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.
I'm native on my mom's side and I had to deal with this bullshit if I ever had a native style like a Mohawk.
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.
Didn't match the image the school wanted to present at athletic events."
Why US is so backwards? Why US schools are so focuced on athletic events and image?
Because if they weren't they might realize how shitty everything around them is.
Here we don't focus on athletic events. And everyone knows how shitty mafia in goverment is. Oh... That's what you mean.
To be fair it's a circle. Authorities encourage sports but people also want entertainment.
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.
It is wierd to me to see athletics as financial mobility. It basically means in 20 years you will be poor again.
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.
The CROWN act explicitly prohibits school districts from restricting the length of male students' natural hair.
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.
they are lauded in their communities for this behavior.
the racists band together, pat each other on the back as they shit all over humanity.
If you're baffled by the petty vindictive vile school officials, you clearly don't have kids, especially in Texas.
I raised my daughter here. It was interesting.
She lives far far away in a civilized state now. I told her not to ever move back here. It's not safe being a young woman in Texas.
Im a straight white male and I don't particularly feel safe living in Texas. This state has become a shitshow.
This state has become a shitshow.
Newsflash, it always was.
People are just (finally) starting to realize it now.
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.
Forget it, Jake. It’s Texastown.
“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.
Barbers Hill
Now that's just some serendipitous irony
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.
Length is a hairstyle.
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.
there's only one way to interpret hairstyle
There is no subjective definition
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.
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.
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.
I see absolutely no reason to give that fascist piece of shit judge any devil's advocacy, benefit of the doubt, or similar rhetorical leniency.
Fascists take liberals' and leftists' inclinations towards fairness and weaponize it against us. We need to quit giving them the opportunity.
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.
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.
Thank you!! Same to you!
Your hair is "your entire personality"?!? Just want to make sure I read that correct...
…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.
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.
Sherman should have finished the job in the south.
Also, all this seems like something a journalist might want to include in a story.
Very good callback to the previous information. Really sad what passes for journalism these days. We've lost the fourth pillar of Democracy.
The only thing i miss from Reddit is being able to gild this comment.
So giving more money to Spez, basically.
Thats why I'm not still there!
I appreciate the words more than any pixels Reddit would sold to you.
Republicans : We can't tell people what guns they can or can't own! Also, cut your hair and carry that embryo to term!!!
Party of limited government my ass. They just don't want rules that prevent them from telling the peasants what to do. Stay in line peasants.
Texas is a shithole, it's a featureless landscape dotted by cities that function like giant stripmalls
I don't like the states politics, and it's part of the reason we left, but I lived in Houston for a number of years and had a great time. It was a wonderful state with good people, great food, and we did plenty outside. Although it was definitely too hot and muggy.
But I understand that this is Lemmy and it's only black and white so if we dislike one thing about a state, everything about it has to be completely shitty.
I'll give it this, while I was there cost of living was cheaper. Good large modern gyms, and people that are generally happy to talk to you and be friends with you (this was in Dallas). But honestly it'd be hard for anyone to pay me to live there long term, it would have to be a lot of money. And that's what I noticed, most people are there for the money.
My comment is more so to counter the Texas nationalists who think it's the greatest place in the world, it's not, not by a long shot. Aside from the hypercorporate virtual reality existence there is not much else there. There are a lot of places I'd move to before I move to Texas.
My wife was offered a higher paying job in a much lower cost not living area, but it was in Texas. We didn't stay. So I'm kind of in the same boat. while your criticism of strip malls is valid, I did find that outside of it there was a lot of natural beauty.
I yearn for hills and mountains
To be fair, the more progressive parts of Texas are the more diverse parts lol
Yeah I'm sure the fact that we were in Houston made a difference for my diverse family. It is the most diverse city in the country, and we had an openly gay mayor.
OR, all the things you liked about it can be found in any other state, and thus is not enough to elevate Texass out of shit-tier status regardless of your personal bias?
I never ranked it at all. I even noted that the bad politics is part of the reason we left.
You're projecting your own bias against everything in the state based on it's politics. But I assure you that if you think everything in the state sucks because their politics suck, well it's your a bias alone here.
Back when the Internet was still just a tiny little baby I met a girl online that was extremely cool and legit attractive (no catfish I swear). She lived in Houston, still does actually, I still stalk her sometimes -- and I seriously came pretty close to moving down there to be with her for real, but it just kinda faded away before I got around to taking action.
I know it's dumb but I honestly believe in alternate universes that split off when certain decisions are made, and I believe there's a universe where I moved down there and had a whole bunch of little Texan children with her. They would have dark hair like her and big eyes like her and pointy noses like me, and they would play in the playground across the street while she and I sat on the front porch and drank domestic beer with some underground record on the turntable, cranked up loud so we could hear it through the open windows.
However, this is the first I've heard that it's humid in Houston. I thought it was like Arizona but with more Cadillacs and cowboy hats. That alternate universe in which I married [name redacted] just went from being mystic and idyllic to being horrific. And I know you didn't mean to do that. I know sometimes we hurt people by accident. But you destroyed something beautiful today, and I thought you should know.
lol. This is great. I remember someone referring to it as "a boiling swamp" and that has always stuck with me. I'm not sure where you are now, but if it's the NE/Mid Atlantic, I would often describe it as "you know those two weeks of August that are just miserably hot and humid? Yeah, well it's that from May through October." I don't even get how people existed down there before AC. Jan/Feb are beautiful tho. Cool and dry.
