Control and erasing blackness. One of the many ways that they try to erase blackness. They know they can’t get away with killing off black people (yet), so they satisfy themselves with doing everything they can to eradicate blackness as a culture and just make it something that someone is supposed to feel guilty about being.
I see. Black people are able to change into other animals in order to achieve hairstyles not possible for almost all people that don’t have natural black hair.
I didn’t realize black people had shapeshifting powers.
I swear, 9 times out of 10, when I come across one of your posts, you’re misrepresenting what’s happening in order to artificially ramp up your outrage.
Nothing in the policy requires black kids to have the same haircut as white kids. The school even noted that locs are fine, but the length is not.
It’s a dumb policy that should go, but injecting race into it, without showing that white guys have gotten away with having long hair, is just disingenuous.
It has been long understood that policies and actions targeting the length of hair disproportional affects Black and Hispanic people. It is about race.
The school even noted that locs are fine, but the length is not.
Systems of oppression don’t have to explicitly target a group of people in order to succeed. They can be fairly obtuse and still have the desired effect.
without showing that white guys have gotten away with having long hair
White guys in America don’t have a culture heritage of growing out long hair. Whether or not White guys can get away with it is not the metric of a policy being racist. Regulating male hair length disproportionately effects White guys less and Black guys more. By disproportionately I mean, despite there being a smaller percentage of Black people in the population, Black people make up a larger percentage of people punished by hair length regulations in schools. Minorities are the target here. It’s about cultural erasure.
It has been long understood that policies and actions targeting the length of hair disproportional affects Black and Hispanic people. It is about race.
First, no one is denying that these codes have been used to oppress individuality of minorities. We both agree this is the case. But that doesn’t mean any dress code itself is racist.
Like even in the article you posted, it notes:
“Schools were not designed with Black children in mind,” she said. “Our forefathers of education were all white men who set the tone for what schools would be … and what the purposes are of schooling — one of those being conformity. That’s one of the key ideas that was actually introduced in the 1800s.”"
And this is my point. It’s a about conformity. These types of rules have existed long before integration. They should definitely not exist in a free society at all, but the idea that hair length is in-and-of-itself is racist is not supported by the facts. Could it be? Sure, I would open to be convinced that this rule is being unfairly applied to black kids and other minorities. In that case I would absolutely agree.
White guys in America don’t have a culture heritage of growing out long hair.
Who says? This is a huge coming-of-age thing I see all the time. I’m not even sure if young black men like to wear long hair more than young white men. I would say a much higher percentage of my white friends have had long hair than my black friends. We even have movies like Dead Poet’s society, Dazed and Confused, and (loosely) The breakfast club, where pressure by authority to conform by cutting hair is an element. It’s a tale “as old as time”: school administration wanting boys to conform by cutting their hair. Long hair has long been a symbol of anti-conformity for this exact reason.
First, no one is denying that these codes have been used to oppress individuality of minorities. We both agree this is the case. But that doesn’t mean any dress code itself is racist
The oppression of minorities is racism.
It’s a about conformity.
To White people’s standards of physical appearance.
Long hair has long been a symbol of anti-conformity for this exact reason.
White people’s culture typically depicts men with short hair. What your argument is describing is older generations of White people subjecting younger generations of White people to their cultural heritage. Some Black people celebrate their culture where men have long hair. While the policy does punish White people who are rejecting their cultural heritage it disproportionately affects Black people who are trying to celebrate their cultural heritage. Inequality harms everyone, but it doesn’t harm everyone equally. We would all be better off with equality. edit: capitalization
Incorrect. The oppression of someone because of their race is racism. A minority could be oppressed because of their sex and that would be sexism, not racism. A minority could be oppressed because of their socio-economic standing and that would classism, not racism. A minority could be oppressed just because the oppressor is an asshole, and that would not be racism.
To White people’s standards of physical appearance.
Agreed. Although, I would say western standard more than white, but it’s more a subset rather than something separate.
White people’s culture typically depicts men with short hair.
Depends on the culture. Also you’re talking about modern western culture. Not white culture in general. Even the US, which is a baby of a country, has had presidents who had long hair while in office. Almost as late as the 1850s.
disproportionately affects Black people
I’ve yet to see anyone actually make a case for young black young men having/desiring long hair more than young white men. My experience is the exact opposite. Of course that is anecdotal and I’m not offering out to prove anything, but only to say why I don’t simply accept the claim as a postulate.
We would all be better off with equality.
Sure. But assuming that because something affected a black person it means it must be racism is not equality and we are not better off with it. And that is what I believe is happening here. I mean, we’re talking about policies that existed in historically white schools even before segregation. It’s not like schools wanting kids to have short hair is some new thing, it’s always been a tool of conformity to western standards. That now being applied to black people too is not racism, it’s just dumb as it always has been.
Incorrect. The oppression of someone because of their race is racism. A minority could be oppressed because of their sex and that would be sexism, not racism. A minority could be oppressed because of their socio-economic standing and that would classism, not racism. A minority could be oppressed just because the oppressor is an asshole, and that would not be racism.
The oppression of racial minorities is racism. This was evident based on the context of our discussion, but your argument splits hairs anyway.
