012. DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2012.706873.

Summary: Researchers asked students at an urban middle school in Nevada what they thought of having to wear uniforms. Their public school had adopted a uniform policy after staff members became frustrated with the earlier dress code policy, which resulted in girls wearing revealing clothing and boys wearing shirts with inappropriate messages and images. The study’s main takeaway: The vast majority of students said they dislike uniforms, although some agreed there were benefits. “For example, in reference to gender, more than expected females than males indicated students treated them better with uniforms. Also, fewer females than males got detention for not wearing a uniform or for wearing a uniform inappropriately.”

“Are School Uniforms a Good Fit? Results from the ECLS-K and the NELS” Yeung, Ryan. Educational Policy , 2009, Vol. 23. doi: 10.1177/0895904808330170.

Abstract: “One of the most common proposals put forth for reform of the American system of education is to require school uniforms. Proponents argue that uniforms can make schools safer and also improve school attendance and increase student achievement. Opponents contend that uniforms have not been proven to work and may be an infringement on the freedom of speech of young people. Within an econometric framework, this study examines the effect of school uniforms on student achievement. It tackles methodological challenges through the use of a value-added functional form and the use of multiple data sets. The results do not suggest any significant association between school uniform policies and achievement. Although the results do not definitely support or reject either side of the uniform argument, they do strongly intimate that uniforms are not the solution to all of American education’s ills.”

“Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement” Brunsma, David L.; Rockquemore, Kerry A. The Journal of Educational Research , 1998, Vol. 92. doi: 10.1080/00220679809597575.

Abstract: “Mandatory uniform policies have been the focus of recent discourse on public school reform. Proponents of such reform measures emphasize the benefits of student uniforms on specific behavioral and academic outcomes. Tenth-grade data from The National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 was used to test empirically the claims made by uniform advocates. The findings indicate that student uniforms have no direct effect on substance use, behavioral problems, or attendance. Contrary to current discourse, the authors found a negative effect of uniforms on student academic achievement. Uniform policies may indirectly affect school environment and student outcomes by providing a visible and public symbol of commitment to school improvement and reform.”

“School Uniforms, Academic Achievement, and Uses of Research” Bodine, Ann. The Journal of Educational Research , 2003, Vol. 97. doi: 10.1080/00220670309597509.

Abstract: “School uniforms are being advocated for a range of social, educational, economic, and familial reasons. In 1998, The Journal of Educational Research (The JER) published an article by D. Brunsma and K. Rockquemore that claims that uniforms correlate negatively with academic achievement, but data presented in this article actually show positive correlation between uniforms and achievement for the total sample, and for all but 1 school sector. Examination of structure of argument reveals that the erroneous claim results from misleading use of sector analysis. Simultaneous with The JER article, and on the basis of the same National Education Longitudinal Study: 1988 database, an Educational Testing Service article reported that no correlation exists between uniforms and achievement. The two articles are contrasted in this study. The effect of new communication technology in amplifying political uses of academic research is discussed.”

“Public School Uniforms: Effect on Perceptions of Gang Presence, School Climate, and Student Self-Perceptions” Wade, Kathleen Kiley; Stafford, Mary E. Education and Urban Society , 2003, Vol. 35. doi: 10.1177/0013124503255002.

Abstract: “This study attempts to clarify the relationships between public school uniforms and some of their intended results: student self-worth and student and staff perceptions of gang presence and school climate. The instruments used in the study included a questionnaire on gang presence and identity, the National Association of School Principals Comprehensive Assessment of School Environments, and the Harter Self-Perception Profile for Children. Participants consisted of 415 urban public middle school students and 83 teachers. Findings indicate that, although perceptions did not vary for students across uniform policy, teachers from schools with uniform policies perceived lower levels of gang presence. Although the effect size was small, students from schools without uniforms reported higher self-perception scores than students from schools with uniform policies. Student and teacher perceptions of school climate did not vary across uniform policy.”

“The Effect of Uniforms on Nonuniform Apparel Expenditures” Norum, Pamela S.; Weagley, Robert O.; Norton, Marjorie J. Family & Consumer Sciences , 1998. doi: 10.1177/1077727X980263001.

Abstract: “The uniform industry has grown steadily the past 20 years with increased attention from employers trying to create a professional image among workers as well as school administrators considering uniforms to curtail school violence. Although an important part of human dress for centuries, uniforms have received little attention from researchers of the clothing market. This study examines the impact of uniform purchases on household expenditures for selected nonuniform apparel subcategories based on an economic model of conditional demand. Expenditure equations are estimated using the 1990-1991 Consumer Expenditure Survey. The results suggest that, on average, consumers do not substitute uniforms for other apparel purchases. Rather, uniforms and nonuniform apparel appear to be complements in consumers’ purchases, resulting in greater household expenditures on nonuniform apparel. These results are a first step in understanding the economic effect that uniform purchases, mandated by employers, schools, or others, have on household clothing expenditures.”

Looking for more research on student achievement? Check out our write-ups on how teacher salaries , school vouchers and school shootings impact learning.   

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway

Should Students Wear School Uniforms Essay (Tips and Sample)

School uniforms are a hotly contested debate, which makes it a controversial topic preferred for school essays. Even though writing a school uniform essay should be easy, students' confessions after being assigned both long and short essays on school uniform show mixed results. Most students who have been given an essay on school uniforms have highlighted it as exciting and tricky.

Well, to write an essay that will score you an excellent grade, you need to understand your perspective, viewpoint, or stand before writing. As yourself, whether you will support school uniforms or you will be against them in your essay.

In most cases, the essay can be argumentative where you argue either for or against, then proceed to state your stand on whether or not you support school uniforms in learning institutions. You can also write an informative essay or a persuasive school uniform essay.

This article covers some aspects to consider when writing such an essay, some suitable topics, and general advice on how to write an outstanding school uniforms essay.

How to begin a School Uniforms Essay

You aim to demystify the school uniforms debate. Therefore, you need to strategize on how to begin the essay. Like other essays, starting with an essay hook would make it interesting to the readers. After the hook, head straight to writing some background information on school uniforms. You can then incorporate a thesis statement that presents your central stance on the paper.

Here is a sample school uniform hook:

A recent study by North Dakota State University revealed that an average American household spends close to 3.8% of their income on clothing, translating to approximately $2000 annually per household.

The hook above is essential when you argue from a cost perspective where you say that school uniforms save families from expenditures on buying different clothes for kids, which equalizes the rich and poor households.

In your background, you can try reference instances when school uniforms have stirred public debates. Inform your reader about these debates and highlight the key issues you will handle in your essay.

At the end of the introduction paragraph, state your thesis statement.

What goes to the body of a school uniform essay?

With the introduction done, you now need to develop the body paragraphs. As a general rule, always maintain a single idea per paragraph. If you are doing your essay in a five-paragraph essay format, ensure that the body of your essay takes 80% of the total word count while the introduction and the conclusion each take 10%.  

Here are some key ideas you can incorporate in the body of your essay:

• Explain the essence of having school uniforms on students, teachers, and learning institutions. Issues such as security and safety, uniformity, and promoting togetherness or unity as benefits. It is easy to spot a student in uniform. School uniforms also enforce some self-respect and self-worth among students. As well, uniforms foster a sense of belonging among students.
• Explore the issue from a cost-saving perspective for the parents. Unlike having different clothes daily, having a few pieces of school uniforms reduces the expenditure per household.
• Connect school uniforms to issues such as creativity, comfort, and affordability. Lack of funds, for instance, can hinder some families from sending their children to school as they have no school uniforms.
• You can also present the pros and cons of school uniforms
• Connect the school uniforms to identity formation
• School uniforms equalize students, which boosts their self-confidence
• School uniform makes students not be imaginative
• In the end, present recommendations that can solve the school uniform quagmire in schools

Like any other essay, ensure that your essay about school uniforms is engaging. Take a multi-stakeholder approach if you are recommending a policy.

If you have real-life examples of how school uniforms are beneficial, present them to support your body paragraphs. As you strive to present your viewpoints, ensure that each paragraph transitions to the next paragraph.

If possible, benchmark your arguments on schools that have successfully implemented school uniforms.

How to end an essay on school uniform

Like the introduction, the conclusion of your essay matters a lot. It can be the only place a marker checks to know what your stance was when writing your school uniforms essay.

Let your readers know whether school uniforms are good or not. Do not just stop there explore the why and why not for each of your points.

If there are recommendations, especially if you were writing an essay based on a school uniforms case study, present them in the conclusion.

DO not introduce new ideas that are not in your essay. However, crystalize and relate to your thesis and make sure your readers enjoy your essay to the last dot.

Sample School Uniforms Essay Topics

School uniform essays differ in perspective or stance, which hugely depends on the choice of topic. We can advise you to choose a school essay topic that has practical points and one that you can support with evidence from scholarly literature.

• Is school uniform a good thing?
• The importance of school uniforms
• Should students wear uniforms?
• Pros and Cons of school uniforms
• The negative impacts of school uniforms
• Rhetorical analysis of school uniforms
• Positive effects of school uniforms
• Are school uniforms a dress for success?
• Why schools should have uniforms
• History of school dress code
• School uniforms in private and public schools
• Should all schools have the same uniform?
• Are school uniforms necessary?
• School uniforms and diversity
• School uniforms and student discipline
• Comparison of school uniforms in U.S. and Japan

School Uniforms Essay Check List

With your essay written, ensure that it ticks most if not all these lists of facts that make a school uniform score great grades.

• Does the essay have a great hook?
• Is the background of your introduction relatable to the selected topic?
• Does the introduction have supporting facts from scholarly sources?
• Does your introduction have a clear thesis statement?
• Is the main idea clearly illustrated in the body?
• Does each body paragraph have an idea of its own?
• Does the essay have transition words for effective flow?
• Does the body discuss important concepts?
• Is the body paragraph having an opening sentence, facts, and closing sentence?
• Has all borrowed information been cited?
• Does the essay have strong evidence?
• Is the essay grammatically correct?
• Is the conclusion a summary of the argument?
• Has the thesis been restated?
• Is the conclusion flowing with the body of the essay?
• Has the essay used formal language?
• Are the sentences free from unnecessary words?
• Is the grammar and spelling in the essay correct?
• Are the references correct?
• Are the references recent?
• Are the sources used credible?
• Does the essay have a title and reference page?

Sample Argumentative Essay on Should Students Wear School Uniforms

Disclaimer – DO NOT COPY this sample essay. It is meant to help you see how you can present your essay ideas given your perspective/viewpoint. Submitting any part of this essay as your own might land you in trouble. We will not be in any way be a party to such consequences. If you need a model essay based on your selected topic for research purposes, please place an order or contact our support team for assistance with outlines, potential references, and some ideas on writing an excellent essay on school uniforms.