But I do remember one day I was sitting in the garage, on a lawn chair, drinking a Shiner Bock. I was in my underwear and watching my kids, my younger one in just a diaper, and they were playing in the puddles right out in front of garage. And I was like "shit, I've gone full Texan." lol
That's most of the US, except the north east.
When you say "most of the US" do you mean the Midwest? Because that's mostly true. Prairie is kinda garbage imo. (I'm sure it's all very ecologically necessary, I'm just talking about whether it's nice to be in.)
But outside of the Midwest, the US has a shit ton of forests, some hardcore deserts, a couple of mountain ranges here and there... Even Florida swampland is pretty cool if you're not considered edible to gators. There's definitely some featureless bullshit but usually we put a top secret military base in those bits that have aliens and zombie virus labs etc, so there's even stuff to do there
I've never actually been to Texas, but I've always wondered what it looks like in those big empty spots on the map. I assume it's just big parking lots.
It's a district called Barbers Hill, what did you expect? /S
In all seriousness though, can we have a Sikh organization sue the bejeezus out of them, as long hair is an article of their faith, and the US Constitution has a thing or two to say about freedom of religion.
Sikhs aren't Christians so they don't get the same rights as Christians do according to the Supreme Court.
kind of a Christian thing too though
I've never seen an image of Jesus -both the white and middle eastern versions- with short hair. He also had a thing or two to say about hypocrites...
Lol. Says a lot about those pseudo-conservatives.
Most Christians don't give a damn about Christian rules.
A federal judge ALREADY ruled on this. It's illegal, period.
If all else fails, they'll claim it's... unconstitutional? (Without ever reading the constitution, of course. Much like their bible.) All laws that upset their feelings, or aren't a clear win for their team, just need to be "reinterpreted" until they feel better, or their team wins.
Ah yes land of the free and us telling you what you can and can’t do
that'll teach kids the core american values for sure
Ooooh... just like they did over here in Apartheid-era South Africa!
This is what SMALL GOVERNMENT™ looks like, ladies and gentlemen
Yes, aren’t tthese the personal liberty folks??
I hope the kid bakrupts the superintendent with punitive damages when this is all over.
That's just not how Texas courts work.
Wish it was, but...
For real. If it was, this wouldn't have passed in the first place.
Why do black people have to have the same hairstyles as white people?
(You don't need to answer that.)
Why does anyone's hairstyle need to be regulated?
And people rightfully laughed at North Korea having laws on accepted haircuts. But that's North Korea FFS.
The American right has lost its mind in anti-woke insanity. They are fighting windmills (literally and figuratively).
Cruelty apparently.
I don't need to, but I want to answer.
Control, it's all about control.
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.
There's another term for that.
Cultural Genocide.
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
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?
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.
Can we take a moment to appreciate the irony of me being called a troll because I'm not conforming with the general opinion around here?
Being factually incorrect is not an opinion. Your argument is wrong.
You're only admitting that you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.
It's got nothing to do with me.
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.
These are facts.
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.
Your argument is splitting hairs over word choice
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
Ad hominem attacks against me aren't compelling.
Now your argument is pretending there is an incorrect statement in my argument.
No, not pretending. You are confusing fact with opinion. That's actually a fact.
Ad hominem attacks against me aren’t compelling.
And accusing me of "splitting hairs" instead of addressing my actual argument is also an ad hominem. You're basically undercutting your own position.
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.
They talked about it in an anamorphs book, but it was banned in 1993 and all records of it have been erased.
And you want every human to be as white as possible? That's a garbage take...
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.
It absolutely is sex discrimination and is unconstitutional.
SJWs not gonna do anything because it is not girls who are discriminated.
the gov gonna pay for the haircuts or is this just another indirect taxation on kids.
Indirect training program for stay at home hairdressers
It's a stupid policy...but a taxation on kids? It's like you're trying to out-stupid them.
School is the most important for kids living on the edge and beyond the obvious stupidity of it being a racist law, this kind of nonsense hits the borderline students the hardest.
How is banning long hair racist? I agree it's a dumb rule, but racist? Not even close.
Don't get me wrong, the rule is dumb, but trying to paint it as some racist taxation on kids is just pure nonsense.
as a white person, i'm not gonna claim expertise on black hair, but i can see you don't know much about black hair or the historic and current relevant politics.
I down voted because this is just effectively calling me ignorant with no explanation why.
Hair holds a deep significance for many demographic groups, often along racial lines due to differences in style and texture. This frequently involves hair length. For some people, hair has religious significance, for others it is more an expression of heritage, but opressors have forced people to cut/change their hair as a means of stripping people's cultural expression for a long time. Shaving newly enslaved black people as a means of erasing their cultural heritage goes back to the 15th century, as many groups had distinctive styles and slave owners wanted to impose conformity. Forcing Indigenous Americans to cut their hair was done to homogenize children removed from their peoples and punish/demoralize adult men, stripping both of them of an important religious and cultural signifier in the process.