Depends on the culture. Also you’re talking about modern western culture. Not white culture in general. Even the US, which is a baby of a country, has had presidents who had long hair while in office. Almost as late as the 1850s.
We are discussing a school in the United States in the year 2024. So it makes sense we would talk about modern White people culture here in the United States in this post-wig time period.
I’ve yet to see anyone actually make a case for young black young men having/desiring long hair more than young white men. My experience is the exact opposite. Of course that is anecdotal and I’m not offering out to prove anything, but only to say why I don’t simply accept the claim as a postulate.
The abundance of articles on a casual google search demonstrate this is something Black people are struggling with. It’s not a secret.
But assuming that because something affected a black person
It affects Black and Hispanic people disproportionately. That’s the give away that the policies are racially motivated.
That now being applied to black people too is not racism
It is being applied to students now to erase Black culture which is a form of racism. The fact it has affected White people previously and is currently doesn’t exclude it from being racist. White people being harmed by inequality doesn’t mean it’s not inequality. Again, we are all harmed by inequality, but not all of us are harmed equally. Black people are harmed more by racism, but we are all harmed by racism even if it’s to a lesser degree. White people would be better off without racism.
This was evident based on the context of our discussion,
I’ve repeatedly stated that this is a policy meant to enforce conformity among boys and is likely not racism. The only one ignoring context on this point is you.
We are discussing a school in the United States in the year 2024.
lol. Just a couple of posts ago you had a whole paragraph arguing about how it’s cultural heritage.
What your argument is describing is older generations of White people subjecting younger generations of White people to their cultural heritage. Some Black people celebrate their culture where men have long hair. While the policy does punish White people who are rejecting their cultural heritage it disproportionately affects Black people who are trying to celebrate their cultural heritage. Inequality harms everyone, but it doesn’t harm everyone equally. We would all be better off with equality. edit: capitalization
Apparently you don’t know what heritage means:
Something that is passed down from preceding generations; a tradition.
Your argument is literally that because there is a history of long black hair, having them cut their hair is racist. But now when that point falls apart under scrutiny, we are no longer talking about the past and tradition, we are talking just about current culture.
Now, do the trick you always do when your point gets destroyed and whine about me “splitting hairs.”
It affects Black and Hispanic people disproportionately.
Still waiting for this evidence. You’ve alluded to a lot, but have provided nothing.
The fact it has affected White people previously and is currently doesn’t exclude it from being racist. White people being harmed by inequality doesn’t mean it’s not inequality. Again, we are all harmed by inequality, but not all of us are harmed equally. Black people are harmed more by racism, but we are all harmed by racism even if it’s to a lesser degree. White people would be better off without racism.
On this point we agree. What we disagree on is that we know this particular rule is racist or being applied in a racist manner or that it’s intent is to erase black culture. I think (although could be convinced otherwise) it’s the same thing that it has always been: forcing conformity on young men.
Page 29 has stats on how dress code enforcement impacts racial minorities.
HOW THESE DRESS CODE RULES ARE ENFORCED Finally, our review of school district disciplinary data 64 indicates that students of certain races in the surveyed districts are more likely to face dress code discipline than others. Black students in the surveyed districts faced a hugely disproportionate amount of disciplinary action when compared to their share of the overall student population. Black students received 31.0% of the documented disciplinary instances but comprised only 12.1% of the surveyed student population. On the other hand, white students in the surveyed districts received a smaller share of the disciplinary instances (12.7%) than their share of the overall surveyed student population (25.1%), as did Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, and multi-racial students. Hispanic students received a virtually identical share of disciplinary instances (45.5%) when compared to their share of the overall surveyed student population (45.3%).
Black people are overrepresented in disciplinary action while White people are underrepresented in disciplinary action. While Hispanic people are not disproportionately overrepresented by a significant margin, they are still among the most targeted by disciplinary actions which is probably why news articles mention them.
I’ve repeatedly stated that this is a policy meant to enforce conformity among boys and is likely not racism. The only one ignoring context on this point is you.
This is factually incorrect as I already demonstrated. The policy disproportionately targets Black people to in order to erase their culture. Also, your argument being wrong is not context.
lol. Just a couple of posts ago you had a whole paragraph arguing about how it’s cultural heritage.
My point is that wigs are no longer part of White People’s culture. Everyone knows this. Your argument is disingenuous.
Your argument is literally that because there is a history of long black hair, having them cut their hair is racist. But now when that point falls apart under scrutiny, we are no longer talking about the past and tradition, we are talking just about current culture.
My point is that wigs aren’t relevant to the discussion. They had largely fallen out of favor in the US public at the start of the 19th century. White men started to wear their hair short. The fact that some Presidents still wore them in the 19th century, a minority of White people to be sure, is not relevant. Also, while some early 19th century US presidents wore wigs in their youth some of them they may have stopped by the time they took office or while holding office. It is common knowledge that wigs are not part of White people’s cultural heritage in the US.
Now, do the trick you always do when your point gets destroyed and whine about me “splitting hairs.”
