A Black Texas high school student who was suspended because his loc hairstyle violated the district’s dress code was suspended again upon his return to school Monday, an attorney for the family told CNN.
Darryl George has been suspended for more than two weeks because his loc hairstyle violates the Barbers Hill Independent School District dress and grooming code, according to his family.
The code states that “male students’ hair will not extend, at any time, below the eyebrows or below the ear lobes,” CNN previously reported.
The code states that “male students’ hair will not extend, at any time, below the eyebrows or below the ear lobes” CNN previously reported.
Is this school stuck in 1959?
What do you want to bet that the code for “female students” is at least three times as long and contains the words “leg skin”?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
More like 1859
Pure poppycock!
deleted by creator
Ruby Bridges is still alive. MLK Jr would be
7094 if he weren’t assassinated. This isn’t something that’s a relic of the ancient past. It’s something we’re barely starting to address in the current day.Small correction - MLK Jr would be 94 today. He was born in 1929.
Ah, correct. I was accidentally looking at his marriage year. My mistake.
You’re right, of course, but I was referring to the times when such attitudes were considered somewhat acceptable in some places, not the unfortunate fact that they’ve endured.
Those attitudes are definitely considered acceptable in more places than you may think. We’ve made substantial progress from wide acceptance of “these groups aren’t really people” bullshit, but not nearly as much as we really should have.
Jesus would get suspended.
I mean… he kind of did.
Nailed it
J-dawg is always hanging around.
Yeah, Texas isn’t kind to those of us with unique hairstyles.
It is Texas so yeah.
What is this? The tiny town from Footloose?
It’s a small town in Chambers County, Texas.
They want that All American Good Ol’ Boy Johnny Unitas, not that scandalous hippie ne’er-do-well Joe Namath
… Darryl was suspended the same week the state’s CROWN Act, a law prohibiting discrimination based on one’s hair texture or protective hairstyle such as locs and braids, went into effect.
This is what systemic racism looks like in real life.
I’m surprised Texas would even pass such a law.
I’d expect Texas to pass the opposite, tbh
I’d expect Texas to pass such law but twist it somehow and oppress minorities using some loophole in that law.
The code states that “male students’ hair will not extend, at any time, below the eyebrows or below the ear lobes,” CNN previously reported.
Why do male and female students have different dress codes? WTF does the school system care if boys have longer hair? Apart from safety issues like being in a workshop class, why does anyone in the school system think they have the right to control who can and can’t have certain hair lengths?
Yo, is anyone else getting really sick of this overreach of power and authority? I’m not referring to the economic and political relations. Those aside, I’m talking about this crap where people are starting to get involved in personal matters of appearance, medicine, gender, and even straight bs crap like a high school band finishing a song. This is getting way out of hand. Our culture is rotting with power and control issues at the expense of individual liberties.
I’m talking about this crap where people are starting to get involved in personal matters of appearance
I’m sorry to inform you, it used to be worse. Women rape victims used to not come forward because one of the main things that would be shoved in their faces was “how they dressed” and “were they asking for it.”
That bullshit has been a throughline in US culture for fucking decades. I’m in my forties and when I was in high school, girls had ridiculous dress codes that were clearly sexist and clearly icky as fuck. Why would male authority figures be so obsessed with young women not being “too revealing” unless they’re the creepy fucks who are staring?
Not to mention all the rules about men’s pants sagging in the 90’s. A rule that seemed aimed at young black and latino men in particular.
Believe it or not, it’s better than it was in the 90’s. It’s still bad, it’s still bullshit, but it’s not new.
I’m sorry to inform you, it used to be worse. Women rape victims used to not come forward because one of the main things that would be shoved in their faces was “how they dressed” and “were they asking for it.”
It still happens.
And that’s why it’s the job of people like you and me to raise a hellish stink about it whenever it happens so that one day, maybe it will finally stop.
The dress codes even in the district my kid is in (and we’re definitely bright blue territory) is still sexist af. It’s absolutely insane.
Racial targeting aside, I think there’s a big difference between visible underwear and a hairstyle. It’s not the same conversation
yes it is. Both categories are arbitrary, enforced selectively and originate on discrimination
No. Seeing undergarments could very obviously be construde as indecent. I don’t see how a hairstyle could qualify as the same.
Someone could style his hair to resemble a Nazi cross for instance.
But seeing undergarments is arbitrary, because someone making an effort to see them, will be able to see them for many “decent” clothing options. E.g. if a women wears a skirt someone lingering by the staircase could see their underewear, where the voyeuristic behaviour is the problem rather than the clothes.
Again, No. There is a monumental difference between somebody attempting to view undergarments vs. EVERYONE being able to see them without choice.
Plus, shaving or braiding a nazi cross isn’t a “hairstyle”. That’s just creating or imprinting a hate sign into your head. You could literally do that with ANY article of clothing. Or any partof your body.
One is not arbitrary. It isn’t unreasonable to not want minors exposing their underwear in public and I shouldn’t have to tell you this. I understand that nudity(and states of undress) is more common in other parts of the world, and isn’t inherently sexual, but it is not appropriate in a school environment, especially where minors are within a system where a power dynamic exists.
Again I separate this issue from hairstyles, and I also clarify any evidence of racial targeting should be decried. Policy should be applied evenly and targeting investigated by those with ability to make corrective action.
Exceptions should be made for folks with particular features that cannot be changed. Such as those who naturally grow an afro, or cannot shave without irritation/infection. But pants are not the same, as they can be changed. If someone cannot afford a belt, schools could easily supply cordage.