A lot of modern hair discrimination has its roots in this more explicit racism, denouncing hair that isn't in line with western-european beauty standards as unprofessional, unkempt, or unsightly. Length of hair and specific styles hold value to many different ethnic groups today, just as it did hundreds of years ago. Many black people see the display of black hairstyles (including long braids, dreads, afros, etc.) as a form of cultural reclamation, many indigenous americans still view hair length as religiously meaningful, tons of Sikhs, Muslims and Jews have strict beliefs regarding hair/beard cutting, the list goes on. Forcing these people to conform or face discipline is absolutely discrimination, and these groups are often a different ethnicity or race than the person mandating the hair be cut.
Is forcing people to maintain a certain hair length always solely racist? No. It can be discriminatory in a plethora of ways. It can also be sexist, queerphobic, and/or a form of religious discrimination. I was subject to the purely sexist aspect of this by old white guys for having long hair as a white, cis-het teenage boy, no racism involved. The label for any discrimination relies as much on who is being discriminated against and how it is applied as it does the views of the person enforcing it, making it an intersectional issue
A good rhetorical example of this multitargeted discrimination would be the banning of necklaces with stars on them. Is it inherrently discriminatory on its own? Not in a vacuum, no one is born wearing a necklace with a star. But consider two major religions that involve star iconography (judaism, islam) and you can see how this rule is antisemitic and islamiphobic whithout ever mentioning jewish or muslim people explicitly. Which form of discrimination it is contextually depends on the person experiencing it. Hair is no different. Making a black guy cut his dreads/braids is both racist and sexist when viewed in this light, as it targets a cultural symbol (a black hair style) and is likely unevenly applied across genders (black girls aren't usually required to have short hair). I hope this answers your question, if asked sincerely, and here are a few sources if anybody wants to learn more:
1991 Duke Law piece on the intersectionality of hair, race, and gender, with the key takeaway quoted below.
"Judgments about aesthetics do not exist apart from judgments about the social, political, and economic order of a society. They are an essential part of that order. Aesthetic values determine who and what is valued, beautiful, and entitled to control. Thus established, the structure of society at other levels also is justified."
I was subject to the purely sexist aspect of this by old white guys for having long hair as a white, cis-het teenage boy, no racism involved.
This is pretty much exactly my point. Having had long hair in my youth, while never outright punished in school for it (I didn't start growing it until I was in historically very liberal university), there was often pressure from authorities to conform, I also noticed that being harassed by the police (which happened frequently) effectively ended overnight after I got my hair cut. Pressuring young men to conform by cutting their hair is a tale probably as old as time. Certainly it's a constant theme throughout American culture, as I mentioned elsewhere with movies like Dazed and confused and Dead Poet's Society. And this doesn't even begin to delve into all the times it's used as a symbol as non-conformity.
There was a lot in my comment you just slid right over to only address the point you agreed with, I was hoping you might address literally anything else I wrote, but oh well. We agree that it can be a form of sexism, but it is more complex than that, hence why it is an intersectional issue. Why do you believe it necessarily stops having a racial connotation just because it can be used to hurt white people?
Just because white people have been subject to abuse due to their hair length, it doesn't absolve the racial connotations and racist historical context when applied to non-white people with long hair. If this case was about an Indigenous American student, with religious reasons to wear long hair, would you be making the argument that this isn't racial discrimination? What about a Sikh student? A Rastafarian?
This is an intersectional issue, and as such, requires a little more nuance in diagnosing than "Well I don't see any white boys getting away with it, so it can't be racist!" When rules are made, they need to be evaluated on their ability to hurt people. If the rule can disproportionately hurt people based on racial elements, that rule is racist. This kid is black, part of him expressing his blackness is his hair being long, so any rule forcing him to change his hair is racist. If it was an Indiginous kid, the rule would still be racist. If it were a white kid, the rule would still be racist. The rule and the people enforcing it are racist, even if they never apply it to anyone.
There was a lot in my comment you just slid right over to only address the point you agreed with, I was hoping you might address literally anything else I wrote, but oh well.
First, I owe you an apology. You gave a thoughtful, rational, and thorough response (unlike pretty much all of the other posters) and I didn't give it its due respect. To explain myself, the reason I glossed over the other parts is that I generally agree with them, and think the crux of argument boils down to the part I responded to.
I understand and agree why this is a sensitive topic: hair discrimination is real. I understand that one can discriminate even with "equal" laws: "no one can marry someone of their own sex." We also both agree that rules like this should go away. We might have slightly differing reasons why: for me it's more about sexism and force conformity, for you it may be more about cultural/race discrimination.
Why do you believe it necessarily stops having a racial connotation just because it can be used to hurt white people?
Honestly, I feel like the exact opposite is happening. From my perspective, y'all are arguing that because a rule made a black kid cut his hair, it is automatically racist. As I said above, I agree that rules that can be applied "equally" can still be meant to oppress a minority. I don't think that "because it can get a white kid it isn't racist" I think because there is a long tradition of schools making boys conform by cutting their hair, including in mostly/all white schools, that claiming it is racist doesn't hold much water.
Just because white people have been subject to abuse due to their hair length, it doesn’t absolve the racial connotations and racist historical context when applied to non-white people with long hair.
Say the schools are segregated. The white school has a rule that all boys have to have short hair. Desegregation becomes law. Black kids end up going to that previously white school. Rule about short hair still applies. Racism? Or sexism? I say the latter, as that is what it always was, and there was nothing about rule that changed (assuming still an equal application - which is why I keep going back to the "please provide an example of a white kid getting away with it"). People here seem to be saying it's all of a sudden a racist rule meant to oppress minorities.
