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
The oppression of minorities is racism.
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.
Still waiting for this evidence. You’ve alluded to a lot, but have provided nothing.
Here is the ACLU report on school dress codes impacting minorities:
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
No one is talking about wigs? WTF? Why do you keep lying?
lol. I'm done.
No one is talking about wigs? WTF? Why do you keep lying?
Long hair styles were wigs. Your argument was refuted so now you're relying on splitting hairs over what hair styles actually were.
lol. I’m done.
After calling me a racist too. ROFL XD
Long hair styles were wigs.
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]
The oppression of minorities is racism.
To White people's standards of physical appearance.
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.
Agreed. Although, I would say western standard more than white, but it's more a subset rather than something separate.
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.
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.
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.
The oppression of racial minorities is racism. This was evident based on the context of our discussion, but your argument splits hairs anyway.
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.
The abundance of articles on a casual google search demonstrate this is something Black people are struggling with. It's not a secret.
It affects Black and Hispanic people disproportionately. That's the give away that the policies are racially motivated.
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.
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.
lol. Just a couple of posts ago you had a whole paragraph arguing about how it's cultural heritage.
Apparently you don't know what heritage means:
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."
Still waiting for this evidence. You've alluded to a lot, but have provided nothing.
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.
Here is the ACLU report on school dress codes impacting minorities:
https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/dresscodereport_2-1-24.pdf
Page 29 has stats on how dress code enforcement impacts racial minorities.
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.
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.
My point is that wigs are no longer part of White People's culture. Everyone knows this. Your argument is disingenuous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then why talk about heritage at all? And who is talking about wigs? Not me.
Blatant projection.
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.
The ACLU report goes into detail about this starting at page 21. Pages 21 to 29 cover racial discrimination.
https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/dresscodereport_2-1-24.pdf
Yes, systemic racism exists in our society. It is deeply embedded in our intuitions.
Because it is relevant to the discussion. The wigs specifically are not.
The long hair styles were wigs.
An argument about wigs being the cultural of heritage of White men in the United States is disingenuous.
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.
Ad hominem attacks reduce your argument's credibility. edit: typo
No one is talking about wigs? WTF? Why do you keep lying?
lol. I'm done.
Long hair styles were wigs. Your argument was refuted so now you're relying on splitting hairs over what hair styles actually were.
After calling me a racist too. ROFL XD
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.
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'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.
https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/dresscodereport_2-1-24.pdf
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.
https://www.sishair.com/presidents-who-wore-wigs/
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.
https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/facts/myths/ten-misconceptions-about-washington/
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wig