The other day I was walking into a bar with my partner. We’re white, straight-passing, generally clean looking folk. The bar had a sign on it that said “No bandanas, no gang colors”. They were wearing a bandana, and my t-shirt was blue, but I couldn’t help but notice that we were able to walk into that bar, be served and settle our tab at the end of the night.
It’s about selective enforcement. You can’t say “No black people”, so you say “no black people stuff”. Or you make something everyone does illegal and then give the people in charge broad leeway as to when they can choose to ignore it. Or you set up situations that aren’t open in their racism but just so happen to target one group over another, like setting up checks on the Mexican border and then claiming you’re not targeting latino people because if you happen to catch white illegal immigrants you’ll deport them too. In the words of Republican party strategist Lee Atwater (trigger warning: just lots of open, blatant racism and n-bombs)
::: spoiler spoiler You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ngger, ngger, ngger.” By 1968 you can’t say “ngger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ngger, ngger.”:::
For those who come looking later it’s a feature for the web frontend but wrt mobile apps Boost for Lemmy at least makes an absolute mess of both the spoiler tag and the asterisk as a standard character
Each place has its rules, follow them or gtfo. I don’t see a problem here. Schools are not fashion halls. When I was in school, we weren’t allowed long hair, any alt hair style, using gels or other materials to style our hair etc …
Just here to point out that UK schools have also illegally forbidden some students from wearing afro hairstyles. In that case and this one, it’s against the law. The hope is that this treatment will not continue in both cases. We don’t need to resort to playing the suffering Olympics or whose country is worse pissing contests
The law in its majestic equality forbids Christian, Atheist, and Muslim alike to pray facing Mecca, to wear hijabs, or dresses that look a little too “ethnic.”
Bro, did you read my Comment? ANY religious Activity or Clothing is banned, no matter which Religion these Activities come from. Stop trying to somehow shoehorn discrimination into this.
That’s literally how every discriminatory law in a country with protections against descrimination works. It bans anyone from doing something that primarily is done by the group you’re trying to target.
In states like Georgia where lots of black churches assist their congregation with overcoming the hurdles republicans set in place to make it harder for black and brown people to vote they ban religious organizations from assisting in the exact ways the black churches were assisting. Voter ID laws disproportionately affect poor and minority voters who often have difficulty obtaining and maintaining a current ID and often don’t drive at all due to the high cost of car ownership. These laws don’t explicitly state “people with dark skin aren’t allowed to vote” but surpressing black voters is both the goal and effect of these laws
If you literally write “no hijabs” the law will be struck down in a heartbeat, so instead they write a law that says “no religious clothing” because what religious clothing do people wear? Hijabs.
But I’m sure you already knew this, because you either have to be extremely dense or pretending to be extremely dense for the sake of supporting discrimination to make the argument that you did
That’s where the design of the US government was somewhat ingenuous. Rather than explicit rules that may become outdated or prevent needed action in a timely manner, it was designed as a framework to allow the government to flex and change as times change.
The one thing that wasn’t foreseen was a consolidated takeover of both a significant portion of government and journalism by the same vested interests, combined with intense consilidation of private businesses into unfathomably massive and powerful monopolies
I think you need to re-read the thread I had responded to. I was providing examples of racist laws that have painfully obvious goals without explicitly stating the racist part out loud.
Then that school policy is fine too, as it bans Anyone from wearing dreadlocks. This applies to the white Texans, the Hispanic Texans, the Black Texans etc.
That reasoning doesn’t work. It’s targeted against a certain group of marginalized people just like the Hijab law and the same principle.
Okay, so how much money would it cost to get you to openly admit what happened to this dude is wrong and it’s irrelevant what happens in other countries?
Here’s the weird part. The Texas State Legislature JUST passed a law making this kind of discrimination illegal. I don’t know what this school is doing. It’s like they want to pay lawyers
I just have this feeling that they just created an activist/future politician with this stupid stunt. They’ll forget tomorrow. He’ll probably remember the rest of their life and fight for racial justice his whole life.
Graduation for most is 17 or 18 depending on when their birthdate is. It’s also possible their parents held them back for a year (i know a couple of people whos parents chose that) which depending on when their birthdate is could entirely explain being slightly older than their peers
There it is, that’s the entire purpose of the modern education system, to beat us into submission to arbitrary socioeconomic roles, to curtail independence and creativity, rendering us fodder for corporate masters. Mind all the rules and maybe tomorrow you’ll get the extra nice table scraps.
Good for them not complying, they literally harmed nobody including themselves. The suspension is clearly a punitive measure to heal the administration’s wounded pride, which is also an essential aspect of the education system.
… Do you really believe all that you just wrote here? Because that is just conspiracy theory level nonsense.
Yes, this school, and likely toianynoyhers too many others (typing at night is fun) have a bunch of asshole administrators that feel the need to show who’s in charge. That doesn’t mean all education is to shape us into slaves. Chill dude.
Toianynoyhers. That might be the most egregious typo I’ve ever seen. I’m gonna hazard a guess at “too many others”? Hope I’m right, I’ve got $10 riding on it.
Barbers Hill Independent School District prohibits male students from having hair extending below the eyebrows, ear lobes or top of a T-shirt collar, according to the student handbook. Additionally, hair on all students must be clean, well-groomed, geometrical and not an unnatural color or variation. The school does not require uniforms.