We might have slightly differing reasons why: for me it’s more about sexism and force conformity, for you it may be more about cultural/race discrimination.
I don't like these aesthetic rules for all the reasons I initially provided, which includes your provided reasons. They are invariably a combination of sexism, queerphobia, racism, religious persecution, and are generally authoritarian in a way that only exists to hurt people.
Let's dissect the segragated school example, considering only black and white students. Pre-integration, forcing the white students to have short hair is a sexist and authoritarian rule from an explicitly sexist and racist institution. Upon desegragation:
The school administration is almost definitely still racist, despite being forced to educate black students.
There is now a new population at the school with different racial characteristics, cultural norms, and historical context.
If the school was genuinely concerned about equality for the black students, they could reevaluate the rules about hair and gauge whether or not it will have an outsized impact on the new black student population, which it would given the cultural context. Parallel to desegregation efforts was the reclamation of natural black hair among black people (afros being the most iconic example), many of whom had been forced or coerced into white-coded hair styles since slavery ended.
Counter to this, if the school wanted to hurt the new black population, they could maintain the rule and use the equal application of it as a shield against people crying foul. The rule is still sexist, as a part of an explicitly sexist institution, still authoritarian by the very nature of the rule, but the school's racism has become implicit rather than explicit given who it now has the power to harm. This has been the racist playbook example since slavery was abolished, sliding the scale towards more implicit racial strategies in a culture that is less willing to engage with explicit race discrimination.
In the midcentury, long hair among white men became a symbol of the white counterculture, so curtailing it was authoritarian and sexist. At the same time, natural long hair among black men became a symbol of both black counterculture and black empowerment/liberation, so curtailing it was authoritarian, sexist, and racist. This dynamic exists to the modern day, and applies to different minority groups than just black and white people.
Counter to this, if the school wanted to hurt the new black population, they could maintain the rule and use the equal application of it as a shield against people crying foul. The rule is still sexist, as a part of an explicitly sexist institution, still authoritarian by the very nature of the rule, but the school’s racism has become implicit rather than explicit given who it now has the power to harm.
Sure if. I'm not denying it's a possibility.
But the other explanation is that they just remained authoritarian wanting conformity, the original intent of the rule, and so never bothered to revisit it after black people came into the school because the rule was never about respective individuality and cultural heritage.
I feel like we've first started with the fact that a black kid got swept up in it, and then worked backwards to find a reason why it is racist. . .rather than actually seeing if the evidence supports the claim it's racist.
I appreciate the respectful back and forth and I again apologize for not outwardly showing your earlier post the full respect it deserved. But I do believe we have hit a impasse here, so with all due respect, this will likely be my last response in this chain. I hope to butt heads with you again because you definitely make good, sound arguments, even if I ultimate disagreed here.
i suppose i don't feel i have the expertise/experience to educate you about black hair and how rules regarding hair can be racist, but i think the issue is a lot more complicated than you realize and worth looking into.
i can see another lemming provided a lot of information. i hope you will look at it.
Hey buddy, not everyone is worth arguing with or explaining everything to.
People like you tend to be ignorant no matter what, regardless of how much information is put in front of you.
I don't blame him for not wanting to engage further. More people should follow suit.
If you feel it's important to insult me, but not try to educate me, that just exposes how fucked up your priorities are.
I rest my case.
I don’t know much about this, but maybe some reading could give us some insight:
The politics of regulating Black hair is a contemporary example of what Frantz Fanon refers to as imperial hegemony, the supplanting and reconditioning of the colonized subject at the (individual) psychological and (social) institutional levels. Source
I'm not denying that it happened or even continues to happen. I know that to be true. My point is that just because a policy on hair ends up being applied to a black person doesn't make the policy about regulating black hair. In this case, I brlit it is about making boys conform.
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 understand that the cruelty is the point.)
That really is the only possible explanation I can come up with.
Oh it's school jail. Because the cruelty is the point. The denial of education is the point. The oppression is the point.
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 wish all your hopes come true :)
I wish much, much, worse ☺️
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.
You, I like.
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.
Preferably an island close to sea level.
How about R’lyeh?
I sometimes half-wonder whether some of the judges in Texas might be the tiniest bit racist.
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.
Texas is so going backwards.
Sprinting backwards, really.
I hope a ton of people just start claiming religious exemptions.
Other than voting, that's probably the most effective way for individuals to fight this.
Plenty of biblical figures who famously had long hair.
God gave Samson superpowers for having long hair.
land of the free, right?
Only for the privileged
This judge erred.
This particular judge has never cared about the law.
Which is why we shouldn't care about his rulings.
Name them, shame them. They deserve the notoriety that their racist behavior offers.
The superintendent's name is Greg Poole
The school district is Barber's Hill Independent School district
This is very clearly outlined in the CROWN Act. Can the student's family appeal this to a higher court?
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.
There is a state law in Texas and many other states.
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.
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.
requires conformity with the positive benefit of unity
Sounds communist to me. Fuckin pinko Texans inflicting the horrors of big government on the people.
I wonder when they will be buying a bunch of snazzy uniforms to help with conformity.
Always has been.
Poole previously told CNN “hair length of male students is only constitutionally protected for Native American students.”
