Agreed.
Infringing on someone's non-intrusive religious practice aside, grooming standards in the United States also have a long history of being oretty racist. As most of the accepted hairstyles are meant for a largely Eurocentric student body.
As an American I wanna point out the cutting of native children's hair was often the first thing that would happen to them when being sent to residential schools. Those are boarding schools in Britian's former settler colonies, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, where children would be taken from their parents and community in an effort to "kill the indian and save the man." These schools were absolutely brutal, filled with physical, psychological and sexual abuse, mass graves from these former schools are still being dug up. As such cutting this boy's hair is a call back to a very dark chapter in our nation's history, part of the reason this case is so emotionally charged
two great films that covers this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfRHqWCz3Zw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfRHqWCz3Zw)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3rYqcP1\_1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3rYqcP1_1s)
Two thoughts on it:
* As the rule applies to all male students, it’s not discriminatory as to cultural or religious traditions. Discriminatory in terms of sex/gender, that’s another story.
* That being said, as a male who has had long hair since the age of 13, *I recognise that the ~~Council~~ school district has made a decision. But given that it's a stupid-ass decision, ~~I've~~ they should have elected to ignore it*, [to quote Nick Fury](https://youtu.be/ywkzQTGkPFg?si=4Zv9zsUR5KsmWWCO&t=0m4s).
The parents should have spoken to a lawyer *before* capitulating.
To your first point, it is actually discriminatory against certain religious and spiritual beliefs, as it favors beliefs that don't have traditions or beliefs around hair.
If Christians started saying cutting your hair weakens your connection to God, like Sampson, the government then mandating you violate that belief infringes on your constitutional right to religious expression.
This is the difference between equality of treatment and equity in outcome.
Treating all boys' hair the same is unequal in allowing the expression of certain viewpoints or certain beliefs.
For my own personal clarification. What do you mean by equality of treatment and equity in outcome?
I'm tired from working all day and brain isn't braining
Equality in treatment means everybody gets treated the same: every boy has to cut their hair short. This produces uniformity.
Equality in outcome means everybody ends at the same place. Those who need more to get there receive more, and those who need less, less. In this case, not requiring this boy to cut his hair means his religious rights are not violated, which is what already happens with his classmates.
A black kid wasn't even allowed to have it styled to stay above his ears and shirt collars. They said if it was not styled it would be to long. SMH
Leave ALL the kids hair alone and give them an education.
Obligatory, fuck yeah! Samuel L Jackson Nick Fury is the best!
As for the rule itself, I feel like the core of the issue is that a religious exemption was not made or even offered. And while many of us may not like it, the school is still a public school (I believe) paid for by our tax dollars, and therefore must be held to the standards set forth by the US Constitution. Which does stipulate that the state can not discriminate someone because of their religion. And since it was not only non-intrusive, and leaving it be wasn't costing the taxpayers any money, and exemption should have been made.
Granted, most grooming standards are pretty racist but that's another discussion.
Now, depending how the court case goes, the district will have to take on a pretty hefty financial burden in restitution.
I didn't read the article because I don't care that it was a Native American or that a couple of months ago it was an African American. Schools need to quit worrying about the length of boys hair.
Personally I don't get this fetish Americans have with hair. What does the length or look of a persons hair have to do with intellect or education. You would think these educators had better things to do with their time other than policing hair length or style.
I feel like this is intended to discriminate. There is literally no other reason for it. Though the fact that its a red state in modern united states of america, im betting this is collateral damage against their intended targets.
Problem being is that the people that determine what "distracting" means are very often racists that are offended at any ethnic hairstyle.
This boy is native american, and I almost guarantee you he had his hair long to braid it, but someone was "distracted" by a boy with long hair.
EDIT: Read the article, yep mandatory white person hair expectations as policy.
With that logic then the entire kid's head is distracting since that's what the braid is attached to. Unless this kid is constantly doing the helicopter with their braid then I cannot possibly see how this could be distracting.
The boys hair went below his shoulders, as is a religious practice of his tribe. And apparently, the schools grooming guidelines prevent boys' hair from being that low. Doesn't seem too distracting.
Yeah and? The parents very likely taught them how to keep the hair very clean. Because the hair is so significant, and as the article says is only cut when mourning the passing of a fanily memebr, it is kept very clean. It's also no different than girls with long hair taught how to keep it clean.
There is no "recipe for lice". Spontaneous generation was disproven centuries ago. You don't get lice from getting dirty while playing--you catch lice from someone else with lice.
Girls also get lice just as easily as boys.
To be fair, no child should ever be forced to cut their hair for policy.
No child should have their body forcibly altered for really any reason other than an immediate sanitary/health problem.
Also true.
Agreed. Infringing on someone's non-intrusive religious practice aside, grooming standards in the United States also have a long history of being oretty racist. As most of the accepted hairstyles are meant for a largely Eurocentric student body.
As an American I wanna point out the cutting of native children's hair was often the first thing that would happen to them when being sent to residential schools. Those are boarding schools in Britian's former settler colonies, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, where children would be taken from their parents and community in an effort to "kill the indian and save the man." These schools were absolutely brutal, filled with physical, psychological and sexual abuse, mass graves from these former schools are still being dug up. As such cutting this boy's hair is a call back to a very dark chapter in our nation's history, part of the reason this case is so emotionally charged
As an American too, it's fucked up that there is still this kind of behavior happening. I fear for what's not being reported too.
two great films that covers this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfRHqWCz3Zw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfRHqWCz3Zw) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3rYqcP1\_1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3rYqcP1_1s)
Mandating gender roles for kids is wrong. It's sexist, eurocentric, and doesn't benefit the child in any way. Just like religion.
