Monday, December 10, 2007

Political Hair Again

OK, one last thing before I go to bed.

Three-year-old Jayce Brown is being threatened with expulsion from Southern Maryland Christian Academy if he doesn’t change his hairstyle.

Ummm... What?!

‘‘Locks are not a current faddish hairstyle. It’s a culture for those of African-American descent, and that’s why I feel this policy is so blatantly racially motivated,” Brown said.


The policy in the school’s student handbook states that male students are not allowed to have ‘‘extremely faddish styles including the use of rubber bands or the ‘twisting’ of hair.’” The policy also states male students are not to have hair unnaturally colored, or covering more than half the ear. Hair also must not touch the eyebrows or collar or be more than two inches high.


The statement every parent is required to sign, according to the letter from Gaines, reads, ‘‘By signing below I acknowledge I⁄we have read, understand and are bound by all SMCA policies as noted by the contractual agreement. I⁄we have also read the Statement of Cooperation, and by signing, [are] in agreement to the terms therein.”

But nowhere in the Contractual Agreement and the Statement of Cooperation provided to the Maryland Independent by Brown does it require parents to agree to the dress code.


‘‘My clients will not cut their child’s African locks. They are a symbol of his ancestral heritage. Nor will they withdraw his enrollment,” she wrote in a letter to the school. ‘‘Assuming the registration form makes some vague reference to the policy at issue, which it does not, the fact remains that the policy is illegal.”

O’Neal also wrote that she has done some investigating, and several other students in the school who are not black ‘‘far exceed the stated policy. This finding compels but one conclusion — the Browns’ son has been singled-out for expulsion simply because he is African-American.”

I'm so sick of the "political hair" issues. Political hair?! The only possible way hair can be political is if it somehow challenges something integral to society. But our society isn't racist anymore, I mean, the blacks aren't slaves anymore! So of course it can't be that! No no, we want people of color to celebrate their heritage! Just you know, not with hair. Or clothes. Or music really. And definitely not in any way that asks us to embrace something different from the normative white way of doing things.

Seriously, why do dominant groups have SUCH A HARD TIME embracing something a little bit "different?" Or actually, not different at all, because half of the political hair issues (hairy vulvas or legs, afro's, etc.) have to do with letting our hair do what it NATURALLY does. But I guess being "natural" has been a "political statement" for quite a while now... *sigh*

1 comment:

  1. I can on some level see institutions setting rules and regs according to their own bias and prejudices and beliefs...
    but what i dont get are parents who put up with it accept it and allow their kids to go through this kind of harrasment. If parents would stop sending their children to either government institutions of survival(public schools) or religious institutions of brainwashing then schools of freedom would spring up and those intolerant schools would wither away except for the few how follow them.
    Parents need to walk away from idiots and keep their kids away from them.
    How does the way some childs hair look affect LEARNING which is suppose to be the reason they are in school....
    As a homeschooler, I just dont get it.



whatsername reserves the right to delete your comment if you choose to act like an asshole, so please engage respectfully