Join a tribe!
Is the limit the same for males and females?
If not, that's a clear civil rights violation and I would love to see how federal courts address this.
Keep fighting, Darryl!
Too much lead in the water.
I vote students get the choice of using a knife on any of these controlling freaks without any form of punishment.
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.
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.
I'm native on my mom's side and I had to deal with this bullshit if I ever had a native style like a Mohawk.
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.
Agreed, fuck what they think, and good for you!
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.
Why US is so backwards? Why US schools are so focuced on athletic events and image?
Because if they weren't they might realize how shitty everything around them is.
Here we don't focus on athletic events. And everyone knows how shitty mafia in goverment is. Oh... That's what you mean.
To be fair it's a circle. Authorities encourage sports but people also want entertainment.
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.
It is wierd to me to see athletics as financial mobility. It basically means in 20 years you will be poor again.
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.
Usually athletes are not most smart people
The CROWN act explicitly prohibits school districts from restricting the length of male students' natural hair.
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.
they are lauded in their communities for this behavior.
the racists band together, pat each other on the back as they shit all over humanity.
If you're baffled by the petty vindictive vile school officials, you clearly don't have kids, especially in Texas.
I raised my daughter here. It was interesting.
She lives far far away in a civilized state now. I told her not to ever move back here. It's not safe being a young woman in Texas.
Im a straight white male and I don't particularly feel safe living in Texas. This state has become a shitshow.
Newsflash, it always was.
People are just (finally) starting to realize it now.
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.
Forget it, Jake. It’s Texastown.
from the article. they'll probably try to take this to the supreme court and get it overturned.
Now that's just some serendipitous irony
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.
Length is a hairstyle.
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.
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.
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.
I see absolutely no reason to give that fascist piece of shit judge any devil's advocacy, benefit of the doubt, or similar rhetorical leniency.
Fascists take liberals' and leftists' inclinations towards fairness and weaponize it against us. We need to quit giving them the opportunity.
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.
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.
Thank you!! Same to you!
Your hair is "your entire personality"?!? Just want to make sure I read that correct...
"Long hair" is a style, isn't it?
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:
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.
This exact same school district already lost a pre-CROWN Act federal lawsuit about requiring Black students to cut their hair.
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.
Sherman should have finished the job in the south.
Very good callback to the previous information. Really sad what passes for journalism these days. We've lost the fourth pillar of Democracy.
The only thing i miss from Reddit is being able to gild this comment.
So giving more money to Spez, basically.
Thats why I'm not still there!
I appreciate the words more than any pixels Reddit would sold to you.
Republicans : We can't tell people what guns they can or can't own! Also, cut your hair and carry that embryo to term!!!
Party of limited government my ass. They just don't want rules that prevent them from telling the peasants what to do. Stay in line peasants.
Texas is a shithole, it's a featureless landscape dotted by cities that function like giant stripmalls
I don't like the states politics, and it's part of the reason we left, but I lived in Houston for a number of years and had a great time. It was a wonderful state with good people, great food, and we did plenty outside. Although it was definitely too hot and muggy.
But I understand that this is Lemmy and it's only black and white so if we dislike one thing about a state, everything about it has to be completely shitty.
I'll give it this, while I was there cost of living was cheaper. Good large modern gyms, and people that are generally happy to talk to you and be friends with you (this was in Dallas). But honestly it'd be hard for anyone to pay me to live there long term, it would have to be a lot of money. And that's what I noticed, most people are there for the money.
My comment is more so to counter the Texas nationalists who think it's the greatest place in the world, it's not, not by a long shot. Aside from the hypercorporate virtual reality existence there is not much else there. There are a lot of places I'd move to before I move to Texas.
My wife was offered a higher paying job in a much lower cost not living area, but it was in Texas. We didn't stay. So I'm kind of in the same boat. while your criticism of strip malls is valid, I did find that outside of it there was a lot of natural beauty.
I yearn for hills and mountains
To be fair, the more progressive parts of Texas are the more diverse parts lol
Yeah I'm sure the fact that we were in Houston made a difference for my diverse family. It is the most diverse city in the country, and we had an openly gay mayor.
OR, all the things you liked about it can be found in any other state, and thus is not enough to elevate Texass out of shit-tier status regardless of your personal bias?
I never ranked it at all. I even noted that the bad politics is part of the reason we left.
You're projecting your own bias against everything in the state based on it's politics. But I assure you that if you think everything in the state sucks because their politics suck, well it's your a bias alone here.
Back when the Internet was still just a tiny little baby I met a girl online that was extremely cool and legit attractive (no catfish I swear). She lived in Houston, still does actually, I still stalk her sometimes -- and I seriously came pretty close to moving down there to be with her for real, but it just kinda faded away before I got around to taking action.
I know it's dumb but I honestly believe in alternate universes that split off when certain decisions are made, and I believe there's a universe where I moved down there and had a whole bunch of little Texan children with her. They would have dark hair like her and big eyes like her and pointy noses like me, and they would play in the playground across the street while she and I sat on the front porch and drank domestic beer with some underground record on the turntable, cranked up loud so we could hear it through the open windows.