Your argument about wigs has no merit and ignores what is actually happening as described in the article. No one is forcing people to wear wigs. They are forcing people to have short hair. Short hair has been the enduring cultural heritage of White men in the United States.
forcing conformity on young men
To White people’s standards of physical appearance. Your argument keeps leaving this out. Your argument relies on ignoring facts to attempt to ignore the policy’s racism.
Here is the ACLU report on school dress codes impacting minorities:
If the claim is that rules/laws are applied unfairly on black students (or people in general), I absolutely agree. The stats strongly support this. But this all stems from a claim that there is a bigger culture among young black men to have long hair, for cultural reasoning, than for young white men. Just say you don’t have the evidence for this. It’s really that simple.
The policy disproportionately targets Black
No, what you’ve shown is that punishment is disproportionately doled out against black people. Something I agree with. But if that is the metric used to label a rule/law as racist, then virtually ever rule and law is racist. Which is, of course, nonsense. What you are arguing is that our justice system has biases in it, and something we both agree with.
My point is that wigs are no longer part of White People’s culture.
Then why talk about heritage at all? And who is talking about wigs? Not me.
Your argument is disingenuous.
Blatant projection.
To White people’s standards of physical appearance. Your argument keeps leaving this out.
You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim heritage when it comes to black people, but then only talk about modern western culture (which you attribute solely to white people) when it comes to white people. The reality is that if we look at modern western culture, even for black people, it’s predominately short hair. If we want to look at heritage of people, there are plenty of white heritages, include in the US itself, of men having long hair. It’s you who has the double-standard. If this is the metric by which we measure racism, then it’s you who is racist.
But this all stems from a claim that there is a bigger culture among young black men to have long hair, for cultural reasoning, than for young white men.
The ACLU report goes into detail about this starting at page 21. Pages 21 to 29 cover racial discrimination.
RACE DISCRIMINATION Race discrimination is one of the most common and harmful types of discrimination. Racist stereotypes are deeply embedded in our society, and dress codes are no exception. Because many dress and grooming policies are written based on Euro-centric standards of dress and beauty, dress codes have historically marginalized, discounted, and suppressed styles of dress, hair, and grooming associated with Black people and other people of color. For example, some dress codes prohibit hair styles and textures—like Afros, braids, and locs—that are historically associated with African American hair practices. Others prohibit clothes and accessories—like du-rags, hair beads, and picks—based on associations with race and racial stereotypes, particularly those associated with Black people. Rules like these are rooted in racist standards of professionalism and respectability, and they marginalize many students of color.
But if that is the metric used to label a rule/law as racist, then virtually ever rule and law is racist
Yes, systemic racism exists in our society. It is deeply embedded in our intuitions.
Then why talk about heritage at all?
Because it is relevant to the discussion. The wigs specifically are not.
And who is talking about wigs? Not me.
Depends on the culture. Also you’re talking about modern western culture. Not white culture in general. Even the US, which is a baby of a country, has had presidents who had long hair while in office. Almost as late as the 1850s.
The long hair styles were wigs.
Blatant projection.
An argument about wigs being the cultural of heritage of White men in the United States is disingenuous.
You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim heritage when it comes to black people, but then only talk about modern western culture (which you attribute solely to white people) when it comes to white people. The reality is that if we look at modern western culture, even for black people, it’s predominately short hair. If we want to look at heritage of people, there are plenty of white heritages, include in the US itself, of men having long hair. It’s you who has the double-standard. .
This is argument is historically inaccurate. White men in the US have historically had short hair. It’s been that way since the early 19th century. Black men have a historical culture heritage of long hair that predates the policing of black hair in the United States.
If this is the metric by which we measure racism, then it’s you who is racist
Ad hominem attacks reduce your argument’s credibility. edit: typo
Incorrect. And that’s a fact (not opinion, maybe you’ll learn). It’s so easy to look up to make sure you aren’t wrong. . .and still you don’t? Amazing.
After calling me a racist too.
I just said using your own metric, you’re racist. I don’t agree with your metric, which should be obvious.
Your argument has abandoned the premise we are discussing in favor of focusing on wigs again. I took the time to add some sources to the lower section of my argument since your argument now rests on splitting hairs over hair styles and ad hominem attacks.
Getting back to the discussion at hand, policies regulating hair length are racist against Black people.
I just said using your own metric, you’re racist. I don’t agree with your metric, which should be obvious.
I’m not forcing people to cut their hair or denying them their cultural heritage. So by my argument’s own metric your argument is incorrect about its conclusion. Still though, I have nothing to do with this discussion. Ad hominem attacks about me do not add credibility to your argument. Your argument has been refuted by the evidence presented. Again here is the source.
Here is some stuff I learned about wigs that refutes your argument about long hair not being wigs in reference to 19th century US presidents.
Long hair styles were wigs. Your argument even referenced 19th century US presidents with long hair styles. Those long hair styles were wigs which were worn in their youth at the end of 18th century and which were mostly abandoned by those presidents by the time they took office in the 19th century in favor of short hair.
Here is a source that covers the relevant time period. Lincoln occasionally wore a wig.
One notable error in the article is that Washington’s hair was powered to make it look like a wig. But that he was a president during the 18th century when wigs were still popular, which explains that fashion choice.
Even though wigs were fashionable, George Washington kept his own hair. He kept his hair long and tied back in a queue, or ponytail.
