Are people like Paulette Hamilton and Mel B actually wanting to make the world a better place? I have to say, I don't think they are. Because more division and greater social fragmentation is the only possible destination for the track they're going down. I hope they will read Ada's excellent essay and come to their senses.
Unless it can be demonstrated that one's hair is detrimental to learning , and I have no idea how
that could be done, what possible difference does it make as to how anyone's hair should be a concern?
Make all hair protected not just Afro hair. This just seems to be taking a "dress code" far beyond what is necessary for education. Schools are not the military. Pink Floyd's Another Brick In the Wall would be appropriate here. https://vimeo.com/593916093
RIP Tito Jackson. I was walking down the street one day, and someone in a passing car shouted ‘Tito Jackson’ at me. I explained to my baffled wife, that Tito’s Afro never quite matched the spherical perfection of his brothers’, and I was in need of trim.
Your argument states: "Are Legal Protections for Afro Hair Necessary?"
BUT -
there is a glaring problem exposed in your writing: "Just as a white student may be considered inappropriate for wearing a mohawk to school for example, certain hairstyles may also be deemed inappropriate for black students or any other student..."
Your argument then becomes one of what is an appropriate hair style (based on what exactly?) and not a legal issue. AND that begs the question of why any person should be denied the legal or
moral right to wear ANY hairstyle they choose.
Is a Mohawk hair style only considered appropriate when worn by a member of the Mohawk Tribe, Are cornrows only considered appropriate when worn by Blacks? Can I have a Pompadour hairstyle if I m not French?
My question to you is this - What is a "reasonable, race-neutral standard?" Because by your own definition it will only lead to more 'perceived slights and misunderstandings.'
I'm inclined to say "use common sense" when considering what is appropriate hairstyle for school or a job with professional standards - just as you might for clothing, tattoos, jewelry etc. But, of course, there will always be people (narcissistic types) who will feel that their individuality is unbearably constrained by common sense - so, indeed, some pedantic, long-winded, all-encompassing, code is obviously what is needed.
I find the difference to be this - many professions do not care if you have tats or piercings - only schools think they have the right to dictate style.
But you must realize the true job of schools is not to bring out the natural talent of students or to challenge them intellectually, it is simply to graduate compliant tax payers!
Are people like Paulette Hamilton and Mel B actually wanting to make the world a better place? I have to say, I don't think they are. Because more division and greater social fragmentation is the only possible destination for the track they're going down. I hope they will read Ada's excellent essay and come to their senses.
Unless it can be demonstrated that one's hair is detrimental to learning , and I have no idea how
that could be done, what possible difference does it make as to how anyone's hair should be a concern?
Make all hair protected not just Afro hair. This just seems to be taking a "dress code" far beyond what is necessary for education. Schools are not the military. Pink Floyd's Another Brick In the Wall would be appropriate here. https://vimeo.com/593916093
With one less of the Jackson 5 now alive the torch bearers of the fro are diminishing.
RIP Tito Jackson. I was walking down the street one day, and someone in a passing car shouted ‘Tito Jackson’ at me. I explained to my baffled wife, that Tito’s Afro never quite matched the spherical perfection of his brothers’, and I was in need of trim.
Kier Starmer and his elite cabinet are all members of the WEF which has stated quite openly that “You will own nothing and be happy”
Those words are also mentioned in The Gulag Archipelago too.
Marxism needs division and Starmer is deliberately creating division.
Your argument states: "Are Legal Protections for Afro Hair Necessary?"
BUT -
there is a glaring problem exposed in your writing: "Just as a white student may be considered inappropriate for wearing a mohawk to school for example, certain hairstyles may also be deemed inappropriate for black students or any other student..."
Your argument then becomes one of what is an appropriate hair style (based on what exactly?) and not a legal issue. AND that begs the question of why any person should be denied the legal or
moral right to wear ANY hairstyle they choose.
Is a Mohawk hair style only considered appropriate when worn by a member of the Mohawk Tribe, Are cornrows only considered appropriate when worn by Blacks? Can I have a Pompadour hairstyle if I m not French?
My question to you is this - What is a "reasonable, race-neutral standard?" Because by your own definition it will only lead to more 'perceived slights and misunderstandings.'
I'm inclined to say "use common sense" when considering what is appropriate hairstyle for school or a job with professional standards - just as you might for clothing, tattoos, jewelry etc. But, of course, there will always be people (narcissistic types) who will feel that their individuality is unbearably constrained by common sense - so, indeed, some pedantic, long-winded, all-encompassing, code is obviously what is needed.
I find the difference to be this - many professions do not care if you have tats or piercings - only schools think they have the right to dictate style.
But you must realize the true job of schools is not to bring out the natural talent of students or to challenge them intellectually, it is simply to graduate compliant tax payers!