However, this is the first I've heard that it's humid in Houston. I thought it was like Arizona but with more Cadillacs and cowboy hats. That alternate universe in which I married [name redacted] just went from being mystic and idyllic to being horrific. And I know you didn't mean to do that. I know sometimes we hurt people by accident. But you destroyed something beautiful today, and I thought you should know.
lol. This is great. I remember someone referring to it as "a boiling swamp" and that has always stuck with me. I'm not sure where you are now, but if it's the NE/Mid Atlantic, I would often describe it as "you know those two weeks of August that are just miserably hot and humid? Yeah, well it's that from May through October." I don't even get how people existed down there before AC. Jan/Feb are beautiful tho. Cool and dry.
But I do remember one day I was sitting in the garage, on a lawn chair, drinking a Shiner Bock. I was in my underwear and watching my kids, my younger one in just a diaper, and they were playing in the puddles right out in front of garage. And I was like "shit, I've gone full Texan." lol
That's most of the US, except the north east.
When you say "most of the US" do you mean the Midwest? Because that's mostly true. Prairie is kinda garbage imo. (I'm sure it's all very ecologically necessary, I'm just talking about whether it's nice to be in.)
But outside of the Midwest, the US has a shit ton of forests, some hardcore deserts, a couple of mountain ranges here and there... Even Florida swampland is pretty cool if you're not considered edible to gators. There's definitely some featureless bullshit but usually we put a top secret military base in those bits that have aliens and zombie virus labs etc, so there's even stuff to do there
I've never actually been to Texas, but I've always wondered what it looks like in those big empty spots on the map. I assume it's just big parking lots.
You need to get out more.
Lmao, I'm a hobo. I'm almost always outside.
It's a district called Barbers Hill, what did you expect? /S
In all seriousness though, can we have a Sikh organization sue the bejeezus out of them, as long hair is an article of their faith, and the US Constitution has a thing or two to say about freedom of religion.
Sikhs aren't Christians so they don't get the same rights as Christians do according to the Supreme Court.
kind of a Christian thing too though
I've never seen an image of Jesus -both the white and middle eastern versions- with short hair. He also had a thing or two to say about hypocrites...
Lol. Says a lot about those pseudo-conservatives.
Most Christians don't give a damn about Christian rules.
A federal judge ALREADY ruled on this. It's illegal, period.
If all else fails, they'll claim it's... unconstitutional? (Without ever reading the constitution, of course. Much like their bible.) All laws that upset their feelings, or aren't a clear win for their team, just need to be "reinterpreted" until they feel better, or their team wins.
Ah yes land of the free and us telling you what you can and can’t do
that'll teach kids the core american values for sure
Ooooh... just like they did over here in Apartheid-era South Africa!
This is what SMALL GOVERNMENT™ looks like, ladies and gentlemen
Yes, aren’t tthese the personal liberty folks??
I hope the kid bakrupts the superintendent with punitive damages when this is all over.
That's just not how Texas courts work.
Wish it was, but...
For real. If it was, this wouldn't have passed in the first place.
Why do black people have to have the same hairstyles as white people?
(You don't need to answer that.)
Why does anyone's hairstyle need to be regulated?
And people rightfully laughed at North Korea having laws on accepted haircuts. But that's North Korea FFS.
The American right has lost its mind in anti-woke insanity. They are fighting windmills (literally and figuratively).
Cruelty apparently.
I don't need to, but I want to answer.
Control, it's all about control.
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.
There's another term for that.
Cultural Genocide.
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.
https://thegrio.com/2024/02/21/school-rules-governing-hair-are-rooted-in-racist-plans-to-control-black-peoples-appearance-scholars-and-lawmakers-say/
It has been long understood that policies and actions targeting the length of hair disproportional affects Black and Hispanic people. It is about race.
This is called a dog whistle.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/dog-whistle-political-meaning
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can we take a moment to appreciate the irony of me being called a troll because I'm not conforming with the general opinion around here?
Being factually incorrect is not an opinion. Your argument is wrong.
You're only admitting that you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.
It's got nothing to do with me.
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
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.
No, what I claimed is a fact. What your argument claims is false. False claims are not opinions.
Ad hominem attacks against me aren't compelling.
No, not pretending. You are confusing fact with opinion. That's actually a fact.
And accusing me of "splitting hairs" instead of addressing my actual argument is also an ad hominem. You're basically undercutting your own position.
Because both are Homo Sapiens?
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.
They talked about it in an anamorphs book, but it was banned in 1993 and all records of it have been erased.
And you want every human to be as white as possible? That's a garbage take...
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.
It absolutely is sex discrimination and is unconstitutional.
SJWs not gonna do anything because it is not girls who are discriminated.
the gov gonna pay for the haircuts or is this just another indirect taxation on kids.
Indirect training program for stay at home hairdressers
It's a stupid policy...but a taxation on kids? It's like you're trying to out-stupid them.
School is the most important for kids living on the edge and beyond the obvious stupidity of it being a racist law, this kind of nonsense hits the borderline students the hardest.
How is banning long hair racist? I agree it's a dumb rule, but racist? Not even close.
Don't get me wrong, the rule is dumb, but trying to paint it as some racist taxation on kids is just pure nonsense.
as a white person, i'm not gonna claim expertise on black hair, but i can see you don't know much about black hair or the historic and current relevant politics.
I down voted because this is just effectively calling me ignorant with no explanation why.