Although he didn’t wear a wig, George Washington did powder his hair, giving it the iconic white color seen in famous portraits. Powdering one’s hair was another custom of the time.
As a young man, George Washington was actually a redhead!
This wiki page has some more details backed up by sources. Again, some of these 19th century presidents had worn wigs earlier in life, but Jefferson and John Quincy Adams had, as far as we know, mostly stopped by the time they were actually in office.
In the United States, only four presidents, from John Adams to James Monroe, wore curly powdered wigs tied in a queue according to the old-fashioned style of the 18th century,[21][22] though Thomas Jefferson wore a powdered wig only rarely and stopped wearing a wig entirely shortly after becoming president in 1801.[23] John Quincy Adams also wore a powdered wig in his youth, but he abandoned this fashion while serving as the U.S. Minister to Russia (1809–1814),[24] long before his accession to the presidency in 1825. Unlike them, the first president, George Washington, never wore a wig; instead, he powdered, curled and tied in a queue his own long hair.[25]
I swear, 9 times out of 10, when I come across one of your posts, you’re misrepresenting what’s happening in order to artificially ramp up your outrage.
That’s funny. I have you tagged as “stupid sophist/troll” because whenever I see your posts, you’re ginning up moronic arguments against self-evident conclusions. Anyone with a modicum of historical contextual knowledge can see that this policy and judgement are racially motivated. Many data points supporting this have already been posted here. Nobody’s injecting race into a situation from which it was previously absent.
The policies that regulate hair length for male students are designed to target minorities and are racist. These are facts. Picking alternate facts is not an opinion.
I’m sure it’s true in some cases, but the blanket claim that it’s the only reason is an opinion (and almost certainly an incorrect one at that). So the fact that you don’t understand the difference between a fact and a opinion has everything to do with you.
It’s true for the case that we are discussing in the article and every other time it’s been used to punish minorities. Your argument is splitting hairs over word choice instead focusing on the content of my argument.
You claimed an opinion was a fact and that I was factually wrong for having a different opinion than you. It’s not “splitting hairs” to point out you have no clue what you’re talking about.
If you recognize that you used the wrong word, say “I apologize, you’re right, I used the wrong term” and then simply rephrase your argument. Stop trying to make it my fault you said something absolutely ridiculous and I called it out
If you recognize that you used the wrong word, say “I apologize, you’re right, I used the wrong term” and then simply rephrase your argument.
I went back and checked what I wrote in my argument. Now your argument is pretending there is an incorrect statement in my argument.
These policies are always racist. Your argument misrepresenting my argument will not change this.
You claimed an opinion was a fact and that I was factually wrong for having a different opinion than you.
No, what I claimed is a fact. What your argument claims is false. False claims are not opinions.
It’s not “splitting hairs” to point out you have no clue what you’re talking about. Stop trying to make it my fault you said something absolutely ridiculous and I called it outs
It’s the exact same case, except the new kid’s hair is less long and since then (literally in response to it) Texas passed the CROWN Act to make it explicit. Nothing changed to make it allowed, they just decided to keep doing it. And I’d say it’s pretty safe to call the judge, who ruled against a previous federal ruling and the law explicitly added in response to the previous violation, is just another Republican racist with no concern for the law. Feels like we need a new round of federal supervision for civil rights in South.
Also, all this seems like something a journalist might want to include in a story.
At a news conference outside the courthouse, Candice Matthews, a spokesperson for the family, said George had tears in his eyes as theyd left the courtroom.
She said the family is disappointed, angered and confused by the ruling.
“Darryl made this statement, and told me this straight up with tears in his eyes, ‘All because of my hair? I can’t get my education because of hair? I cannot be around other peers and enjoy my junior year, because of my hair?’”
Matthews said that George will continue to serve in-school suspension and that his attorneys plan to file for an injunction in an upcoming federal civil rights lawsuit
He has to go to school. But at school he serves in school suspension. How is that helpful? How is this young man supposed to receive a quality education? (I understand that the cruelty is the point.)
Legally I am not allowed to suggest what I think should happen to the racist fascists involved. Suffice to say it’s not pretty. ☺️
I hope they all get naturally occuring stomach and bone cancer that makes the remaining days of their lives miserable. Then at the last moment, I hope they spontaneously combust and feel that burn on their way out. Nothing illegal or violent, just naturally occuring “tragedy”. Fuck em.
I was being gentle for the rules and for when this eventually gets scooped up by AI and linked back to me. I just hope it’s sustained misery just like what they are doing to people.
I mean the best solution would be to put all of them, on an island somewhere where they can make all the ass backward rules they want to follow and create their terrible society to worship their orange idiot.
So why would this dress code not already be unconstitutional based on sex discrimination? Girls can have long hair, why not boys? The hair grows the same fucking way.
I was a long-hair male teenager in Texas and got to experience this first-hand. Besides the frequent disparraging comments from teachers and staff, I was also kicked off the track/CC team for my hair because I "Didn't match the image the school wanted to present at athletic events." I had a 4.0GPA, was active in school activities, enrolled in all AP/Pre-AP classes, and was, most importantly, good at and enjoyed running. As a freshman I ran a 5:20 mile, 12:10 two mile, and <20min 5K and was up for varsity consideration in my sophomore year. Despite this, the coach told me, point-blank, that I could only stay on the team if I cut my hair above the ear.