Numerous debates have been carried out on whether students should wear uniforms or not. Parents, teachers, students, and school administrations have all given their views on school uniforms with different arguments and opinions on all sides. Supporters of school uniforms argue that school uniforms are essential as they give students an identity and foster discipline, while others argue that uniforms are annoying, uncomfortable, and lack creativity. Regardless of the position one takes on students wearing uniforms, it is clear that uniforms are an essential part of students, and students wearing uniforms is more advantageous to both the students and schools. Thus, all students should wear uniforms as the uniforms instill a sense of discipline and identity, erase differences between the students, and are less costly (thesis statement)

School uniforms eliminate the differences between students in regard to their social and economic backgrounds ( School uniforms promote equality ) . Schools have students from different social and economic backgrounds. The school environment has students from both poor and rich families. Hence, uniforms are important as they are modest and identical clothing that propagate a sense of equality among the students (Freeburg and Workman, 6). Accordingly, all students should wear school uniforms to avoid a situation where some students feel inadequate for being able to afford expensive clothing like their more affluent counterparts. A learning environment and education, in general, are supposed to bridge the social-economic differences that exist in society.

Parents can save much money that would otherwise go to buying a wide variety of school clothes for their children ( school uniforms save parents money spent on clothing ). School uniforms provide a cheaper and more consistent alternative to regular clothing. If students are allowed to wear regular clothing to school, parents and guardians have to buy clothes that are in line with the latest fashion trends and the individual tastes of their children, both of which can be expensive. In this case, students should wear school uniforms that are affordable and identical to save parents money that can be used for more important things (Baumann and Krskova 1003). Affordability is essential for parents considering the enormous expenses associated with bringing up children in the modern era. Therefore, all students should wear uniforms as uniforms protect the financial interest of the parents and guardians.

Wearing school uniforms saves teachers, students, and administrators valuable time ( Bringing in the time-saving perspective of school uniforms ). Without uniforms, teachers and schools, administrators spend significant amounts of time regulating the dress code. For instance, time wasted deciding which clothes are appropriate, what skirt-size is too short, among other issues that arise in regulating regular clothes to make appropriate for the school environment (Ruggerone 573). Such challenges would not exist if all students wore uniforms. Consequently, students also waste valuable time because of the distractions that might be caused by clothes that their peers are wearing. Therefore, to eliminate time wastage and distractions in school, students should wear uniforms.

According to individuals and parties who oppose school uniforms, the uniforms limit the personal expression of students and can forcibly define gender roles for the children as girls have to wear skirts and boys’ trousers ( school uniforms stifle independence and creativity) - COUNTERARGUMENT . People express themselves through their clothes, which means that forcing students to wear uniforms affects their personal expressions (Masuch and Hefferon 227). Additionally, uniforms are gender-specific, which means that they can negatively impact the personalities of students as they are forced to wear uniforms that they do not feel reflect what they want to be or do with their lives. Thus, as the proponents against school uniforms argue, uniforms should be eliminated as they infringe on the independence of young students.

To sum up, there are numerous arguments that either support or oppose the wearing of uniforms by students. Supporters of school uniforms claim that uniforms give students a sense of identity and discipline, enhance social and economic equality, and save costs. On the other side, proponents against school uniforms claim that school uniforms limit the personal expression of students and force them into specified gender roles. Judging from the advantages and disadvantages of uniforms, it is clear that all students should wear uniforms as they distinguish students from civilians and enhance equality in the school environment.

Baumann, Chris, and Hana Krskova. "School discipline, school uniforms, and academic performance." International Journal of Educational Management 30.6 (2016): 1003-1029.

Freeburg, Beth W., and Jane E. Workman. "Dress Codes and Uniforms." Encyclopedia of Adolescence (2016): 1-13.

Masuch, Christoph-Simon, and Kate Hefferon. "Understanding the links between positive psychology and fashion: A grounded theory analysis." International Journal of Fashion Studies 1.2 (2014): 227-246.

Ruggerone, Lucia. "The feeling of being dressed: Affect studies and the clothed body." Fashion Theory 21.5 (2017): 573-593.

Gradecrest is a professional writing service that provides original model papers. We offer personalized services along with research materials for assistance purposes only. All the materials from our website should be used with proper references. See our Terms of Use Page for proper details.

Do uniforms make schools better?

by: Marian Wilde | Updated: March 1, 2024

Print article

Schools, parents, and students frequently clash over the issue of regulating what students may and may not wear to school. These controversies often pegged to the culture war of the moment touch on everything from gender and sexuality to politics, race, and religion. In 2021, a group of about 50 students in Georgia protested their middle school’s dress code for being discriminatory against BIPOC girls by wearing t-shirts every Friday emblazoned with the words “sexist,” “racist,” and “classist.” In 2022, a fight between students, staff, and police officers broke out at a Pennsylvania high school when hats and hoodies were banned as part of a revision by the school board to the school’s dress code. And in 2023, two Michigan middle schoolers, via their mother, sued their school district after they were banned from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts.

Are school uniforms the best solution to this contentious debate? If every student is wearing the same outfit, will a host of campus problems be solved? Researchers are divided over how much of an impact — if any — dress policies have on student learning. There are multiple studies with conflicting conclusions, plus books such as 2018’s The Debate About School Uniforms , but the argument wears on, with a list of pros and cons on each side.

Why do some public schools have uniforms?

In the 1980s, public schools were often compared unfavorably to Catholic schools. Noting the perceived benefit that uniforms conferred upon Catholic schools, some public schools decided to adopt a school uniform policy.

President Clinton provided momentum to the school uniform movement when he said in his 1996 State of the Union speech, “If it means teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.”

The pros and cons of school uniforms

According to proponents, school uniforms:.

• Help prevent gangs from forming on campus

• Encourage discipline

• Help students resist peer pressure to buy trendy clothes

• Help identify intruders in the school

• Diminish economic and social barriers between students

• Increase a sense of belonging and school pride

• Improve attendance

Opponents contend that school uniforms:

• Violate a student’s right to freedom of expression

• Are simply a Band-Aid on the issue of school violence

• Make students a target for bullies from other schools

• Are a financial burden for poor families

• Are an unfair additional expense for parents who pay taxes for a free public education

• Are difficult to enforce in public schools

Uniforms vs. dress codes

Schools and districts vary widely in how closely they adhere to the concept of uniformity.

What’s a dress code?

Generally, dress codes are more relaxed than uniform policies. Sometimes, however, dress codes are quite strict with requirements that are potentially viewed as biased based on race or gender. In 2020, two Black male students in Texas, cousins with West Indian heritage, were suspended for wearing dreadlocks in supposed violation of the district’s hair and grooming policy, part of the dress code. The elder one, a senior, was told he couldn’t attend prom or graduation until his dreads were trimmed. In 2022, girls on the track team at an Albany, NY high school were sent home for wearing sports bras at practice.

Uniforms are certainly easier for administrators to enforce than dress codes, largely because the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) can be depended upon to protect a student’s “right to express themselves.” The ACLU believes dress codes are often used to, “shame girls, force students to conform to gender stereotypes… punish students who wear political and countercultural messages. Such policies can be used as cover for racial discrimination… Dress codes can also infringe on a student’s religious rights…” To successfully enforce a dress code, insists the ACLU, the school must prove the student’s attire, “is disruptive to school activities.”

The ACLU’s dress code stance is regularly supported by federal courts , like the 2023 lower court ruling in North Carolina that ended a charter school decree that girls couldn’t wear pants to school. ACLU lawyers claimed this violated Title IX because the dress code “discriminated against female students by limiting their ability to fully participate in school activities, such as using the playground.” The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to take up a case challenging the lower court’s ruling.

Check with your school to see what the dress code is, as they can be fairly specific. In Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example, the dress code prohibits :

• Symbols, mottoes, words or acronyms that convey crude, vulgar, profane, violent, death-oriented, gang-related, sexually explicit, or sexually suggestive messages.
• Symbols, mottoes, words or acronyms advertising tobacco, alcohol, or illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia.
• Symbols, mottoes, words or acronyms identifying a student as a member of a secret or overtly antisocial group or gang or that identifies a student as a member of an organization that professes violence or hatred toward one’s fellow man.
• Visible and permanent tattoos/brands incompatible with the standards set forth herein shall be covered to prohibit their display.
• Excessively large or baggy clothes

What’s a uniform?

School uniforms worldwide can widely range from nondescript to bizarre. (Extreme examples from China, Australia, and the UK on this YouTube video ) Most public school outfits in the USA are quite casual, with a “ common type ” for boys often a polo shirt in a solid color, with pants in khaki, black, or navy blue. A girl’s uniform is often a skirt and a white buttoned-up shirt. Dress shoes are frequently required for both genders.

In the United States, low-income families spend an average of $249 on a child’s school uniform annually, far less than the typical Australian student’s $578. But still, the cost is sometimes viewed as unfair because public education is intended to be free, paid by tax dollars, not “a stress for families on lower incomes.” The ACLU believes that public schools should provide free school uniforms , because the expense is unconstitutional, and it increases wealth inequity.

What research says about school uniforms

In 2006, Virginia Draa, professor at Youngstown State University, reviewed the impact of school uniforms at 64 public high schools that had larger percentages of economically disadvantaged and minority students than other urban schools. Her conclusion surprised her: “I really went into this thinking uniforms don’t make a difference, but I came away seeing that they do… I was absolutely floored.” Her analysis determined that the schools with uniforms improved their students attendance, and graduation rates rose an average almost 11 percent.

In 2022, Ohio State University and University of Pennsylvania researchers reached a contrary opinion in their report titled “ School Uniforms and Students Behavior: Is There a Link? ” Their view was that, in general, evidence that school uniforms improve social skills in the students was “inconclusive.” The solitary praise they provided to uniform-wearing was noting there was “some indication that low-income students in schools that required uniforms demonstrated better school attendance than low-income students in schools that did not.”

What to believe? Jury is still out.

What do students think about uniforms?

A student discussion: pros and cons of uniforms

Editor’s note: This video is part of our high school milestones series about communication skills. The students in this video discuss the pros and cons of school uniforms.

A University of Nevada, Reno, survey of 1,848 middle school students, published in 2022, revealed that 90 percent did not like wearing a uniform to school . Only 30 percent believed the uniforms “might reduce discipline issues, a mere 17 percent thought the uniform helped them focus at school, 34 percent believed their school was safer due to the uniforms and 37 percent said, “I worry less about my appearance” due to the uniform requirement.”

An earlier study, also in Nevada, displayed similar unpopularity with newly instituted uniforms among middle school students. However, when the researchers looked into school discipline and local police records and compared them to the prior year’s data, discipline referrals were down 10 percent, there were 63 percent fewer police log reports, and incidences of graffiti, fights, and gang-related activity were all down.

It’s a big issue

A new trend is the mounting pressure to establish dress codes for teachers. Apparently, the same casual mindset toward revealing outfits is cropping up in the ranks of our teachers.

The debate over uniforms in public schools encompasses many larger issues than simply what children should wear to school. It touches on issues of school improvement, freedom of expression, and hot-button culture wars. It’s no wonder the debate rages on.

Homes Nearby

Homes for rent and sale near schools

Why your neighborhood school closes for good – and what to do when it does

5 things for Black families to consider when choosing a school

6 surprising things insiders look for when assessing a high school

Surprising things about high school

Yes! Sign me up for updates relevant to my child's grade.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up!