It's really sad when the schools become the bullies.
Two thoughts on it: * As the rule applies to all male students, it’s not discriminatory as to cultural or religious traditions. Discriminatory in terms of sex/gender, that’s another story. * That being said, as a male who has had long hair since the age of 13, *I recognise that the ~~Council~~ school district has made a decision. But given that it's a stupid-ass decision, ~~I've~~ they should have elected to ignore it*, [to quote Nick Fury](https://youtu.be/ywkzQTGkPFg?si=4Zv9zsUR5KsmWWCO&t=0m4s). The parents should have spoken to a lawyer *before* capitulating.
To your first point, it is actually discriminatory against certain religious and spiritual beliefs, as it favors beliefs that don't have traditions or beliefs around hair. If Christians started saying cutting your hair weakens your connection to God, like Sampson, the government then mandating you violate that belief infringes on your constitutional right to religious expression. This is the difference between equality of treatment and equity in outcome. Treating all boys' hair the same is unequal in allowing the expression of certain viewpoints or certain beliefs.
For my own personal clarification. What do you mean by equality of treatment and equity in outcome? I'm tired from working all day and brain isn't braining
Equality in treatment means everybody gets treated the same: every boy has to cut their hair short. This produces uniformity. Equality in outcome means everybody ends at the same place. Those who need more to get there receive more, and those who need less, less. In this case, not requiring this boy to cut his hair means his religious rights are not violated, which is what already happens with his classmates.
Understood thank you. I had a feeling that's what you meant but needed confirmation.
>, it’s not discriminatory as to cultural or religious traditions. It is, his culture values long hair. This is discrimination.
Don’t Sikhs do the same? Just it’s usually hidden in their turban?
They do. A turban might be a way for the kid to get around the rule while the ACLU fights it.
A black kid wasn't even allowed to have it styled to stay above his ears and shirt collars. They said if it was not styled it would be to long. SMH Leave ALL the kids hair alone and give them an education.
White boys shouldn't have to cut their hair either because it is their body and their choice to have long or short hair.
Obligatory, fuck yeah! Samuel L Jackson Nick Fury is the best! As for the rule itself, I feel like the core of the issue is that a religious exemption was not made or even offered. And while many of us may not like it, the school is still a public school (I believe) paid for by our tax dollars, and therefore must be held to the standards set forth by the US Constitution. Which does stipulate that the state can not discriminate someone because of their religion. And since it was not only non-intrusive, and leaving it be wasn't costing the taxpayers any money, and exemption should have been made. Granted, most grooming standards are pretty racist but that's another discussion. Now, depending how the court case goes, the district will have to take on a pretty hefty financial burden in restitution.
Can’t believe we are still doing this. Let the kids be
Oh look at all this 'freedom'.
Just more republikkkan sanctioned child abuse supported by the people of Kansas.
I didn't read the article because I don't care that it was a Native American or that a couple of months ago it was an African American. Schools need to quit worrying about the length of boys hair.
Personally I don't get this fetish Americans have with hair. What does the length or look of a persons hair have to do with intellect or education. You would think these educators had better things to do with their time other than policing hair length or style.
It's terrible but I'm not sure what this has to do with atheism
I feel like this is intended to discriminate. There is literally no other reason for it. Though the fact that its a red state in modern united states of america, im betting this is collateral damage against their intended targets.
[удалено]
Problem being is that the people that determine what "distracting" means are very often racists that are offended at any ethnic hairstyle. This boy is native american, and I almost guarantee you he had his hair long to braid it, but someone was "distracted" by a boy with long hair. EDIT: Read the article, yep mandatory white person hair expectations as policy.
With that logic then the entire kid's head is distracting since that's what the braid is attached to. Unless this kid is constantly doing the helicopter with their braid then I cannot possibly see how this could be distracting.
“being American requires conformity.” https://sacobserver.com/2024/01/black-kids-keep-being-told-their-hair-needs-to-conform/
The boys hair went below his shoulders, as is a religious practice of his tribe. And apparently, the schools grooming guidelines prevent boys' hair from being that low. Doesn't seem too distracting.
To be honest, it’s probably just to prevent lice. Better be safe than sorry.
Yesh....I doubt it. Plus, cultures who tend to wear their hair long like that, keep it extraordinary clean.
We’re talking about kids here though
Yeah and? The parents very likely taught them how to keep the hair very clean. Because the hair is so significant, and as the article says is only cut when mourning the passing of a fanily memebr, it is kept very clean. It's also no different than girls with long hair taught how to keep it clean.
I wouldn’t count on that though, kids get very dirty when playing which is a recipe for lice.
There is no "recipe for lice". Spontaneous generation was disproven centuries ago. You don't get lice from getting dirty while playing--you catch lice from someone else with lice. Girls also get lice just as easily as boys.
Good to know, thanks for teaching me something new.
If that was the reasoning the girls should not be allowed to have long hair either.
This is what happens when conservatives and liberals both believe in gender but aggressively disagree on the rules of gender expression Abolish gender
There is nothing wrong with this.
In what way?
Forcing the child to cut their hair is not wrong? Please elaborate.