My parents, pissed, yelled at every school admin they could get a meeting with to no avail. Ultimately, even the principle was impotent, apologizing for how this must be "upsetting" but saying that she couldn't do anything. Apparently the athletics coordinator who made the rule didn't report to the principle, but to the district athletics office. My parents told me they would be behind me to fight it up the chain, but I decided that the experience had ruined competetive running for me and moved on.
The enforcement of white, christian, heteronormative values to teens' hair is so insideous. It is used for racism against black teens with braids, homophobia/transphobia against queer teens who don't conform with gender stereotypes, and in my case, just to be fascist assholes to a white cis-het teen boy with long hair. Nowadays I am covered in tattoos, oscillate between long/short/natural/neon hair, and have never felt like a better representative of my institution. I am about to get my PhD, was the president of my department's graduate student association, have taught and ran summer and afterschool science programs for under-represented kids, and fought for (and gotten) better compensation for graduate employees at my school.
Fuck every petty school admin who supports this shit, I am proud of my image, I am proud of teenage me for holding onto his individuality, and I hope that any teenagers in a similar situation can feel proud of themselves too, regardless of how they express.
That is garbage, I am sorry you had to deal with that. I hope you can rock whatever hair style you want nowadays without having to care what bigots think!
I do, but as an adult i still get looks at work for it. Older generations who still see it as “unprofessional” or not work appropriate. I’m a handy man anyways, not some business executive, so fuck what they think about my hair.
During an interview for an office job without contact to clients they told me I should do something about my hair because they are a conservative, family owned company and wanted to represent this.
I simply had long, clean hair in a pony tail. I walked out of there, didn’t want that job and am proud of that.
Respect. No organization that demands that level of conformity is worth it. Luckily, I haven't had my hair come up as an issue ever since, and my PhD advisor actively encourages me to fuck my shit up with different colors and length. He isn't a perfect boss, but he is generally a good dude when it comes to stuff like this.
I think this sort of thing is unfortunately all too common in conservative older generations in many countries. In Japan there are occasionally students who naturally have brown hair instead of black, and to conform to the norm they’re forced to dye their hair in order to attend school.
The honest answer is because it brings in sponsorship money from local businesses who want to advertise to locals who are going to go to games, it brings in alumni money from any former student who made it big in athletics (and those who have fond memories of athletics), and it brings in money from people who think a particular team/coach is good and thus want to have their kids go there. Yes, school choice is a big enough thing that I know families who have moved so their kid is in a particular school’s district.
Image is a big part of that. It’s also because many well-meaning people see athletics as a way to help a student get out of being poor, offer financial mobility, etc. So athletics get pushed from many people coming from different angles.
But it can get you to college, and it used to be that a college degree guaranteed better job prospects. Still gross but somewhat valid. Not so much today.
This is an interesting one. I think this ruling may be legit, if stupid?
The CROWN act specifically says that a school can’t limit access based on hair “style or texture” IF that style or texture has particular associations to that person’s “race or national origin.”
A blanket ban on hair longer than a certain length wouldn’t violate that at face value since “longer than X inches” isn’t a style or texture in and of itself, and isnt particularly associated with any race or national grouping of people?
And while certain religions prohibit cutting your hair, I think that would be a standard religious exemption, the same way you’re allowed to have a “no hats” rule, even though some religions require them. That’s long been upheld by the courts.
I think this is a crazy hill for the school to die on, but I think it might be within their rights to die on it? Idk though, I’d be interested to hear what other people think.
Cornrows are long and the student has them styled as they have been styled in the Americas since before the founding of the US. This ruling is in blatant disregard to the law.
Corn rows aren’t inherently wrong. Tons of people have short corn rows.
And while I see your point, I think it hinges on the wording of the CROWN Act.
If the rule doesn’t target a hair style or type, and is applied even handedly across all hair styles and types, I think it’s probably okay?
Like, there are plenty of men’s hairstyles that are more “white coded” that would certainly also be disallowed under the current rules.
I’d be curious what the actual rule was from the school as well. I know the school I went to growing up, it had to be above the bottom of your ear lobe.
From the following link “To get cornrows, your hair should be at least two inches long, but ideally, it should be closer to three or four inches.” foreverbraids.com/hair-length-for-braids/
This study shows that average earlength for a male aged 18-30 is 60-65 mm (2.32-2.55 in).https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6018292/
The district dress code says that “Male students’ hair will not extend below the eyebrows or below the ear lobes. Male students’ hair must not extend, below the top of a t-shirt collar or be gathered or worn in a style that would allow the hair to extend below the top of a t-shirt collar, below the eyebrows, or below the earlobes when let down”.https://www.bhisd.net/fs/resource-manager/view/0a5c185d-5719-4e62-bc86-2734b4725685
If the hairs in a cornrow are let out of their braids, they will be longer than the ear. That ear length study shows ear length for 18-30 year olds, who by and large have finished growing. The hiar length for an 8 year old student still ideally needs to be at least 3 inches and their ears are going to be shorter because they havent hit their growth spurts yet. Thus the district’s dress code effectively bans cornrows, which is the reason that the CROWN Act was passed in the first place.