Server Issue: Please try again later. Sorry for the inconvenience

School Dress Code Debates, Explained

• Share article

Are school dress codes a tool for student safety or a restriction on their self-identity? The question has been debated for years.

But more recently, dress codes have come up as an equity issue after reports that Black students, girls, and LGBTQ students across the country are disproportionately affected by school dress codes. Some districts have imposed harsh punishments on those groups of students, including in- or out-of-school suspensions, for violations of dress codes. And a federal Government Accountability Office report recently concluded there’s a lack of model policies to help school districts set dress codes that are fair to everyone.

Here are answers to some common questions about dress codes.

Education Issues, Explained

Sign up for the savvy principal, edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• Trying to Conceive
• Signs & Symptoms
• Pregnancy Tests
• Fertility Testing
• Fertility Treatment
• Weeks & Trimesters
• Staying Healthy
• Preparing for Baby
• Complications & Concerns
• Pregnancy Loss
• Breastfeeding
• School-Aged Kids
• Raising Kids
• Personal Stories
• Everyday Wellness
• Safety & First Aid
• Immunizations
• Food & Nutrition
• Active Play
• Pregnancy Products
• Nursery & Sleep Products
• Nursing & Feeding Products
• Clothing & Accessories
• Toys & Gifts
• Ovulation Calculator
• Pregnancy Due Date Calculator
• How to Talk About Postpartum Depression
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board

The Pros and Cons of School Uniforms for Students

 SolStock / Getty Images

Student Safety

Focus on education, attendance rates, discipline issues, dress code enforcement, cost for families, impact on self-esteem.

The debate over whether students should wear school uniforms has been going on for more than a decade. Some people argue that uniforms have a positive impact on the school environment by promoting inclusivity, confidence, and a sense of belonging. Others fear that school uniforms prevent kids from expressing themselves through their clothing choices.

The research on school uniforms is often mixed. While some schools have found uniforms to be beneficial, other research has found that they have little effect. Some studies have even reached the conclusion that requiring school uniforms can be harmful for students.

Let's take a closer look at some of the potential benefits, as well as the challenges, of requiring students to wear uniforms.

Some people think that school uniforms can help make schools safer for kids. When Long Beach, CA, required all students in grades K–8 to wear uniforms, reports of assault and battery decreased by 34%.

Additionally, assault with a deadly weapon decreased by 50%, fighting incidents declined 51%, and sex offenses dropped by 74%. Possession of weapons dropped by 52%, possession of drugs went down 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%.  

The Sparks Middle School in Nevada reported a decrease in gang activity after instituting a uniform policy. They also reported a drop in fights, graffiti, property damage, and battery. Overall, there was a 63% drop in police reports.

Other proponents of school uniforms report that it prevents students from concealing weapons under clothing. And some also believe intruders would be recognized faster, making the students and staff safer in the event someone from the community tries to enter the school.

Not all studies have found that uniforms reduce discipline issues, however. In fact, a peer-reviewed study found that school uniforms increased the average number of assaults by about 14 per year in the most violent schools.  The Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Education Evaluation and Management found that fights in middle schools nearly doubled within one year of making uniforms mandatory.  

For many students, clothing can be a major source of stress. Not having certain brand name clothing or not wearing fashionable items could lead to feelings of insecurity. 

Some people feel students are better able to concentrate on school when they all wear the same clothing. Researchers in Australia noted that students who wear uniforms had improved discipline and academic performance.  

Not all studies have found that uniforms improve grades, however. In fact, at least one study found that school uniforms had a negative effect on achievement.  

Kids may show up to school more often when they’re wearing uniforms. A study by researchers at the University of Houston found that the average attendance rate for girls in middle and high school increased by 0.3 to 0.4 percent after school uniforms became mandatory.   A study by Youngstown State University also found that attendance rates increased and suspensions decreased once students began wearing uniforms.   

Students may also be more likely to show up to school on time when they have to wear uniforms. If they don’t have to spend time choosing what to wear every morning, students are able to get out the door more quickly. This means fewer late arrivals.

Proponents of uniforms report that it can improve behavior in students. One school that found this to be true is the John Adams Middle School in Albuquerque, NM. When they mandated school uniforms, discipline referrals dropped from 1,565 in the first semester of the previous year to 405.    

An Australian study also concluded that students wearing uniforms were more disciplined and they listened significantly better. Classes were also more likely to start on time.  

Not all studies have found this, however. Some research has found that disciplinary issues and bullying didn’t decrease after instituting a mandatory uniform policy.

Many school officials spend a lot of time policing dress codes . Enforcing policies can require a lot of resources as teachers may send kids to the office, and administrators have to determine whether clothing is too baggy, inappropriate, or revealing.

Kids who violate dress codes may spend a lot of time in the office awaiting consequences, or they may receive suspensions for repeated violations. School uniforms can keep kids in the classroom more and prevent staff from wasting time trying to enforce policies.

Parents may spend less money on school clothes when kids wear uniforms. There is less pressure to buy expensive name-brand clothing, and school uniforms might be more affordable.

Opponents of school uniforms, however, say that requiring parents to buy specific articles of clothing goes against the idea that students should be given free education. When public schools force parents to buy uniforms, this could be placing a hardship on some families.

Proponents of uniforms report that they have a positive impact on student self-esteem .   Wearing the same clothing as everyone else means that students don’t have to worry about whether their clothing choices will be acceptable to their peers.

But opponents argue that uniforms may have a negative impact on some students’ body image. Research conducted at Arizona State University found that students without uniform policies actually reported higher self-perception scores than students with uniform policies.  

When all students wear the same clothing, they may be more likely to compare themselves to their peers as clothing fits differently on everyone’s body.

The Problem With Uniform Research

Although there are many studies that examine the potential benefits and drawbacks of uniforms, many of them revealed correlation, rather than causation. Just because grades went up or behavioral problems went down, there’s no way of knowing that the reason for the change was due to uniform policy. There are many other factors that may have influenced these issues.

A Word From Verywell

Before any school adopts a uniform policy, it may be wise to review the literature. While there certainly may be a lot of benefits to making uniforms mandatory, there are also some potential drawbacks and challenges you might face. Parents, teachers, and administrators may want to weigh the pros and cons before instituting any type of clothing policy for students.

Stanley S. School uniforms and safety . Educ Urban Society. 1996;28(4 ): 424-435. doi:10.1177/0013124596028004003

Nevada Today. College of Education researchers conduct study on impacts of school uniforms .

Granberg-Rademacker JS, Bumgarner J, Johnson A. Do school violence policies matter? An empirical analysis of four approaches to reduce school violence . Southwest J Criminal Justice . 2007;4(1):3-29.

Sun Sentinel. 9 more schools to have students wear uniforms .

Baumann C, Krskova H. School discipline, school uniforms and academic performance . Int J Educ Manage . 2016;30(6):1003-1029. doi:10.1108/IJEM-09-2015-0118

McBrayer S. The school uniform movement and what it tells us about American education: A symbolic crusade, by David L. Brunsma . J Catholic Educ . 2007;11(1). doi:10.15365/joce.1101122013

Gentile E, Imberman S. Dressed for success? The effect of school uniforms on student achievement and behavior . 2011. doi:10.3386/w17337

Draa VAB. School uniforms in urban public high schools . Dissertation: Youngstown State University; 2005.  

Lumsden L, Gabriel Miller G. Dress codes and uniforms . Research Roundup: National Association of Elementary School Principals . 2002;18(4):1-5.

Wade KK, Stafford ME. Public school uniforms: Effect on perceptions of gang presence, school climate, and student self-perceptions . Educ Urban Society . 2003;35(4):399-420. doi:10.1177/0013124503255002

By Amy Morin, LCSW Amy Morin, LCSW, is the Editor-in-Chief of Verywell Mind. She's also a psychotherapist, an international bestselling author of books on mental strength and host of The Verywell Mind Podcast. She delivered one of the most popular TEDx talks of all time.

Question and Answer forum for K12 Students

School Uniforms Essay | Short and Long Essays, Importance and Benefits of School Uniforms

School Uniforms Essay: School uniforms should be utilized in educational systems. Uniforms are both as useful for schools just as for the pupils. Wearing outfits will help construct a feeling of solidarity inside the school. Rather than everybody as a different group, everybody will be in a similar group. Wearing regalia will help free pupils of the pressure of what to wear in the first part of the day. Wearing school outfits will help improve understudy distinction and improve their confidence. To start with, wearing coordinating outfits can cause pupils to feel equivalent. Helpless pupils would at this point don’t feel rejected on the grounds that they are not wearing name-brand garments like the more extravagant children.

You can read more  Essay Writing  about articles, events, people, sports, technology many more.

What is a School Uniform?

In straightforward words, we comprehend that the Uniform or material which is recommended by the school for pupils to wear in school is called school uniform. Generally in all schools uniform is mandatory.The Uniform gives balance and comparability between the pupils, everything being equal. These days, all schools keep the principles of wearing a normalized uniform for all pupils.

How to Write a School Uniform Essay?

To write an essay students should know the proper format. Also, they should be well aware of the topic on which they have to write the essay. Writing an essay on school uniforms requires the knowledge of the merits and demerits of wearing a school uniform. Students should list down the advantages of uniforms in schools.

Remember these points while writing the essay on school uniform:

• Give introduction on school uniform in the first paragraph
• Explain the advantages and disadvantages of wearing a school uniform
• Explain how wearing a uniform brings changes in students
• Conclude the essay in the last paragraph

Short Essay on School Uniform 150 Words in English

School uniforms are the solitary most apparent fundamental components of any school. We can distinguish the understudy by assessing their regalia.

It is said that, in the sixteenth century, Christ’s Hospital School originally utilized the school uniform. There has been a discussion everywhere in the world on whether the subject of school uniforms is positive or negative. Common liberties activists say that school uniforms are removing their opportunity of wearing anything. In guard, the School Committee says they give a school uniform to instruct them in order and solidarity.

School uniforms can build the pay of a custom-fitted local area. And furthermore, a business organization can bring in cash by creating school regalia. School uniforms are a conventional clothing standard including a shirt and full gasp for young men and pullovers and creased skirts for young ladies. School dress can lessen fabric harassment.

Yet in addition, these days youngsters are more cognizant about their design sense and sexual direction, so they don’t prefer to wear a similar unisex clothing standard. However, after every one of those contentions and dubious speculations, we can say, school regalia are as a matter of fact pride for an understudy.

Long Essay on School Uniform 650 Words

Schools are instructive establishments where kids go not exclusively to learn course readings however to develop as a general person. Schools likewise have the assignment of showing youngsters the desire for garments and mention to them what is proper for what event. School outfits are a basic type of garments for pupils during their visit at school during school hours, and outside during true school exercises. A school uniform is normal in a large portion of the schools. They have direct requests to wear the school uniform as a matter of course.

