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.
Dumb, but not inherently racial I think?
Here are a couple links to websites that tall about hair length for cornrows:
From the following link:
"For super curly or frizzy hair, it is best to have about 5 inches...
For slightly straight, curly hair it is best to have about 6 inches...
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."
https://foreverbraids.com/hair-length-for-braids/
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.
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.
Dumb, but not inherently racial I think?
Here are a couple links to websites that tall about hair length for cornrows:
From the following link: "For super curly or frizzy hair, it is best to have about 5 inches...
For slightly straight, curly hair it is best to have about 6 inches...
Wavy and straight hair needs about 8 inches of hair or longer" https://www.silkielocks.com/uncategorized/what-is-the-minimum-length-of-hair-for-cornrows/
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." https://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.