They literally already lost a federal case on the exact same issue (with, surprise surprise, a pair of other Black students). The CROWN Act that is being referenced here was passed because of that past case. And “long hair” is a style, and one with particular relevance to some cultures (some Native Americans and in the past case the student’s family from Trinidad).
They’re not sticklers to the rules, they’re just racists echoing the racists of the past by policing and restricting non-white hair styles.
In January [Barbers Hill Independent School District Superintendent Greg Poole] placed a full page ad in the Houston Chronicle, arguing that “being an American requires conformity with the positive benefit of unity"
TIL being American is actually about conformity. Thanks Texas
What a crock of shit. The state that threatened to secede no more than a month ago? A state known for its political divisiveness? A state that enacted its own anti-federal abortion stance? A state that has its own energy grid to separate itself from the federal energy grid? Unity my ass.
Yes, “[a spokesman for the family] said that [the student] will continue to serve in-school suspension and that his attorneys plan to file for an injunction in an upcoming federal civil rights lawsuit.”
This may be the case, but the CROWN Act has only passed in the House. It is not federal law yet, so it wouldn’t provide grounds for an appeal in Texas.
Huh, so there is. I’m surprised this happened in Texas - I didn’t bother looking for it because I assumed they wouldn’t be one of the states that had passed it.
This does seem like grounds for an appeal:
Sec. 25.902. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN DISCRIMINATION IN STUDENT DRESS OR GROOMING POLICY. (a) In this section, “protective hairstyle” includes braids, locks, and twists.`` (b) Any student dress or grooming policy adopted by a school district, including a student dress or grooming policy for any extracurricular activity, may not discriminate against a hair texture or protective hairstyle commonly or historically associated with race.
It’s insane that we even need laws prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyles.
Nah man. This is just about states rights to limit the length of men’s hair, the thickness of their lips, the width of their noses and the pigmentation of their skin. Nothing racist at all.
“The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that affirmative action is a violation of the 14th Amendment and we believe the same reasoning will eventually be applied to the CROWN Act,” he [Barbers Hill Independent School District Superintendent] said.
from the article. they’ll probably try to take this to the supreme court and get it overturned.
So a person in a position of authority thinks he can flout the law because in the future, a court may rule his way? Well, then, anyone else can do what they want too. This moron is supposed to be a teacher?
It’s been a while since I saw the original text in a thread on this same topic, but I think the issue might hinge on length specifically not being included in the law’s text, but only style and such. It’s obviously a malicious reading of the law, but it’s also an indication of flawed legislation that should have been done correctly instead of leaving wide loopholes for people to exploit. Like, even beyond being malicious, Republicans are also just inept at the process of lawmaking. The school system and the legislature of Texas are failing this kid, but I’m not sure if the justice system is or isn’t, without the text in front of me. I’m trying to track that down right now to verify.
Edit: If I’m looking at the right text, I’m not seeing length mentioned at all. Only “hairstyle” and “texture” are mentioned as descriptors really. Again, this is foolish. Is it really too much to ask for lawmakers to be explicit in the laws they create? This is like, the first thing you consider as coming up if you think about it for a few minutes.
Double edit: Also, good chance to find a more sympathetic ruling on appeal. The right judge could absolutely interpret “hairstyle” to include length. I would.
I’m a white girl. My hairstyle is “long”. It’s my entire personality.
What they are doing to this young man is grotesque, but I’m not at all surprised the superintendent is being so petty. He’s nothing more than an overgrown racist high school bully.
I am also a white woman with long hair, and I agree that the superintendent is practically a comic villain. Those are just beside the point when it comes to the judicial review of the wording of a law. My hairstyle is also “long”, but deciding whether that is a descriptor or label is a complex subject! So, we just have to be super clear when we write laws so evil people like this superintendent can’t use technicalities to get around the protections we put in place.
Sure, I read your back and forth earlier this morning with that other person, and I agree that if there is even a little room for semantic loopholes, assholes will use it, so it’s better to just be annoyingly specific. At this point in our country’s lifetime, lawmakers should know this, and the crown act should have been so beurocratically definitive of all aspects of hair. But also school officials should be worried about teaching all kids, not this dumb bullshit. :(
xx hope your day is nice and you’re having a good hair day
Ugh, totally agreed. We are failing our kids. :( We’ll just have to keep demanding better of our elected (and appointed) officials. Better lawmaking benefits us all! And of course, we have to keep working to get Republicans out of office, so we can have judges making more sane interpretations of our laws. But even then, I hope our judiciary holds our legislators accountable and makes them be explicit where it matters.
See my second edit. I agree, but put yourself in a judge’s shoes. They spend a large amount of time focusing on narrow definitions of words. While I disagree with it, I think that a judge interpreting hairstyle to purely mean style and not restrict length is valid. I don’t think the judicial system failed here. The legislature should have written a better law with explicit language on length, color, extension, embellishment, etc. “Hairstyle” is vague and can be interpreted in all sorts of ways.