The necessity of School Uniform

Initially, school is where we all progress at an extremely youthful age. In a single word, life starts at school. It’s schooling, as well as school, gives us the stage to sustain our confidence, feelings in the beginning phase of life. The significance of making companions, functioning as a group we get familiar with every one of these in school. What’s more, wearing a similar dress unquestionably brings a feeling of solidarity among pupils. In each school, there are pupils from various foundations yet with the school uniform everybody becomes one-the lone character rules at that point is every one of them is the delegate of a similar school. This is an incredible inclination of harmony. This likewise assists kids with defeating the inadequacy (or predominance) complex which here and their kids have due to the climate they have been raised in. School outfits streak out a large portion of the drops of social contentions.

As school makes our crucial nuts and bolts of the future it is critical to cause one to feel as a piece of the school. A youngster with a specific school uniform constantly feels that he has a place with the school. It makes the youngster more cognizant about his distinction which thus helps to build fearlessness. A kid would be more thoughtful to his kindred cohort who has a similar uniform as his. As referenced before there would be consistently a blended group in each school. Some of them are rich, some have a place with the upper working class and some lower than that-this distinction remains all over, aside from those 8 hours in school due to the school uniform. The supposed status cognizance doesn’t exist with this.

Benefits of School Uniform

Another admirable sentiment comes up while examining the benefits of school uniform is younger students go through two most significant progress times of life in school-they burn through 12 long a long time in school-from adolescence to teen, from adolescent to youth-the school observer the progressions ( both physical and mental) happen inside one. During these changes, somebody barely thinks often about the world. That time there is a propensity among us all to disrupt the norm which should be managed cautiously and strategically.

Now wearing school regalia assumes a quiet yet urgent part in our lives. It ingrains a profound established feeling of control in the psyche mind. Subsequently, typically even the riskiest formally dressed understudy wonders whether or not to do any underhandedness outside the school as the moment suspected plays to him that he will let down his school with his activity. School uniform assists an understudy with focusing on his necessities-where school and scholastics start things out.

Even after some elegantly composed diagrams of papers on school uniforms, the contention on whether a school uniform abuses the pupils’ privilege of articulation will stay a ceaseless conversation. Be that as it may, truly, wearing of regalia should all rely upon the conditions and the picture a given school is attempting to depict. In any case, the significance of school uniforms appears to win the day today even as I compose this end and surprisingly after so many school uniform articles have been composed. On the last note, we should attempt to discover perpetual methods of tackling the developing issues looked at by pupils. We ought not to depend on school regalia to swipe the issues away from view, this does the pupils nothing but bad.

Importance of School Uniform

The uniform is a necessary piece of our life. The dress is a character of somebody. Through the dress, we become acquainted with which school the understudy is. The educator has a crucial part in picking a dress. He chooses the school uniform by taking a gander at all the classes. Uniform symbols, alongside schooling, order, and decorum help in altering the state and course of society.

Wearing legitimate clothing expands our trust in the public arena since it positively affects our work and thinking. These days, our local area has gotten a matter of rivalry for our kids. It appears to be that their dress is influencing them every day.

The wearing of our kids has additionally become an essential factor somewhat for the criminal occurrences occurring in the public eye. In an understudy’s life, the educator and parent are the types of God. School dress is viewed as a recipe for equity.

Advantages of School Uniform

• School uniforms are a need in many schools to achieve consistency in pupils.
• School uniform binds together all pupils, paying little heed to their social, strict, and monetary foundation.
• It imparts a feeling of having a place in the pupils.
• It assists with restraining pupils and keeps everything under control since they are not occupied by their special garments.
• pupils don’t have to object about what to wear each day in the event that they have school regalia.
• It is hard for low-pay families to purchase school regalia each spending year, and it might make a strain in their financial plan.
• School outfits force consistency and consequently make pupils a mass of anonymous kids and with no singularity.
• It is hard for pupils to check their friend’s monetary condition in the event that they are wearing school dresses.
• pupils can be not kidding about their examinations and figure out how to endeavor to be deserving of the custom.
• School dress can make pupils unoriginal.

FAQ’s on Schools Uniforms Essay

Question 1. What students should wear uniforms in school?

Answer: Uniforms are both as useful for schools just as for the pupils. Wearing uniforms will help fabricate a feeling of loneliness inside the school. To start with, wearing coordinating uniforms can cause pupils to feel equivalent. Helpless pupils would presently don’t feel barred in light of the fact that they are not wearing name-brand garments like the more extravagant children.

Question 2. How to write an essay on a school uniform?

Answer: Start with an introduction, discuss the debate going on school uniforms by students, write the cons and pros of school uniforms. Explains the advantages and changes that wearing a school uniform can bring in students. End the essay with a conclusion.

Question 3. What is good about school uniforms?

Answer: School uniforms have been demonstrated to raise test scores, support confidence, diminish savagery and wrongdoing, and make a feeling of freshly discovered pride in pupils. They assist youngsters with zeroing in on learning and homework, not on the thing every other person is wearing or whether they fit in. Outfits are not the answer for the entirety of the issues that adolescents, instructors, and schools face today, however, examination and insights propose that they might be a positive development.

Question 4. Should students wear school uniforms?

Answer: Yes, all students should wear school uniforms since it represents discipline and equality among students in school.

• School Uniform Essays

Argument Essay – School Uniform Should be Required in Public Schools

Most private institutions in the United States (US) require their students to comply with their policy of wearing school uniforms. This makes their students easily identifiable, thus, enhancing their sense of identity and belonging. Apart from this, there are also myriad advantages in requiring students to wear school uniforms. In this regard, public schools in the US have seriously considered implementing policy on uniforms. Some have already undertaken such policy and noted marked improvements from doing so. However, others have faced numerous impediments relative to policy implementation as this issue has been facing strong opposition. Some students and organizations, which promote freethinking and freedom of expression, have strongly contest in requiring school uniforms.

Struggling with your HW?

Get your assignments done by real pros. Save your precious time and boost your marks with ease. Just fill in your HW requirements and you can count on us!

• Customer data protection
• 100% Plagiarism Free

This paper asserts that public school students in the US should be compelled to wear school uniforms by pointing out the various advantages would bring in terms of financial implication, convenience, safety in school, students’ sense of identity and belonging as well as their discipline and learning.

Financial Implication and Convenience

It is clearly seen that school uniforms would help parents save money on their children’s clothing expenses. The set of tailor-made uniforms would be used by students on school days so parents would not have to be burdened with always buying clothes for their kids. With this, students would not find a reason to impel their parents to buy clothes for school since they already have school uniforms.

Aside from this, wearing of school uniforms would also facilitate the convenience of students in selecting day-to-day clothes. Normally, these students encounter difficulties in choosing what to wear in school. At times, this problem may cause them to be late for class as they can hardly decide on what to actually wear or how to mix-and-match their clothes to look good. With school uniforms, they can save time in going about the said dilemma every morning. Instantly, they have something to wear everyday without the worries if their peers or classmates would notice if they wear the same clothes at frequent intervals.

Used our essay samples for inspiration ?

For more help, tap into our pool of professional writers and get expert essay editing services!

Some argue that requiring school uniforms may be burdensome for low-income families since even school uniforms are acquired at a cost. But then this argument can be countered by the fact that school uniforms are still relatively more affordable that most clothes bought in malls, particularly the branded ones. Moreover, students whose parents could not afford trendy clothing or designer wear would be saved from embarrassment, especially at the adolescent stage where looking good is an important factor for social acceptance.

Safety of Students

With the advent of gang-related clothing such as loose-fitting clothing style, public school officials have related these trends with the aggravation of school violence. This is because baggy clothing style characterized by oversized shirts and pants may be one of the ways by which students or gang members bring in weapons and drugs to school concealed in their clothes. Moreover, gang members, who may dress in the same way as regular students, easily gain access in public schools by mixing with the school crowd. These increase the incidence of violence in public schools and make both parents and students be troubled about safety.

To address the rising incidence of school violence, public school officials have considered implementing the policy on school uniforms so that public school students would become more easily identified and screened. School security officials may disallow entry of those who are not in school uniform. As such non-students and outsiders would be able to access the school premises and adversely influence students by distributing deadly weapons or illegal drugs. Such would also help prevent school violence.

This does not mean though that this would be the only security measure undertaken by school officials. In response to the argument by those against imposing the wearing of schools uniforms that there are other more effective ways of ensuring the security in public schools, it should be noted that this is just one way of promoting safety and preventing violence brought about by gang fights.

To illustrate this point, officials of the Long Beach (California) Unified School District claimed that since the adoption of the mandatory uniform policies in the district, violence and discipline problems dramatically decreased. Such can attest to the effectiveness of this policy and complement other security measures aiming to control violence in public schools.

Sense of Identity and Belonging

Wearing of school uniforms is deemed to encourage sense of identity and belonging. As mentioned, the school uniform identifies to what school a student is affiliated with. In this regard, one could easily associate a student to the particular traits commonly exhibited by students of the same school. For instance, if a public school boasts of students who consistently ace national examinations, a student wearing the uniform of that school is assumed to be intelligent.

With this, a student’s pride in his/her school is enhanced and so does his/her sense of belonging in the said institution. This may also help in driving students to live up to the expectations of people and perform as good as his/her peers or schoolmates.

Student Discipline and Learning

The above argument arguments boil down to the promotion of student discipline and learning. By adopting policies on school uniform, students are able to learn the importance of following rules. It is imperative for students to be disciplined at an early age since it is mandatory for them to follow various laws set by the government and other rules imposed in their future offices, commercial establishments and organizations to which they would be affiliated.

Moreover, in a way, wearing of school uniforms prepares students for the future. For example, students learn to comply with wearing proper work attire, specifically those who desire to pursue professions, which require the wearing of business suits or military uniform. Given this, the students benefit from the professional ambiance in the school environment rendered by the wearing of school uniforms.

Another important gain in having school uniforms is that since students would no longer need to worry about what to wear in school, they are also able to focus on schoolwork rather than on what they would be wearing for the next school day. Furthermore, peer-envy is reduced. The judging of students based on the clothes worn is lessened. These conditions resulting from wearing school uniforms enhance students’ morale and inspire them to concentrate on studying resulting in improved academic performance.

In addition, with the more secured environment, students would be able to focus on school matters at hand as they and their parents become less anxious in going to school. Students and parents would have fewer worries on whether there would be trouble caused by gang members within the school vicinity since school security could easily distinguish students from non-students. The more secured environment makes the school a more conducive place for learning. When they feel safe and free from the threats of violence, students would exhibit better academic performance.

Self-Expression

The foremost argument presented against requiring school uniforms in public schools is that such policy may inhibit self-expression as the students are expected to conform to a particular way of dressing in school. Some feel that this teaches students a negative lesson on basing life decisions on rules and regulations rather than on internal values and free will. Furthermore, the wearing of school uniforms is deemed by some as a form of suppressing the creativity of students, which they could have expressed if only they were allowed to dress as they please.

The above argument is refuted through the assertion that there are multiple ways of expressing one’s self apart from clothing style. Students could still express themselves and exert creative efforts by wearing accessories or styling their hair. They could also channel their creativity through painting, drawing or composing literary masterpieces. Students could even devise new ways on how to express themselves artistically.