Land of the fucking free.
Call me when the HOA allows you to plant clover on the front lawn.
The article mentions some concerns about still allowing HOAs to require homeowners to submit plans for approval, but in my experience just mentioning the state law is enough to get any denial overturned.
I know the Western world still isn’t into it, but should be allowed to wear masks if they’re sick or trying to prevent illness. Like they do in Asian countries.
Yes it should. The school administration answers to elected officials who represent the tax payers/voters. If the community doesn’t like spending money on racist bullshit they should vote for someone with a god-damned lick of sense.
There is no higher power coming to decide things for us, it’s only us.
A good trial attorney can explain complex and even uncomfortable things to random people in an engaging way that anyone can understand. Don’t have to rely on the jury’s ability to understand something for themselves, just their ability to learn, and the lawyer’s ability to inform.
By implementing a hair policy that excludes styles and lengths which are clearly a part of black culture and a way of expressing identity in America, the policy is racist. Whether or not the intent was racism, it still has the effect, making it a racist policy. It can also be discriminatory towards queer people and other cultures.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that any hair that is ‘relatively long’, ‘not geometrical’, or ‘unnatural color or variation’ is “clearly part of black culture.”
Good thing that’s not what I said. The policy doesn’t exclude all black hairstyles, but many of the hairstyles that would be excluded are sources of cultural/personal identity for black Americans.
it doesn’t seem to be written to target any particular culture
Literally what I spent my first comment explaining - it doesn’t have to be written to target a specific culture to be a racist policy. Oppression is not determined by the intent of the oppressor, but by the lived experiences of the oppressed.
That’s the issue with systemic racism. It’s designed to not look particularly racist until you examine in detail the things it effects. Many traditional black hair styles are going to violate some portion of that rule. Dreads almost certainly need to be longer and afros probably wouldn’t fly, for example. Most typical white styles are fine though.
The word you were searching for is sexist. I’ve been saying since the initial article that this might be unconstitutional under Bostock v. Clayton County.
I don’t think it’s racism tbh. I went to a Texas highschool and they tried to make me cut my hair when I was younger. I am biracial and never did I consider it racial. Is it a dumb rule? Yes. It was created during the hippy era as a stand of some sort.
People here dont seem to understand the principles behind education. Black teachers, whoever needs to enforce the styles so be it, but the component of adherence to uniform presentation (without compromising human individuality and genetic differences) is a robust and important part of teaching children how to conform to society, and in some instances learn that sometimes individuality has to be sacrificed for the good of a functioning society. The racism component is nonexistent in this example if you read the backstory.
Please also remember - if I’m wrong, I’m happy to discuss or learn something. Just upvoting views that you agree with is not a productive exercise.
Hair and presentation is a largely arbitrary proxy for wider adherence to rules and societal behaviours. School uniforms are, last I checked shown to work in this regard. If you have a giant pink pile of hair to draw attention to yourself, it flies in the face of the lesson of conformity.
Who hurt you? Who hurt you so badly that you consider pink hair a threat to civilization? This kinda fetish for conformity is on a level far exceeding what a normal person should have so this must be trauma related.
Oh no! I don’t understand the premise you invented for us. Everyone get ready the fashion judge jury is here to tell the rest of us what clothing we get to wear in a democracy.
You just sound emotional here too. Would you like to discuss the issue? I don’t agree with your expressed view so far, but it doesn’t have to ruin the day.
I have asserted that uniform, and presentation conformity in a school environment is beneficial to children. Do you agree at all? Do you believe in total anarchy? Where would you draw the line?
No you have asserted that pink hair was a proxy for a breakdown in social order.
ou just sound emotional here too.
If you don’t respect emotions you still have them you just don’t know where they come from. You end up living a life where you alone have a perfect response to every situation while the people around you never match up to your standards. You think of yourself as the perfectly rational being but no one dealing with you would agree. You are never horny, she was hitting on you. You are never just in a bad mood, your coworker was driving you crazy. The emperor of never been wrong surrounded by people who whisper to each other “don’t go near that guy he will umm actually you after his tantrum”. Sound familiar doesn’t it? It should, you aren’t special.
Given that you do not respect emotions it is absolutely no surprise you do not respect the ability of people to change their haircut. An entire world refusing to bend the knee to your own greatness. Everyone must confirm to your vision or risk your ire.
You are doing exactly what you criticise me of. Your emotions are coming across like they are interfering your ability to discuss something rationally, so they are not a benefit. Emotion has it’s place, it moves everything forward in the first place, and it sits in balance with calm, measured discussion. Otherwise it just turns into a nickelodeon show of increasingly impotent one-liners, and mental acrobatics, petty personal swipes and achieving absolutely nothing at all.
For discussions sake - I assume you aren’t on this platform to hear your own opinion parroted back to you. Since you didnt reply to the other comment; do you not consider conformity a useful lesson for schools to teach, and why? At what point does individuality become separated from cultural uniqueness?
It does seem this has risen to the level of “free speech” and I suspect this student will get an education in constitutional law, as well as a fat settlement for his trouble.
If you only think in extremes of course - you could also infer order of any kind leads to nazis with that mindset, which is of course, ridiculous. There is a line for conformity, and it should be established with buy in from everyone.
aol.com
Hot