Hair holds a deep significance for many demographic groups, often along racial lines due to differences in style and texture. This frequently involves hair length. For some people, hair has religious significance, for others it is more an expression of heritage, but opressors have forced people to cut/change their hair as a means of stripping people's cultural expression for a long time. Shaving newly enslaved black people as a means of erasing their cultural heritage goes back to the 15th century, as many groups had distinctive styles and slave owners wanted to impose conformity. Forcing Indigenous Americans to cut their hair was done to homogenize children removed from their peoples and punish/demoralize adult men, stripping both of them of an important religious and cultural signifier in the process.
A lot of modern hair discrimination has its roots in this more explicit racism, denouncing hair that isn't in line with western-european beauty standards as unprofessional, unkempt, or unsightly. Length of hair and specific styles hold value to many different ethnic groups today, just as it did hundreds of years ago. Many black people see the display of black hairstyles (including long braids, dreads, afros, etc.) as a form of cultural reclamation, many indigenous americans still view hair length as religiously meaningful, tons of Sikhs, Muslims and Jews have strict beliefs regarding hair/beard cutting, the list goes on. Forcing these people to conform or face discipline is absolutely discrimination, and these groups are often a different ethnicity or race than the person mandating the hair be cut.
Is forcing people to maintain a certain hair length always solely racist? No. It can be discriminatory in a plethora of ways. It can also be sexist, queerphobic, and/or a form of religious discrimination. I was subject to the purely sexist aspect of this by old white guys for having long hair as a white, cis-het teenage boy, no racism involved. The label for any discrimination relies as much on who is being discriminated against and how it is applied as it does the views of the person enforcing it, making it an intersectional issue
A good rhetorical example of this multitargeted discrimination would be the banning of necklaces with stars on them. Is it inherrently discriminatory on its own? Not in a vacuum, no one is born wearing a necklace with a star. But consider two major religions that involve star iconography (judaism, islam) and you can see how this rule is antisemitic and islamiphobic whithout ever mentioning jewish or muslim people explicitly. Which form of discrimination it is contextually depends on the person experiencing it. Hair is no different. Making a black guy cut his dreads/braids is both racist and sexist when viewed in this light, as it targets a cultural symbol (a black hair style) and is likely unevenly applied across genders (black girls aren't usually required to have short hair). I hope this answers your question, if asked sincerely, and here are a few sources if anybody wants to learn more:
EEOC Guidelines on Title VII protections against religious garb discriminatjon, including hair
NAACP on Black Hair Discrimination.
CNN on Native Hair Discrimination.
ACLU Article on a legal fight against sexist hair discrimination in Texas schools.
ACLUTexas Article about transphobia via hair discrimination.
1991 Duke Law piece on the intersectionality of hair, race, and gender, with the key takeaway quoted below.
"Judgments about aesthetics do not exist apart from judgments about the social, political, and economic order of a society. They are an essential part of that order. Aesthetic values determine who and what is valued, beautiful, and entitled to control. Thus established, the structure of society at other levels also is justified."
This is pretty much exactly my point. Having had long hair in my youth, while never outright punished in school for it (I didn't start growing it until I was in historically very liberal university), there was often pressure from authorities to conform, I also noticed that being harassed by the police (which happened frequently) effectively ended overnight after I got my hair cut. Pressuring young men to conform by cutting their hair is a tale probably as old as time. Certainly it's a constant theme throughout American culture, as I mentioned elsewhere with movies like Dazed and confused and Dead Poet's Society. And this doesn't even begin to delve into all the times it's used as a symbol as non-conformity.
There was a lot in my comment you just slid right over to only address the point you agreed with, I was hoping you might address literally anything else I wrote, but oh well. We agree that it can be a form of sexism, but it is more complex than that, hence why it is an intersectional issue. Why do you believe it necessarily stops having a racial connotation just because it can be used to hurt white people?
Just because white people have been subject to abuse due to their hair length, it doesn't absolve the racial connotations and racist historical context when applied to non-white people with long hair. If this case was about an Indigenous American student, with religious reasons to wear long hair, would you be making the argument that this isn't racial discrimination? What about a Sikh student? A Rastafarian?
This is an intersectional issue, and as such, requires a little more nuance in diagnosing than "Well I don't see any white boys getting away with it, so it can't be racist!" When rules are made, they need to be evaluated on their ability to hurt people. If the rule can disproportionately hurt people based on racial elements, that rule is racist. This kid is black, part of him expressing his blackness is his hair being long, so any rule forcing him to change his hair is racist. If it was an Indiginous kid, the rule would still be racist. If it were a white kid, the rule would still be racist. The rule and the people enforcing it are racist, even if they never apply it to anyone.
First, I owe you an apology. You gave a thoughtful, rational, and thorough response (unlike pretty much all of the other posters) and I didn't give it its due respect. To explain myself, the reason I glossed over the other parts is that I generally agree with them, and think the crux of argument boils down to the part I responded to.
I understand and agree why this is a sensitive topic: hair discrimination is real. I understand that one can discriminate even with "equal" laws: "no one can marry someone of their own sex." We also both agree that rules like this should go away. We might have slightly differing reasons why: for me it's more about sexism and force conformity, for you it may be more about cultural/race discrimination.