Conclusion In light of the above discussion, the advantages of implementing school uniform policies in public schools clearly outweigh arguments presented by those opposing this proposition. Adoption of such policies results in cost savings on clothing expenses and enhances school safety. Moreover, the school uniform policy is deemed to reduce peer pressure in terms of the manner of dressing in school. These advantages ultimately lead to the inculcation of discipline and professionalism, which prepare students for the future. Furthermore, they significantly help students to focus on schoolwork resulting to improved academic performance. Reference King, Keith. Should school uniforms be mandated in elementary schools? 1998. 08 February 2006 . Wikipedia. 08 February 2006 .

Related Essays

Find Free Essays

We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling

Request must contain at least 2 characters

Popular Topics

Samples by Essay Type

Cite this page

About our services

Topic School Uniform

Level College

This sample is NOT ORIGINAL. Get 100% unique essay written under your req

• Only $11 per page
• Free revisions included

Studyfy uses cookies to deliver the best experience possible. Read more.

Studyfy uses secured cookies. Read more.

Home — Essay Samples — Education — School Uniform — Why Students Should Not Wear Uniforms: An Analysis of Arguments

Why Students Should not Wear Uniforms: an Analysis of Arguments

• Categories: School Uniform Student

About this sample

Words: 654 |

Published: Sep 7, 2023

Words: 654 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Limiting expression and creativity, promoting conformity and obedience, financial burden and inequality, promoting inclusivity and equality.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1913 words

1 pages / 557 words

1 pages / 616 words

5 pages / 2188 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on School Uniform

One of the ongoing debates in the education system is whether students should be required to wear school uniforms. While some argue that uniforms promote equality and discipline, I believe that enforcing a dress code on students [...]

In recent years, the debate over whether students should be required to wear uniforms to school has gained significant attention. While proponents argue that uniforms promote discipline and a sense of equality, the question [...]

For years, schools have implemented dress codes with the intention of maintaining a sense of decorum and discipline among students. However, many argue that dress codes restrict students' freedom of expression and can perpetuate [...]

School uniforms have been a topic of debate in educational institutions for decades. While proponents argue that uniforms promote equality and discipline among students, opponents argue that they stifle individuality and impede [...]

This source questions the impact of school uniforms on students’ academic achievement. The thesis includes a variety of perspectives on the issue. From an administrative standpoint, administers believe that mandatory school [...]

In conclusion, scholarship jackets are a powerful symbol of achievement, identity, and belonging in the academic world. By examining the themes and meanings associated with these jackets, we can gain a deeper understanding of [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Share full article

Uncovering the brutal career of a crucial American ally.

And the hidden truths of the war in Afghanistan.

America’s Monster Who was Abdul Raziq?

Supported by

Who Was Abdul Raziq?

Uncovering the brutal career of a crucial American ally — and the hidden truths of the war in Afghanistan.

By Matthieu Aikins

Photographs by Victor J. Blue

I first heard about Abdul Raziq in early 2009, when I was a young freelance journalist newly arrived in southern Afghanistan. By chance, I had befriended two drug smugglers who told me that a powerful police commander in the area was helping them ship two metric tons of opium to Iran each month. Raziq, I learned, had a fearsome reputation in his hometown, Spin Boldak, on the border with Pakistan. Everyone I spoke to knew about the Taliban suspects tortured and dumped in the desert. Just as they knew that Raziq was a close ally of the U.S. military. My smuggler friends had offered to introduce me to Raziq, and 10 days after my arrival in Spin Boldak, he returned to town for his grandmother’s funeral.

Listen to this article, read by Peter Ganim

When I arrived at Raziq’s compound, I saw him sitting cross-legged on a carpeted platform, receiving a long line of guests. He was not what I expected. Trim and cheerful, clean-shaven and barely 30, he wasn’t much older than I, yet he was leading several thousand men under arms. I reached the front of the line, and Raziq shook my hand to welcome me before turning to the next guest. We would never get the chance to meet again, but that was the beginning of my long quest to understand the paradox he represented.

As inexperienced as I was, I knew enough to be puzzled by Raziq’s success. Why was the U.S. military, which was supposed to be supporting democracy and human rights in Afghanistan, working closely with a drug trafficker and murderer? One of his commanders, his uncle Janan, even wore a U.S. Army uniform given to him by his advisers, complete with a First Infantry Division patch and the Stars and Stripes.

Thanks to American patronage, Raziq was promoted to police chief of Kandahar and would eventually rise to the rank of three-star general. Famous across Afghanistan, he became the country’s most polarizing figure. The Taliban hated him, of course, but so did the ordinary people his commanders and soldiers extorted and abused. Journalists and human rights groups assembled damning evidence against him and warned that his brutality would backfire.

But Raziq beat back the suicide bombers and brought stability to Kandahar. In doing so, he became an icon for many war-weary Afghans who sought security at all costs. In a nation divided by ethnic and regional loyalties, you could find Raziq’s photo in taxis and at checkpoints from north to south. And he never lost his American backing: When he was assassinated by the Taliban in 2018, he was walking next to the top U.S. commander, Gen. Austin S. Miller. That day, it seemed as if half the country was in mourning; Miller hailed him as a friend and patriot.

Three years later, the United States withdrew, and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan collapsed. I was working as a journalist in Kabul at the time, and as soon as the dust settled, I went south to Kandahar. With the fighting over, I was able to visit people and places nearly impossible to access before. Here was a chance to reckon with Raziq’s legacy. I met with survivors of torture inside his prisons and visited morgues where skeletons had been unearthed from desert graves. Like a great tree in a storm, the republic had toppled and exposed the hidden places among its roots. The American war was far more brutal than we had known.

Since then, over repeated trips to the war’s fiercest battlegrounds, I found that many of Raziq’s former police officers were willing to talk about the torture, execution and cover-ups they witnessed. I also spoke with a dozen American military officers and diplomats who worked with Raziq and obtained new documents through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit and other sources, which reveal just how much the American government knew about Raziq’s crimes. And with colleagues at The Times, I interviewed hundreds of witnesses and discovered a republican archive that exposed Afghanistan’s largest campaign of forced disappearances since the Communist coup in 1978. We documented 368 cases of people who were still missing after being abducted by Raziq’s men; the true toll was most likely in the thousands.

The scale of Raziq’s abuses, carried out with American support, was shocking. But the fact that they seem to have brought security to Kandahar has even more disturbing implications. Raziq’s story complicates the comforting belief that brutality always backfires and undermines the U.S. military’s claim to have fought according to international law. Raziq’s violence was effective because it had a logic particular to the kind of civil war that the United States found in Afghanistan, one where the people, and not the terrain, were the battlefield. The reasons for this are well documented by scholars of civil war and counterinsurgency but glossed over by our generals and politicians and obscured by the myths of American exceptionalism and our righteous war on terror.

But Raziq saw those reasons clearly. He murdered and tortured because he believed it was the only way to win against the Taliban. And America helped him do it.

Two harsh realities defined Raziq’s childhood: the war and the border.

The desert around Spin Boldak and its twinned Pakistani town, Chaman, stretches westward hundreds of miles to Iran, through vast wastes and dune seas crossed by nomads. The clans of two rival Pashtun tribes dominate the area, feuding like Hatfields and McCoys of the borderlands. Raziq was from the Achakzai, who competed with the Noorzai over land and smuggling routes.

Not long after Raziq was born in a mud-walled village, the Afghan Communists seized power in Kabul, and in response rebels rose up against the government, plunging the country into a conflict that lasted for more than four decades. Although both superpowers and neighbors like Pakistan and Iran intervened for their own ends, at heart this was a civil war fought by Afghans against Afghans for control of the state. Even at the peaks of the Soviet and American occupations, Afghans constituted a majority of casualties on each side.

In times of civil war, neighbors are often at one another’s throats because of local dynamics, even if they justify their actions through religion or nationalism. In Kandahar, many Noorzai joined with the mujahedeen rebels, who were supplied by the C.I.A. and the Pakistani military, while Raziq’s Achakzai relatives eventually sided with the Soviet-backed Communists. Raziq was still a boy when the war brought grief to his home: His father, who drove people and goods to the border, disappeared. His family was never able to find his body and blamed their tribal rivals. “The Noorzai did it,” said Ayub Kakai, Raziq’s uncle. “They threw him down a well.”

In 1991, after the Soviets cut off funding, the Communist government collapsed. Kandahar’s rival warlords carved up the province with a patchwork of checkpoints, where robbery and rape were common. Raziq’s uncle Mansoor took control on the road from Spin Boldak to the city, and Raziq, by then a teenager, joined him, attracted to the thrills of war. “Raziq loved cars and guns,” his younger cousin Arafat told me.

Three years later, an armed movement of religious students known as the Taliban rose in the farmlands west of Kandahar City and swept through the province, capturing Raziq and his uncle. They hung Mansoor from the barrel of a tank but spared young Raziq, who fled with his family across the border to Chaman. For seven years in exile, Raziq worked as a driver near the border, where he peddled used car parts.

Then came Sept. 11, 2001. For the Achakzai, the Americans’ decision to invade and depose the Taliban came as a miraculous reversal of fortune. That December, the C.I.A. and Special Forces assembled an army of exiles, with many Achakzai, including Raziq, among them. With the help of U.S. air power, they routed the Taliban and seized control of Kandahar, once again trading places with their Noorzai rivals, who escaped across the border to where the Pakistani military, playing a double game, gave them safe haven.

In the new republic, the Achakzai militia was transformed into the area’s Border Police. They partnered with American troops and were trained by contractors from Blackwater and DynCorp. Like the rest of the republican forces, their weapons, ammunition and salaries were paid for by the United States and its allies. But beneath the surface, the civil war still festered, even though the Americans saw it through stark binaries: the government versus the terrorists, the Afghans versus the Taliban.

“Our viewpoint was this was a war on terrorism or a war against a group trying to overthrow a democratic government,” said Carter Malkasian, a former State Department official who advised the U.S. military in Afghanistan for more than a decade. “We don’t want to view this as us getting involved in another country’s civil war.”

Thanks to his family connections, Raziq quickly rose through the ranks. He was a natural leader who fought fearlessly and earned the loyalty of his men. Although nearly illiterate, he had a capacious memory for places and faces and was a canny operator in the spy games and smuggling rings of the borderlands, using his illicit gains to fund a growing network of sources. Early on, Raziq learned that power would earn him money, which bought the intelligence that could attract U.S. patronage, giving him more power. American officers who worked in Spin Boldak remembered Raziq as an eager and valued partner in the hunt for the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

“My brother was very close to the Americans,” said Tadin Khan, Raziq’s younger brother. “They trusted him, and he never tried to deceive them.”

Tadin Khan, Raziq’s younger brother, in Dubai last year. “I didn’t believe it when I heard he was killed,” he said. “It was a hard day.”

Gul Seema, the first wife of Raziq, in 2023. “He was under a lot of pressure. Whenever I saw him, it seemed as if the shadow of death was looming over him,” says Seema.

Raziq was as generous with his friends and family as he was ruthless with his enemies. Not long after the Achakzai appointed him leader of their militia, Raziq’s older brother, Bacha, was gunned down in the bazaar in Chaman. “Bacha and Raziq were very close,” said Arafat, his cousin. “He was killed because of Raziq.”