No, there’s only one way to interpret hairstyle. Every hairstyle includes a defined length of hair. Name any hairstyle, and length is a component part of the definition. There is no honest interpretation of the word hairstyle that does not include length. Only someone with a prejudicial agenda would argue otherwise.
Not sure I totally agree. For instance, a mullet is a style, but there are many lengths a “mullet” can be. So, the argument is that the law is forbidding the restriction of mullets, but not the length of said mullet.
For what it’s worth, I agree with your interpretation. I have no qualifications to be a judge, but I would also include length in the definition of hairstyle. But, this is a system of laws and playing devil’s advocate, the legislature left a loophole that can be exploited. Regardless, your OP is incorrect in saying that length is explicitly protected. It’s implicitly protected, but that is subject to judicial interpretation of definitions. They should amend the law to be more clear rather than relying on a favorable judicial reading.
Bullshit. A mullet has short hair in the front and long hair in the back. There’s no version of a mullet hairstyle that does not define the length of the hair. There are variations of mullets, but each hairstyle variation defines a length.
The judge is a racist piece of shit who has no business on the bench.
Right, but you can have a short mullet or a long mullet. Short dreads or longer dreads. There is a factor of length separate from style. As much as you want it not to be, interpretation is complex. This judge could absolutely be a racist piece of shit, and likely is, given that he’s a republican judge. But the fault here lies at the feet of the legislature who wrote an inadequate law.
I actually have a person in the same room as me right now who is a hairdresser, and they do see both arguments. I’m not asking for you to agree with the judge (and I have to stress again that I do not and would include length in style) but there is a valid view of that word here. But honestly, I’m not that keen to argue about it. If you still think it’s not a matter up for debate, let’s just agree to disagree and move forward aligned with the idea that this kid should be able to wear his hair however tf he wants.
Right, your hairstyle can be short dreads or long dreads, or a short mullet or a long mullet. That’s four different hairstyles. This judge is absolutely a racist piece of shit. The legislators who wrote the law testified in court that of course hairstyle includes length, because that’s obviously what a hairstyle is. There is no ambiguity or rokm for interpretation. These are all objective facts.
Alright cool, let me rebut with the following: yes it can, and yes it did. You’re looking at it, right now. Racist piece of shit or no, he’s got power and he just used it to take advantage of an ambiguity to get this result. So argue all you want, that’s an objective fact. The lawmakers can be pissed off all they want, but this is on them. They should have done what has always been asked and required of good law, which is being explicit and clear.
And frankly, it’s really fucking stupid to argue that definitions of words, especially in a legal context, are objective anyway. Words and definitions are exceptionally subjective, which is why we even have a judicial system to interpret the law. Yall can be pissed at me all you like, but the fact of the matter is, here we are talking about this because it was taken advantage of on a technicality, that should have been considered in advance and covered.
There’s no ambiguity. There is no subjective definition. No hairstyles exist that do not include a length. The length of your hair is part of the hairstyle. It is stupid to argue, on that we agree.
You cannot have a mullet with long hair in the front and shorter hair in the back, because that’s not the hair lengths of a mullet. You cannot have a mohawk with long hair on the sides and shorter on top. You cannot have a long, curly crew cut. You cannot have pigtails with a completely shaved head.
Hairstyles always, inexorably require hair length definitions. Anything else is a disingenuous argument, an attempt at semantic skulduggery. It is a lie to say that hairstyles don’t include length.
There is no technicality, there is no advantage, there is only racism and injustice. This judge is a fraud, the school superintendent is a fascist bigot, and this ruling is a crime against humanity.
Some hairstyles have a range of lengths as a factor, but others do not. A crew cut cannot be long, but even your other examples have obvious counter arguments. Pigtails cannot be shaved length, but can be very short or long enough to drag on the floor. Dreads can be very short, or as long as down to your hips if you get really carried away with it. Now for me, I’m all for it, you do you. But it’s a valid argument that this law is forbidding restrictions to whether pigtails are allowed, but not to the range of lengths of said pigtails. Now just replace “pigtails” with “locs” and here we are. Now, if the school forbid all male hairstyles longer than X inches and your cultural hairstyle of choice has a minimum length of X inches as an inbuilt requirement to achieve said style, that would be a different case and likely to succeed on the CROWN Act alone.
End of the day though, we’ve just been arguing semantics over the word “hairstyle” all day. I’m happy to just agree to disagree on this. I think we’re even aligned on the principle that students should be free to choose their own hairstyle.
Every linguist worth their salt completely disagrees with you. Language is a matter of individual experience, it works over our overlaps of personal understandings, and those personal understandings are never perfectly aligned (common understandings of words even drift all the time because of this!). You can call slapping an adjective to a category its own new category, and that’s fine, but different people have a different understanding of the concept. There is no “objective” definition or even an “objective” experience of any kind, it just isn’t possible, that’s not how human brains do things.