Honestly, I feel like the exact opposite is happening. From my perspective, y'all are arguing that because a rule made a black kid cut his hair, it is automatically racist. As I said above, I agree that rules that can be applied "equally" can still be meant to oppress a minority. I don't think that "because it can get a white kid it isn't racist" I think because there is a long tradition of schools making boys conform by cutting their hair, including in mostly/all white schools, that claiming it is racist doesn't hold much water.
Say the schools are segregated. The white school has a rule that all boys have to have short hair. Desegregation becomes law. Black kids end up going to that previously white school. Rule about short hair still applies. Racism? Or sexism? I say the latter, as that is what it always was, and there was nothing about rule that changed (assuming still an equal application - which is why I keep going back to the "please provide an example of a white kid getting away with it"). People here seem to be saying it's all of a sudden a racist rule meant to oppress minorities.
I don't like these aesthetic rules for all the reasons I initially provided, which includes your provided reasons. They are invariably a combination of sexism, queerphobia, racism, religious persecution, and are generally authoritarian in a way that only exists to hurt people.
Let's dissect the segragated school example, considering only black and white students. Pre-integration, forcing the white students to have short hair is a sexist and authoritarian rule from an explicitly sexist and racist institution. Upon desegragation:
If the school was genuinely concerned about equality for the black students, they could reevaluate the rules about hair and gauge whether or not it will have an outsized impact on the new black student population, which it would given the cultural context. Parallel to desegregation efforts was the reclamation of natural black hair among black people (afros being the most iconic example), many of whom had been forced or coerced into white-coded hair styles since slavery ended.
Counter to this, if the school wanted to hurt the new black population, they could maintain the rule and use the equal application of it as a shield against people crying foul. The rule is still sexist, as a part of an explicitly sexist institution, still authoritarian by the very nature of the rule, but the school's racism has become implicit rather than explicit given who it now has the power to harm. This has been the racist playbook example since slavery was abolished, sliding the scale towards more implicit racial strategies in a culture that is less willing to engage with explicit race discrimination.
In the midcentury, long hair among white men became a symbol of the white counterculture, so curtailing it was authoritarian and sexist. At the same time, natural long hair among black men became a symbol of both black counterculture and black empowerment/liberation, so curtailing it was authoritarian, sexist, and racist. This dynamic exists to the modern day, and applies to different minority groups than just black and white people.
Sure if. I'm not denying it's a possibility.
But the other explanation is that they just remained authoritarian wanting conformity, the original intent of the rule, and so never bothered to revisit it after black people came into the school because the rule was never about respective individuality and cultural heritage.
I feel like we've first started with the fact that a black kid got swept up in it, and then worked backwards to find a reason why it is racist. . .rather than actually seeing if the evidence supports the claim it's racist.
I appreciate the respectful back and forth and I again apologize for not outwardly showing your earlier post the full respect it deserved. But I do believe we have hit a impasse here, so with all due respect, this will likely be my last response in this chain. I hope to butt heads with you again because you definitely make good, sound arguments, even if I ultimate disagreed here.
i suppose i don't feel i have the expertise/experience to educate you about black hair and how rules regarding hair can be racist, but i think the issue is a lot more complicated than you realize and worth looking into.
i can see another lemming provided a lot of information. i hope you will look at it.
Hey buddy, not everyone is worth arguing with or explaining everything to.
People like you tend to be ignorant no matter what, regardless of how much information is put in front of you.
I don't blame him for not wanting to engage further. More people should follow suit.
If you feel it's important to insult me, but not try to educate me, that just exposes how fucked up your priorities are.
I rest my case.
I don’t know much about this, but maybe some reading could give us some insight:
I'm not denying that it happened or even continues to happen. I know that to be true. My point is that just because a policy on hair ends up being applied to a black person doesn't make the policy about regulating black hair. In this case, I brlit it is about making boys conform.
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. ☺️
That really is the only possible explanation I can come up with.
Oh it's school jail. Because the cruelty is the point. The denial of education is the point. The oppression is the point.
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 wish all your hopes come true :)
I wish much, much, worse ☺️
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.
You, I like.
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.
Preferably an island close to sea level.
How about R’lyeh?
I sometimes half-wonder whether some of the judges in Texas might be the tiniest bit racist.
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.
Texas is so going backwards.
Sprinting backwards, really.
I hope a ton of people just start claiming religious exemptions.
Other than voting, that's probably the most effective way for individuals to fight this.
Plenty of biblical figures who famously had long hair.
God gave Samson superpowers for having long hair.
land of the free, right?
Only for the privileged
This judge erred.
This particular judge has never cared about the law.
Which is why we shouldn't care about his rulings.
Name them, shame them. They deserve the notoriety that their racist behavior offers.
The superintendent's name is Greg Poole
The school district is Barber's Hill Independent School district
The judge is Chap B. Cain III
And he literally already lost a court case about requiring Black students to cut their hair but kept doing it anyway.
This is very clearly outlined in the CROWN Act. Can the student's family appeal this to a higher court?
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.
There is a state law in Texas and many other states.
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.
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.
Sounds communist to me. Fuckin pinko Texans inflicting the horrors of big government on the people.
I wonder when they will be buying a bunch of snazzy uniforms to help with conformity.
Always has been.
Join a tribe!
Is the limit the same for males and females?
If not, that's a clear civil rights violation and I would love to see how federal courts address this.
Keep fighting, Darryl!
Too much lead in the water.
I vote students get the choice of using a knife on any of these controlling freaks without any form of punishment.
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.