Raziq blamed a tribal rival, a smuggler named Shin Noorzai. In March 2006, he kidnapped Shin and 15 people he was traveling with and shot them all in a dry riverbed near the border. The massacre led to a local outcry, and Raziq was summoned to Kabul. But President Hamid Karzai intervened to protect him, according to Western diplomats involved in the case, and he was never charged. (Through a spokesperson, Karzai declined to comment for this article.) The incident, however, made it into that year’s State Department report on human rights, the first public documentation of Raziq’s abuses.

Raziq’s role in the drug trade also attracted attention from American investigators. Although the Taliban had banned poppy cultivation, opium came roaring back under Karzai’s administration, and Spin Boldak sat on one of the main trafficking routes. Classified U.S. military and Drug Enforcement Administration reports, obtained through FOIA requests, described the involvement of Raziq and his men, detailing convoys in the desert, secret meetings and the use of green ink for letters of safe passage. One referred to Raziq as “the main drug smuggler in Spin Boldak.” (His brother Tadin denied that Raziq or anyone from his family was involved in drug trafficking, murder or other crimes. “All these accusations of corruption, smuggling and abuses are because of propaganda from the Taliban,” he said.)

As it turns out, by the time Raziq and I shook hands in 2009, the United States already knew he was accused of murder and smuggling but worked with him anyway. Yet Raziq’s position had become precarious, for the U.S. military’s concept of the war was changing. When I published an article about the accusations that fall, Raziq’s career had reached a dangerous point — one where his foreign patrons might have chosen to stop supporting him.

The U.S. war in Afghanistan was going badly. Faced with a growing insurgency that threatened the Afghan government’s survival, President Barack Obama ordered a surge of tens of thousands of troops. His generals had advised him that, fixated on the enemy, the United States had neglected the true battlefield: the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

The surge would be guided by a military doctrine known as counterinsurgency theory, or COIN, which was held to have saved the day in Iraq. “Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population,” Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal wrote upon taking command in 2009. The U.S.-led coalition “can no longer ignore or tacitly accept abuse of power, corruption or marginalization.”

According to “population-centric” COIN, the Afghan people had to be protected against the insurgency and motivated to support their own government. Criminal officials like Raziq threatened the legitimacy of the republic, and therefore the success of the war.

Given the hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis who died as result of the U.S. invasions, this emphasis on protecting civilians may seem hypocritical. But the laws of war, which forbid targeting noncombatants or harming prisoners, are essential to how the United States distinguishes its own use of force from that of rogue states and terrorists. “I believe the United States of America must remain a standard-bearer in the conduct of war,” Obama said as he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize the same year as the surge. “That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength.”

Since the decline of the antiwar movement after Vietnam, both the U.S. military and its liberal critics have become increasingly united in the conviction that war must be fought humanely by exempting civilians, as much as possible, from its violence — a shift, the historian Samuel Moyn has argued, that risks legitimizing endless war. Underpinning this is the assumption that there is no contradiction between waging war both lawfully and effectively. “The law of war is a part of our military heritage, and obeying it is the right thing to do,” states the U.S. military manual on the subject. “But we also know that the law of war poses no obstacle to fighting well and prevailing.”

In this vein, COIN reassured the American public that the surge would be just. Because the United States needed the support of the Afghan population, it could not just kill its way to victory. Brutality would backfire by producing more resistance. In a speech, McChrystal explained “COIN mathematics” : If a military operation killed two out of 10 insurgents, instead of eight remaining, that number was “more likely to be as many as 20, because each one you killed has a brother, father, son and friends.”

But while McChrystal took prompt steps to reduce civilian casualties from airstrikes, dealing with so-called bad actors like Raziq was not as simple. It turns out that the way the United States implemented its strategy provided a test of whether COIN really worked as promised.

The surge was focused on the two neighboring provinces in the south where Taliban activity was strongest. Both received roughly equivalent investments of troops and money. In Helmand, the Marines and the British pushed for the good governance prescribed by COIN, successfully pressuring Kabul to replace corrupt officials with technocrats.

“You didn’t have a power-broker-run government at the provincial level,” said Malkasian, who served as an adviser in Helmand. But the opposite proved true in Kandahar, where U.S. commanders prioritized security and encountered dogged pushback from Kabul on anticorruption efforts. “Kandahar was just more important for the Afghan political system, for Karzai, than Helmand was.”

As so often happened during the war, Washington’s grand strategy was interpreted by a multitude of American agencies and actors. In Kabul, specialized anticorruption and counternarcotics teams had Raziq in their sights. A D.E.A.-led republican unit seized an enormous stockpile of hashish in Spin Boldak and arrested a district police commander who ran narcotics shipments for Raziq. There were plans to go after him next.

But the Army officers working with Raziq saw things very differently. He and his men were a rare example of an effective, homegrown force that delivered security on a vital supply route. The U.S. commanders were in the middle of a high-stakes offensive against the Taliban, and their own troops’ lives were on the line. Karzai supported Raziq, and according to former military and intelligence officials, so did the C.I.A. With his cross-border networks, Raziq was a valuable source of intelligence on Taliban havens and bomb-making networks in Pakistan. And he could cross lines the United States couldn’t: A declassified military report from 2010 noted that Raziq was giving shelter to Baloch rebels fighting the Pakistani government and that he used “these tribesmen to carry out assassinations and killings in Pakistan.”

And so when, in February 2010, senior U.S. officials met to discuss action against corrupt Afghan officials, no one could agree on what to do about Raziq. “There was a lack of consensus,” according to Earl Anthony, who as deputy U.S. ambassador was a co-chair of the meeting. “Some highly valued his work on the security front against the Taliban.”

In the end, McChrystal, who declined to comment for this article, sided with his commanders on the ground. Raziq, they reasoned, could be mentored to change his ways. According to a leaked cable, the senior U.S. diplomat in Kandahar even offered to craft a media plan for him, including radio spots, billboards and “the longer-term encouragement of stories in the international media on the ‘reform’” of Raziq.

In March, McChrystal visited Raziq in Spin Boldak and posed beside him for television cameras. “I am very optimistic that with the plans that I’ve heard,” he said, as Raziq looked on smiling, “we can increase efficiency and decrease corruption.”

From that point on, the U.S. military would openly promote Raziq and make him an integral part of the surge. A series of personal advisers were brought in to coach and protect the young commander; the first was Jamie Hayes, who as a Special Forces lieutenant colonel led a team assigned to Raziq in July 2010. Shortly after he arrived, Hayes was ordered to help Raziq plan a major operation to clear Malajat, an outlying neighborhood of Kandahar City where the Taliban were entrenched.

At first, Hayes was puzzled about why Raziq and his Border Police were given the job, rather than the republican army or commandos. His superiors explained that it was a political decision by Karzai and the U.S. command. “This is a guy that we want to make successful,” Hayes recalled being told. “He’s an aggressive, strong leader that we want to make sure gets the chance to shine.”

Mazloom, a 33-year-old Taliban commander, in Panjwai District last year. He said he was tortured and blinded by a U.S.-backed militia commander from his village, who recognized him as an insurgent. “Because I wouldn’t confess,” Mazloom said, “he did this.”

John R. Allen, a retired four-star Marine general, at his home in Virginia in March. As the commander of American and allied forces in Afghanistan in 2011, Allen was confronted with evidence that Raziq’s forces were committing murder and torture. “That wasn’t why we were there fighting the war,” he said, “to keep a really bad criminal because he was helpful in fighting worse criminals.”

Raziq’s charisma undoubtedly played a role in why U.S. officers were so willing to support him. Like most of the Americans I spoke to who worked with Raziq, Hayes quickly took a shine to him. Raziq was full of enthusiasm and energy, and Hayes was especially impressed by how he seemed to genuinely care for the welfare of his men, unlike many other republican commanders.

For his part, Raziq was a careful student of his foreign patrons. “He liked to learn about what made Americans tick,” recalled Hayes, who said he was never shown evidence of Raziq’s massacres or drug smuggling. Raziq understood what American officers appreciated: hard work, aggression and loyalty. To show his gratitude, he even insisted on taking part in a medal ceremony for Hayes’s troops. “He knew them by name,” Hayes recalled.

Soon after a successful operation to clear Malajat, Hayes and his team were reassigned to train the police in the provincial capital. During the spring of 2011, the situation in Kandahar City was dire. The Taliban hammered the government with gunmen and suicide attacks and, in April, freed nearly 500 inmates after tunneling into the main prison. Police morale was abysmal. “Drug use was rampant,” Hayes said. “Discipline was poor.” In the same month as the prison break, a suicide bomber got inside police headquarters and killed the provincial commander. Hayes, who narrowly missed the bombing, helped put the chief in a body bag. He was the second in two years to be killed.

Cleaning up Kandahar might have been the toughest job in Afghanistan, and both Karzai and the U.S. command wanted Raziq to do it. He agreed to become police chief on one condition: He wanted to keep his position with the Border Police. He would wear both hats, so to speak, in order to maintain his power base in Spin Boldak and would bring his own men into the city. If Raziq was going to be sheriff in Kandahar, he was going to do it his way.

The battle Raziq faced in the provincial capital, a city of nearly 400,000, was very different from the rangy desert warfare in the borderlands: Here, a tribally and ethnically mixed population lived and worked in closely packed homes and narrow alleys, industrial zones and trucking warehouses. Hiding amid them, Taliban guerrillas, the cheriki , terrorized government supporters, leaving menacing “night letters,” assassinating civil servants and imams and deploying suicide bombers whose blasts tore apart crowded streets.

The first phase of the American COIN strategy in Kandahar had called for securing the capital. To that end, the U.S. military poured in resources, building a network of checkpoints and bases for republican forces and expanding the number of police districts from 10 to 16, each with its own substation chief. Trained and equipped by American troops and contractors, the Kandahar police more than doubled in size. Raziq was the fulcrum of it all: A team of American mentors lived next to his headquarters, and he met often with U.S. brass to coordinate operations.

Raziq’s underground enemies, the cheriki , relied on an extensive network of local supporters, many of whom cooperated out of religious and nationalist fervor. Rooting them out required accurate intelligence. And because Karzai had resisted creating a system of wartime detention, those who were caught had to be criminally prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.

But for Raziq, the republican courts, corrupt and easily intimidated, were a central reason the insurgency was thriving. Too often, Taliban suspects were freed and returned to the battlefield. In Spin Boldak, he had solved this problem by becoming judge, jury and executioner. For all their rhetoric about human rights and the laws of war, the foreigners had chosen him to pacify Kandahar. Actions spoke louder than words.

Raziq brought his Achakzai militia, in their distinct spotted uniforms, into the city and placed trusted lieutenants in key posts like the substations. Raziq didn’t seem to relish cruelty — I never heard stories of him personally torturing people, for instance — but he cultivated men who did. Some were his own cousins, like Jajo, who became notorious for the atrocities he committed as commander of District 8, a predominantly Noorzai area. (Jajo was assassinated in 2014.) According to police officers and internal United Nations documents, another relative from Spin Boldak ran death squads out of a special battalion at headquarters. “They had detective badges and guns,” one substation deputy told me. “They threw the bodies in the desert.”

