https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/22/us/darryl-george-crown-act-trial-texas-reaj/index.html
A Texas judge ruled Thursday that the state’s CROWN Act does not make it unlawful for school dress codes to limit a student’s hair length.
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.
Sounds like religious discrimination. Republicans are all in favor of personal religious freedom, aren't they?
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?
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.
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.
“The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that affirmative action is a violation of the 14th Amendment and we believe the same reasoning will eventually be applied to the CROWN Act,” he [Barbers Hill Independent School District Superintendent] said.
from the article. they'll probably try to take this to the supreme court and get it overturned.
So a person in a position of authority thinks he can flout the law because in the future, a court may rule his way? Well, then, anyone else can do what they want too. This moron is supposed to be a teacher?
It's been a while since I saw the original text in a thread on this same topic, but I think the issue might hinge on length specifically not being included in the law's text, but only style and such. It's obviously a malicious reading of the law, but it's also an indication of flawed legislation that should have been done correctly instead of leaving wide loopholes for people to exploit. Like, even beyond being malicious, Republicans are also just inept at the process of lawmaking. The school system and the legislature of Texas are failing this kid, but I'm not sure if the justice system is or isn't, without the text in front of me. I'm trying to track that down right now to verify.
Edit: If I'm looking at the right text, I'm not seeing length mentioned at all. Only "hairstyle" and "texture" are mentioned as descriptors really. Again, this is foolish. Is it really too much to ask for lawmakers to be explicit in the laws they create? This is like, the first thing you consider as coming up if you think about it for a few minutes.
Double edit: Also, good chance to find a more sympathetic ruling on appeal. The right judge could absolutely interpret "hairstyle" to include length. I would.
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.
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!
…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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
I hope the kid bakrupts the superintendent with punitive damages when this is all over.
Why do black people have to have the same hairstyles as white people?
(You don't need to answer that.)
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).
Control and erasing blackness. One of the many ways that they try to erase blackness. They know they can't get away with killing off black people (yet), so they satisfy themselves with doing everything they can to eradicate blackness as a culture and just make it something that someone is supposed to feel guilty about being.
I 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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 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.
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 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.
Other than voting, that's probably the most effective way for individuals to fight this.
Plenty of biblical figures who famously had long hair.
The superintendent's name is Greg Poole
The school district is Barber's Hill Independent School district
The judge is Chap B. Cain III
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.
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.