A Finnish school dress code requiring pupils to avoid clothing that might offend others has raised legal questions in the city of Pori. The controversy follows a previous ruling by Finland’s Deputy Chancellor of Justice, who found a similar restriction unlawful in 2012 because it was too broadly worded.
The rules at Porin Lyseo, a lower secondary school in western Finland, instruct students to dress appropriately and include the following requirement:
Make sure that your clothing does not offend others or violate good manners.
The provision, which appears in the school’s published rules, was discussed with students earlier this week, prompting criticism and even suggestions of protest.
Why a previous school dress code was ruled unlawful
The legal concerns stem from a 2012 decision by Finland’s Deputy Chancellor of Justice (apulaisoikeuskansleri) concerning another school’s prohibition on clothing considered offensive to others.
The authority found the general ban unlawful because it was insufficiently specific. The problem was not that schools could never restrict what students wear, but that such restrictions must be clearly defined and respect fundamental rights, including freedom of expression.
According to the 2012 decision, schools can prohibit clothing displaying messages that constitute criminal incitement against a population group. However, a general prohibition on anything considered offensive does not provide sufficiently clear limits.
The distinction matters because clothing can express personal identity, opinions and beliefs. A garment that one person considers inappropriate is not necessarily unlawful or grounds for disciplinary action.
What Finnish schools can actually restrict
The Finnish National Agency for Education (Opetushallitus) explains in its official guidance on school clothing that students must behave appropriately, which includes dressing appropriately.
However, their constitutional rights limit how schools can regulate their appearance.
Binding clothing requirements can be imposed for safety or hygiene reasons, for example during physical education, technical work or home economics lessons. Schools cannot otherwise introduce general compulsory restrictions on students’ clothing and appearance without an adequate legal basis. This is also why Finnish schools cannot require pupils to wear uniforms.
The agency’s guidance on school rules also stresses that restrictions must be precise, proportionate and understandable to pupils. Recommendations about appropriate behaviour must be distinguishable from legally enforceable rules.
Students consider protesting the clothing restrictions
The issue at Porin Lyseo emerged after teachers discussed clothing with lower secondary students on Monday.
According to Finnish broadcaster Yle, some teachers described in considerable detail which types of clothing or exposed skin might be considered offensive.
Oona Selivaara, a ninth-grade student, said her class had been advised against wearing excessively revealing clothes and encouraged to consider what might be inappropriate.
Some students questioned whether teachers had the authority to interfere with their personal style. Others reportedly considered wearing deliberately revealing outfits in protest against rules they regarded as excessively restrictive.
The debate also illustrates the difficulty of establishing a shared definition of appropriate clothing. In a separate interview with Yle, Mirva Saukkola, chair of the Finnish etiquette organisation Tapaseura, explained that disagreements over clothing can reflect differences in personal values and worldviews.
She noted that defining precisely how much skin may be exposed, or how tight clothing may be, is extremely difficult.
The school acknowledges the legal concerns
Porin Lyseo principal Kimmo Salokangas acknowledged to Yle that the school’s rule conflicts with the earlier finding by the Deputy Chancellor of Justice and said its wording should be clarified.
Salokangas explained that the provision had been taken from guidance published by the Finnish National Agency for Education in 2016.
He nevertheless argued that certain situations may justify intervention by school staff, particularly when clothing displays inappropriate images or text. Teachers might also suggest that a student wear something less revealing, although he stressed that such interventions are uncommon.
Yle also contacted principals at schools in Lappeenranta, Kouvola and Lahti, finding differing views on what constitutes appropriate clothing. At Ahtiala School in Lahti, for example, the principal said that exposed waistlines or visible bra straps were not categorically prohibited.