These plainclothes teams roamed in cars with tinted windows, snatching suspects and taking them for da reg mela , “a sand picnic.” The desert wells and dunes hid countless corpses; others were dumped in the streets. Many bore signs of horrific torture. “I saw things which made me wonder whether a wild beast or man had done them,” Dr. Musa Gharibnawaz, who oversaw the city morgue as the director of forensic medicine, told me.

Those who survived to see formal detention were also tortured for confessions, which the courts relied on almost entirely for convictions. The police didn’t have the education or capacity to collect basic technical evidence, nor did most judges understand it. This problem was much broader than just Kandahar. The same year Raziq became police chief, investigators from the United Nations interviewed more than 300 detainees across Afghanistan and found that torture was widespread in republican detention. Their report documented beatings, electric shocks and the “twisting and wrenching” of genitals. The most severe abuses by the police were in Kandahar, where a follow-up report also noted a large number of bodies found with gunshot wounds to the chest and the head after Raziq took power; by contrast, the investigators found significantly less torture in Helmand, where the Marines had stuck to the COIN playbook.

The persistence of torture in the republic — which the U.N. continued to document until 2021 — illustrates how, in wartime, certain useful but prohibited acts can be implicitly authorized as regular practices. As the U.N. reporting makes clear, those accused of torture rarely faced punishment. Their work, which ceased after confession, was instrumental, unlike the gratuitous abuse meted out by poorly supervised American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

In Kandahar, torture was exacerbated by the surge, which overloaded the court system with detainees captured by U.S. forces; one internal military report worried that it would most likely “produce more — perhaps far more — prisoners” than the main prison could handle. During the summer of 2011, as the U.N. prepared to publish its findings, intelligence reports from the south filtered up to Western diplomats and military leaders in Kabul. The torture of detainees had already led to scandals in Britain and Canada; now the U.S. command would be forced to take notice. For the third time in Raziq’s career, his job would hang in the balance as a result of his crimes.

On July 18, 2011, two months after Raziq became police chief, John R. Allen, then a four-star Marine general, took command of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan. He was shaking hands with his guests during the ceremony in Kabul when a trio of Western officials, led by a senior British diplomat, told him that they needed to speak immediately. It was about Raziq.

Alarmed by what he heard, Allen had his staff pull up the raw intelligence reporting, which described executions and torture by Raziq’s forces in Kandahar. “I wanted a sense of the frequency,” he told me. “The reporting was pretty standard and pretty awful. It had been going on for some time.”

Allen went to the presidential palace to see Karzai. “I said that he needed to be aware that he had a senior police commander who was a serial human rights violator, and he should remove him,” Allen told me.

But at that moment, Karzai needed Raziq more than ever. In the week before Allen arrived, two of the president’s most important allies in the south were killed, including his own brother. For years, Karzai had seen the United States waffle on corruption and human rights abuses, even as they partnered with warlords, and as he often had, he called the Americans’ bluff. At a follow-up meeting, Karzai told Allen that he had checked his own sources and hadn’t heard similar allegations.

Frustrated, Allen ordered the United States and its allies to stop transferring captives in the south. “Karzai wasn’t going to do anything about Raziq, and I couldn’t permit us to continue to feed detainees into his hands,” he told me. From then on, when he traveled to Kandahar, Allen made a point to dodge the young police chief, who was eager for a photo op. “I wasn’t going to play into Raziq’s hands and appear to be an ally of his under any circumstances.”

The State Department’s diplomats also avoided meeting Raziq. But that was as far as it went. “I don’t recall there was ever a serious push to remove Abdul Raziq,” said Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador at the time. When Crocker later raised the issue with Karzai, the president responded that Raziq was working closely with the U.S. military. “He was basically saying, ‘Look, I’m told that he’s your guy,’” Crocker told me. “Which turned out to be true.”

Allen’s subordinates in Kandahar continued to fight side by side with Raziq and his officers. “The military guys, for the most part, had a different view of him on the ground, working with him day in and day out,” said Martin Schweitzer, who as a brigadier general served as the deputy U.S. commander in Kandahar.

Despite Leahy laws in the United States, which prohibit support to foreign military units credibly accused of human rights violations, Raziq continued to be ferried around in American aircraft, and his advisers ensured that he and his forces had the air support, fuel and ammunition they needed. “If I asked and it was for Raziq, mostly I was going to get it,” said David Webb, who as a colonel advised him on two separate tours in 2012 and 2017. Upon Webb’s arrival, he was given his orders in no uncertain terms by his superior, a two-star general. “He put his finger in my chest and said: ‘Don’t let Raziq die. That’s your mission,’” said Webb, whose predecessor was wounded while fighting off an attack on Raziq’s headquarters.

Both Webb and Schweitzer stressed that they never saw evidence of Raziq committing war crimes under their watch. “I was with him almost every single day from morning until night,” Webb told me. “I never saw anything bad.”

As an outsider, I often wondered how American officers, bound to uphold the laws of war, rationalized working with Raziq. His tactics in Kandahar — every mutilated corpse or disappeared person — were intended to send a message, to terrorize his enemies and those who might support them. And they were effective. When I visited Kandahar in those years, I found that most people on the streets knew exactly what was happening, even if they were too afraid to speak about it openly.

But Raziq also calibrated his actions so that they were deniable. According to former colleagues, he and his men took steps to conceal them from their American allies, like dumping corpses when dust storms obscured aerial surveillance or using veiled language over the phone. Sending someone to “Dubai” meant killing them in the desert. “His commanders would call and say: ‘We caught someone. What should we do?’ He’d say, ‘God forgive them.’ That was his code,” said a senior republican police general who worked with Raziq. “I heard it with my own ears on an operation.”

The farther you got from the streets and villages, the easier it was to ignore what was happening there. According to an interpreter who spent years translating Raziq’s meetings with his American advisers, the subject was generally avoided at headquarters. “The advisers didn’t care about Raziq’s bad activities,” he said. “We weren’t telling Raziq: ‘Hey, do you have private prisons? Do you still have people in there?’”

“I’m not saying they didn’t occur; I’m not saying they did occur,” Schweitzer said about the kinds of accusations that led Allen to halt detainee transfers. “I just know I read all the intel reports.” And whatever American officers chose to believe, they could see that Raziq was delivering where it counted: Within a year and half of his taking over, enemy-initiated attacks were down by almost two-thirds in Kandahar. “I thought he was an incredibly important figure,” Schweitzer said, “and was critical to keeping the security in the south.”

The COIN strategy was tested in the summer of 2014, when the Taliban began a bold offensive targeting the two southern provinces that had been the focus of American efforts. The surge had come to an end, and republican forces were supposed to take the lead in combat.

In Helmand, where the Marines tried to keep out abusive strongmen, the government’s defense was disastrously weak and uncoordinated. In many rural areas, the republican army stayed in their forts and allowed the police to be overrun. Despite the presence of a major American air base in the province, large sections of the northern districts fell into insurgent hands.

But when the Taliban pushed into western Kandahar, Raziq took charge and rallied republican forces. Backed by his advisers and American airstrikes, he inflicted heavy casualties. The following summer, insurgents again attacked and reached the outskirts of Helmand’s capital; Raziq led counteroffensives to lift sieges there and, the next year, in the neighboring Uruzgan province. “The Taliban have fled the area and escaped,” he boasted to a TV crew while touring the embattled district of Now Zad.

By 2017, Helmand was among the top three provinces most controlled by insurgents, according to U.S. military figures. And while the situation was deteriorating across the country, Kandahar City and its surroundings remained relatively secure under Raziq. Journalists and human rights groups had warned that supporting men like him would backfire and inspire resistance to the government. Yet here he was, holding the line against the Taliban.

A Taliban supporter whose husband was killed in battle. She used to aid the movement by smuggling weapons. “We tied pistols around our waists to get them through checkpoints,” she said.

Retired Special Forces Colonel Jamie Hayes was an advisor to General Abdul Raziq early in his rise to becoming one of the most powerful figures in southern Afghanistan.

Raziq was far from the only example: Again and again, the U.S. military felt compelled to partner with Afghan allies who were accused of human rights abuses, despite its doctrine of winning the war by winning hearts and minds. Call it the COIN paradox; for years it puzzled me, until I came across the work of the political scientist Stathis Kalyvas, who offered a convincing explanation of its logic.

In his comparative study of conflicts ranging from the Napoleonic occupation of Spain to the Tamil Tigers’ insurgency in Sri Lanka, Kalyvas asks why civil wars are so often marked by violence against civilians. Discarding explanations like cultural backwardness or ideology, Kalyvas argues that the incentive for this violence is created by the military characteristics of civil war, where the population is the battlefield.

To understand how Kalyvas’s theory applies to Afghanistan, you had to look at the rural areas where most of the fighting took place. Consider the Taliban’s stronghold in Kandahar, the Panjwai valley. A verdant delta of pomegranate and grape orchards west of the provincial capital, Panjwai was the birthplace of the movement. Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s leader, preached in his mosque there.

The site of major offensives by allied forces since 2006, Panjwai was arguably the longest and most grueling fight anywhere in Kandahar. During the surge, American troops fought their way in and, by the end of 2010, had built up a string of bases and strong points, many jointly manned with the republican army and the police. The Taliban ordered its fighters to melt back into the villages, where, aided by the area’s dense vegetation and mud-walled orchards, they switched to hit-and-run ambushes, assassinations and improvised explosive devices.

This kind of guerrilla struggle was an example of what Kalyvas calls irregular warfare, in which territorial control is fragmented and mixed between both sides. The Taliban hid their weapons and picked up shovels, taking advantage of American rules of engagement, which allowed soldiers to fire only on those who were armed or posing an active threat. “We basically did not see a difference between the locals and the Taliban,” said Curtis Grace, who patrolled there as an infantryman in 2012.

The Army’s COIN manual stresses the difficulty in irregular warfare of telling civilians and insurgents apart. Kalyvas’s argument is different: The distinction itself can blur. In a conflict with no clear front lines, violence is jointly produced by combatants and civilians, who have the information the troops need to fight their enemies: the location of I.E.D.s and army patrols, the identities of insurgents and government supporters. Moreover, because civil war involves rival state-building, civilians help or hinder combatants by providing logistical and political support. In Panjwai, the Taliban needed local help to operate: They tried to win it by announcing safe routes through minefields, but they were also ruthless with those suspected of being spies and government supporters.

In civil war, while indiscriminate violence, like collateral damage from airstrikes, can backfire, “selective” violence against individuals works in a straightforward way: Do this, or I’ll kill you . Winning hearts and minds can still matter, but it’s only half the story. And in wartime, sticks are often much cheaper and more effective than carrots. In this life-or-death struggle, the competitor willing to use both will have the advantage.

Kalyvas’s work is part of a larger body of scholarship on civil war and counterinsurgency that demonstrates how central the use of coercive violence against civilians has been in such conflicts, whether waged by dictatorships like Syria or democracies like France. “ ‘The bad guys win’ is not the answer that U.S. forces, policymakers or civilians want to hear about counterinsurgency success, but the historical record is clear,” writes the scholar Jacqueline L. Hazelton. In this light, COIN doctrine can be seen as a form of American exceptionalism: the idea that the United States could fight a civil war differently from anyone else — humanely.