A concept like “oxygen” or even “water” might have a significantly more generally overlapping understanding from a large amount of people. Our common education, upbringings, and interactions with other speakers make a lot of English speakers agree on that. But a concept like “hairstyle” is something that requires a lot of nuance, because different people have wildly different interpretations of what’s included or counted as its own “hairstyle”. Many hairstyles you see as different might be seen to others as one singular hairstyle, or something you see as one hairstyle might be seen to others as different ones. Different people may think very differently at how color, length, texture, shape, accessories, etc. make up hairstyles. Many people even think of head/face shape and bodily features as part of a hairstyle (especially in certain religious contexts). Just because you have a certain understanding of it, and your logic makes sense to you, does not mean it is the “correct” understanding.
The idea of “there’s no subjective definition” is extremely prescriptivist and is a spit in the face of modern language/psychology/sociology science. It’s unfortunate that this kind of BS is propogated throughout our education system by “English Language Arts” teachers… and is why people genuinely think that AAVE is “bad English” and why people who don’t know shit about language constantly have stupid long-winded arguments about how “actually this common/standard usage or pronunciation of a word is wrong”, thinking they can enforce certain usages on other people because they can speak a version of the language.
That being said, I think for that exact reason it’s absurd that there’s even an attempted legal argument about length not being part of hairstyle. What somebody constitutes as a hairstyle is unique to them and the cultures they’re a part of, and it’s completely unreasonable to dictate that something they and their peers consider a hairstyle isn’t a hairstyle, then punish them for it. It is literally their head hair. Same thing with facial hair and body hair. They can do whatever the hell they want with it.
Totally agreed on all points, and this is really what I was trying to get across. I cannot stress enough that I despise dress codes and think they have been used to suppress cultural expression for their history.
We’re just talking about law here, which means linguistic analysis and the ability to distinguish between agreeable viewpoints and valid ones is critical if we want to have our positions enshrined and defended. There is a disagreeable, but valid, interpretation of the word hairstyle that distinguishes length as a separate factor. This judge didn’t try to interpret the word “protected” as “yellow”, because that’s absurdly invalid. Judges are our society’s foremost experts at taking disagreeable, but valid, interpretations and blowing them wide open.
Lawmakers have to be prepared for malicious judicial review. It is certain to happen at some level, particularly when the Supreme Court makeup is as it stands. Don’t leave an obvious gap in the verbiage for a shitty justice to exploit, and then this kid would have been in school for the last year instead of dealing with this nightmare.
I think the “focusing on narrow definitions of words” is the part that makes this bullshit. Any judge can interpret as widely or as narrowly as they want. They do it all the time. They just pander to one side of the divide when that’s the ruling they want to get to.
Of course it is. That’s their entire job. It’s why the judiciary exists in the first place, to interpret laws. Any law, no matter how matter how inconsequential or major, is going to be submitted to hostile judicial review where every word is going to be abused to its maximum. Have you read the CROWN Act? It’s insanely short, basically a sentence or two surrounded by a bunch of legal boilerplate. That sentence is not very explicit and the authors of this law did not do their due diligence in writing it, in my opinion.
That’s all beside the other important topics like the “conformity is required” superintendent, or the judge. This judge is a republican, and it is highly likely they read this maliciously. It’s Texas, which means his presence can’t be helped, or it would just be some similar asshole who would read it the same way.
So, how could this have been prevented? Simple. Add the word “length” to the text of the CROWN Act. Even better, spend some time doing research and have conversations with communities that have been adversely affected by discriminatory dress codes and use that information to build a comprehensive, explicit set of criteria listed in the law. That’s just effective lawmaking and the less flashy part of what we should demand from our elected reps in addition to their policy positions.
…but it’s also an indication of flawed legislation that should have been done correctly instead of leaving wide loopholes for people to exploit.
So you agree with the law at the core, but it needs to be written better? Conservatives have a self-congratulatory joke they looove to trot out on things they think is a waste of government time, effort, and funds:
“So clearly [insert city/state] has solved all the other problems, and is now legislating on [X issue].”
Imma say it really clearly. Laws around kids hair, is a waste of government time. Even at the school administrative level it’s a dumb move, because they’ll have to defend it in court. There is no good play here, aside from consent of the governed to not challenge the rules, because the rules are reasonable.
I do agree with the law at the core. I do think dress codes should have reasonable limits to avoid them being used to put children in uncomfortable positions or to suppress their culture or self-expression, with reasonable limits for truly disruptive choices. Without these limits, we have seen schools use dress codes to force conformity and I don’t think that’s particularly healthy.
But yes, the law should be written better. The legislature writes the laws and the laws should be clear and explicit in intent. The law should be written to stand up to strict judiciary review. They know unfriendly judges are going to look at this. That’s my point.
But protection of cultural, religious, or expression isn’t what the laws here are being challenged over. The challenge is against a gender determinate dress code, being used as law fare in a wider culture war.
The reason this parent is pursuing all legal options is because the law is onerous, and discriminatory. We’ve seen school administrators successfully sued for forcing hairstyle conformity on minorities, this too is in shaky precedence.
I’m just truly baffled by the petty vindictive vile school officials perpetrating this whole thing. But I guess it wouldn’t be the first time racist school officials fight all the way to the supreme court to deny eduction to kids.
You’re right, I guess I mean, I’m baffled in the sense that I don’t understand why another living breathing human being would act like this, but of course have seen many a petty school official before.
Add comment