If Kalyvas is right, then what the U.S. military faced in Afghanistan was not so much a paradox as an impossible choice. To take back places like Panjwai, there was a compelling incentive to use unlawful violence against the population, which the U.S. military could not allow itself to do. The solution to this dilemma was a division of labor, where the United States provided firepower and money to allies like Raziq, who did the dirty work.

In 2010, the United States introduced the Afghan Local Police program, or ALP. Drawing on their experience with militias in Vietnam and El Salvador, the Special Forces trained and armed villagers around the country. In the military’s hearts-and-minds framework, they were empowering communities to protect themselves against violent outsiders. But four decades of a multisided conflict meant that fault lines ran through communities, villages and even families. Most areas were tribally mixed; finding militias meant exploiting those divisions just as the Taliban had been doing. It meant arming Afghans against one another in a civil war.

As police chief, Raziq was in charge of the ALP program in Kandahar. Panjwai District was the most resistant; by 2011, its horn, as the western end was known, was the only place that the militias had failed to take root, despite the presence of several Special Forces teams. The next year, Raziq appointed one of his key lieutenants as the district police chief. Panjwai was predominantly Noorzai; Sultan Mohammad was an Achakzai like Raziq, but he was from the district. Such local knowledge, the ability to make rural Afghan society legible to outsiders, was precisely what made militias effective. They could go after the Taliban and their supporters in their own homes. The Taliban had gained sway over the villages by targeting the families of those who collaborated with the republic, and the militias, protected by American and regular government forces, could turn the tables.

Most of Panjwai was too dangerous to visit during the war, but when the republic fell in 2021, I was able to travel there, interviewing dozens of witnesses who described torture and extrajudicial killings carried out by members of the police and the ALP, targeting both active insurgents and sympathizers. In the village of Pashmul, several witnesses told me they saw Sultan Mohammad shoot an unarmed old man, Hajji Badr, whose sons had served in the Taliban. Sultan Mohammad told me he had no involvement in murder or torture, but several other people said they witnessed him personally execute prisoners. “All the people from the area knew,” said Hasti Mohammad, a republican district governor in Panjwai. “It wasn’t something secret.”

I was also shown several videos of police abuse, including one in which a group of men, identified by locals as ALP members in Panjwai, tortured a captive bound hand and foot. They strike him with sticks, twist his testicles with their hands, pour water over his mouth and sodomize him with a stick, all while demanding he confess. “I don’t have anything,” he blubbers, growing incoherent.

This brutality was no impediment to American and republican success. Under Sultan Mohammad, the ALP program was established throughout the district. I.E.D. attacks plummeted, while the proportion of bombs that went off without being discovered dropped by half, which one study attributed to increased cooperation from locals.

The U.S. military was aware of the abuses by police officers and militia members in Panjwai. On multiple occasions, American surveillance captured them committing war crimes. One video showing executions by the police was shown to senior U.S. officials in 2012; Colonel Webb said he asked Raziq to arrest the perpetrators, but police investigators told me that some ordinary militiamen were punished instead. Sultan Mohammad was eventually promoted to brigadier general and oversaw several districts in the west of the province. When I spoke with him, he showed me a collection of certificates of appreciation from more than a dozen U.S. military units. “The Special Forces helped us a lot,” he said.

Fazli Ahmad, a Taliban fighter, was arrested by the police, who filmed a video of themselves dragging him behind a pickup truck. He said Sultan Mohammad ordered him to be executed, but he was released after his father paid a bribe.

Sultan Mohammad, a former police chief in Panjwai District and one of Raziq’s key lieutenants. He worked closely with the U.S. military to establish a militia program in Panjwai. “The Special Forces helped us a lot,” he said.

Thanks to his success in Kandahar, Raziq became famous. Not since the late northern commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, whom he greatly admired, had any one figure united anti-Taliban sentiment across the country. He was interviewed on national television, and his picture was pasted on street billboards. Songs were dedicated to him:

He’s the servant of security, the servant of our government.

He’s truly the servant of Afghans.

There were many reasons for his popularity. He was young and dynamic, a village boy who never lost the common touch. He was free with his largess, sometimes handing out cash on the street. He spoke fearlessly against Pakistan’s support for the insurgency. For Afghans disenchanted by the corruption and duplicity of their politicians, Raziq seemed authentic.

“There were other politicians who would talk against the Taliban and Pakistan,” said Nader Nadery, a senior fellow at the Wilson Center who as head of the country’s human rights commission had criticized Raziq’s abuses. “With Raziq, people saw it was not just words.” Even Nadery had come to see the trade-off that Raziq represented, as a bulwark against the looming collapse of the republic. “It’s a difficult judgment to make,” he said. “We can lose everything, or we can keep some parts of it.”

Although Raziq publicly denied accusations of human rights abuses, when an Afghan journalist asked him about them in 2017, he offered something close to a justification. “Showing mercy to such people is a betrayal to our nation,” he replied. “When our soldiers are martyred, isn’t that a violation of human rights? When our schools are burned, isn’t that a violation?”

The truth was that many Afghans saw Raziq’s brutality as a positive quality. They wanted a champion who could protect them from the Taliban’s violence. When Raziq went out on the streets, he was mobbed by crowds of well-wishers. “It was like being an adviser to Elvis Presley,” Webb recalled.

As Raziq grew in stature, he was rehabilitated. Western generals and diplomats sought him out on trips to Kandahar. Over the years, Raziq was a constant there, a fixed point around which contradictory policies and goals swirled: counterterrorism, nation-building, COIN and, finally, negotiations with the Taliban. “We needed him more than he needed us,” said John W. Lathrop, who as a brigadier general commanded American forces in Kandahar in 2017. “Keeping Raziq happy was pretty important.”

For the Taliban, Raziq was one of their top targets. By his own count, Raziq had survived at least 25 suicide attacks. Yet he remained committed to the fight. In one of his last interviews, Raziq criticized republican elites who already had one foot out the door with visas and houses overseas. “We shouldn’t hope or plan to seek asylum in America or move to London,” he said. “We were born here, and we’ll die here.”

On Oct. 18, 2018, General Miller, the top U.S. commander, called a meeting at the governor’s compound in Kandahar to discuss the upcoming parliamentary elections. That day, Raziq put on Western-style clothes: a dress shirt and slacks. The young soldier from the borderlands had become a statesman, a role that came less easily to him. He had seemed worn down to people who had met him lately; he was preoccupied with political dramas in Kabul. He had also been sick for days with a bad stomach bug, but he wanted to see Miller, whom he had known since the early days of the war. During the meeting, Raziq appeared flushed and uneasy, but afterward he insisted on walking to the helicopter pad to see off Miller and the other Americans.

A group of police officers arrived, carrying crates of pomegranates, gifts for the Americans. Among them was a bodyguard for the governor, a young man the Taliban had code-named Abu Dujana. He dropped his crate and fired his assault rifle, killing Raziq and the provincial intelligence chief and wounding several others, including an American general, before he was shot dead.

As one part of the country celebrated, the other mourned. The republic had lost its hero.

What does Raziq’s story tell us about why the United States failed in Afghanistan? Although the immediate cause of the republic’s collapse might have been the precipitous U.S. withdrawal in 2021, the real question is why the Afghan government could not stand on its own despite the hundreds of billions of dollars invested over 20 years by America and its allies. How did hundreds of thousands of soldiers and police officers, armed with modern equipment, lose to insurgents who rode their motorcycles in sandals?

Many corrupt and unpopular governments survive insurgencies. And it’s clear that the Taliban’s violence against civilians did not prevent their ultimate success. More than hearts and minds lost to brutality, internal rot and infighting — fed by the West’s profligate spending and inconsistent strategy — explain the republic’s collapse. Criminal behavior by republican officials escalated to the point that it threatened the system itself, bringing about repeated crises like the near collapse of the banking sector. Wage and supply theft were catastrophic to the morale of soldiers and police officers, while nonexistent “ghost soldiers” inflated their ranks. As the Americans pulled back from rural areas, the ALP militias became increasingly predatory, shaking down locals for bribes; their selective violence became indiscriminate, to use Kalyvas’s terms. “That’s how it started,” a senior Panjwai officer explained. “The district chief stole their salaries and said, ‘Go get your meals from the people.’”

When it came to corruption, Raziq played an ambiguous role: What he stole from the system with one hand he gave back with the other. With their control of the border, he and his cronies siphoned huge amounts of government revenue : The shortfall added up to around $55 million per year, according to satellite imagery and customs data analyzed by the researcher David Mansfield.

But Raziq also spent much of what he earned on his network of sources, on bonuses for his men, on bribes to protect himself from rapacious politicians in Kabul. In a corrupt system, money was synonymous with power, and Raziq needed it to fight. Yet while he tried to curb overly predatory commanders, there was a limit to how far he could go to keep order. He was a prisoner of his own methods. Enforced disappearances, torture and executions, the tools that Raziq believed were necessary to defeat the Taliban, had to be kept hidden, often through intimidation and bribery. Impunity for human rights abuses could lead to general lawlessness; in this way, repressive counterinsurgencies had mutated into mafia states in countries like Guatemala. The men that Raziq handpicked to carry out these acts were of necessity criminals. The darkness they worked within allowed corruption to flourish. By contrast, instead of democracy or human rights, the Taliban professed a fundamentalist vision of Islamic law. Their scholars justified killing captives and civilians as necessary and legitimate in the jihad against foreign occupation. Where the republic’s hypocrisy fed its fatal weakness, corruption, the Taliban’s unabashed brutality was consonant with the movement’s strength, its unity.

Today we live in an age of irregular warfare, of asymmetric clashes with militant groups and battles to control populations. A vast majority of conflicts over the past century have been within states, not between them. The comforting myth that brutality is always counterproductive — that war can therefore be humane — obscures how violence functions in such conflicts; it hides how and to whom men like Raziq are useful. In retrospect, this myth, sold to the public as COIN, is part of a larger pattern of dishonesty that runs through America’s longest war, 20 years of wishful thinking and willful ignorance that culminated in tragedy on Aug. 15, 2021, when Raziq’s mortal enemies entered Kabul in triumph.

Read by Peter Ganim

Narration produced by Anna Diamond and Krish Seenivasan

Engineered by Steven Szczesniak

Victor J. Blue is a photographer who has been working in Afghanistan since 2009, when President Barack Obama escalated the war effort. He was there during the fall of Kabul, when the Taliban came back into power in 2021, and has returned three times since then.

Matthieu Aikins is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine who, since 2008, has been covering conflicts in Afghanistan and the Middle East, the US military's operations overseas, forced migration and human rights conflict. His work has received National Magazine, Polk and Livingston awards. He was part of a New York Times team that won the 2022 Pulitzer for international reporting for an investigation of civilian casualties from U.S. airstrikes. A video they produced for that project also won two Emmys. His first book, "The Naked Don’t Fear the Water," is about an undercover journey to Europe with Afghan refugees. More about Matthieu Aikins

Advertisement