So girls should not wear skirts or dresses? Because there it is relatively easy for underwear to become visible if someone is seeking to see it. In the same wake more loose pants or shirts could make some of the underwear visible briefly. That is why i consider it arbitrary. Whether underwear is visible or not is highly dependant on how pervy the teachers are staring at the girls.
Dude really? Underwear should not be showing when the person is just standing/existing.
Of course if you manipulate almost any wardrobe into the right shape you’ll be able to see underwear.
Put more bluntly, under normal conditions, you should never see underwear.
But what are “normal conditions”? We ran around and played on the school yard. If girls were wearing dresses or skirts of course it was possible that underwear was visible briefly. The same would go for boys roughing around. But it wasnt and shouldnt be an issue because the issue are the people who sexualize minors.
Why do male and female students have different dress codes?
Sexism.
And yes I’m fucking up to here with this authoritarian bullshit not to mention the bigotry.
It’s completely illegal per Bostock too. If it’s sex discrimination to fire a man for having a husband but not for a woman for having a husband, it’s sure as hell discrimination to tell a man that he can’t wear his hair a way a woman can.
I think this has been established for school sports even – if the school doesn’t offer a gender equivalent team, someone of the opposite gender must be allowed to apply for the only team. It basically makes teams unisex unless there’s distinct teams.
This school district must be the absolute dregs of Texas for even the legislature and Abbott to say “okay you guys need to stop doing this”.
The only thing that’s really distinct from Bostock is the fact that this person is a minor. I can imagine an outcome where they conclude it’s not illegal because only adults possess the right not to be discriminated against.
Constitutional protections such as the first amendment apply to minors as well.
I get that, I’m just coming up with any possible reasoning that they might try to use to differentiate this case from previous precedent.
This particular School District has pulled this stunt so many times that the State of Texas passed a damn law, called the CROWN Act, to make them stop! They’re back it claiming that the CROWN Act doesn’t regulate length or color.
The CROWN Act sailed through the Texas Legislature with strong bi-partisan support and Gov Abbott even held a formal signing ceremony for it. How god damned racist do you have to be that even those people think you’ve gone too far?
When the Texas legislature and Abbott both think you’ve gone too far right, you’ve catastrophically fucked up on an inhumane level.
I’m amazed at the lengths some people will go to for such trivial things. I’m not surprised at all that a school had an old rule, or that they’ve been called out on it. But to try to bypass laws to enforce such a, let’s be real, silly rule of no real consequence, is just amazing.
I just can’t put myself in the head of some principal wo believes dress codes are the most important thing in the world. Just fucking back down.
The principal doesn’t give a shit about the dress code beyond how it can provide a way to hurt black students. In that context it becomes obvious that they’re going to extreme lengths because they consider inflicting harm to be important.
At what point do they start firing the people in charge of the school district?
Only if they’ve got blue tinges to their politics, otherwise, nah, yer good. Do what you like.
If it’s anything like my state, the board members make that decision and they are elected by the community. So that point is probably far, far away.
At this point I think that they’re doing this knowing it’ll result in a lawsuit.
I wonder if they’re just fanning the flames to make it look like the government is le 1984 for not letting them have racist policy in their schools.
Well it is considered poor form to just put ‘NO BLACKS’ in the prospectus.
They had to get creative.
Dress codes are like THE tool schools use to punish students that they dont like. eg. minorities, girls, anyone that doesnt conform to gender norms i.e trans kids etc. They cant get away with coming out and saying “whites only” so they selectively enforce the rules to target anyone they want.
I got suspended once for wearing a shirt with an anatomical drawing of a human skull on it. Like annotated and shit. I got sent to the principal multiple times for wearing simple eyeliner. They would literally force us to shave our faces with shitty disposable razors in a school bathroom if we had stubble. I’ve been able to grow a full beard since freshman year. I was more of a distraction covered in little cuts and nicks that my fucking stubble ever was. And this was over 11 years ago. I’m sure shit has only gotten worse in the little country towns in Texas. I have zero respect for any authorities figures. The only thing this kinda bullshit teaches you is to hate those with a modicum of power and to wish for the collapse of society.
To be fair, this rule was probably created to specifically oppress hippies. The “whites only” unspoken rule was probably enforced by the community at large.
The current administration has simply co-opted the anti hippy rule for racism!
deleted by creator
While you’re not wrong, dress codes are also used to reduce bullying (rich and poor kids tend to look more similar) and truancy (going into arcades during the day in school clothes is noticeable).
[Reduce. I didn’t say stop.]
One of the schools I went to had recently (as of when I was there) relaxed its code so that you only had to wear a plain white shirt (with the school logo, which you could buy separately) and blue pants (jeans counted). I say this only to say: not all dress codes are overly oppressive and evil. And it’s so much easier never having to think about what to wear. The Steve Jobs of school wear.
But yeah, how it’s being used here is complete BS.
I said this in another thread, but this may be unconstitutional based on Bostock v. Clayton County. That was about employment though. You can’t discriminate based on sex. In the case it’s about discriminating against a gay person because “being attracted to women” is allowed for men but not women. So a hairstyle should not be allowed for women and not men. They are discriminating based on sex.
I think you’re right actually. Bostock established that if changing the person’s gender makes something unacceptable become acceptable, it’s sexual discrimination.
As long as the Court respects precedent, which sadly is no longer a given, the school district is clearly in the wrong.
The good news is the majority opinion was written by Gorsuch, and it was 6-3 with 5 still serving on the court. I’ve yet to see anyone bring this up.
I bet I can guess the 3
You can always guess 2.
deleted by creator
Children & students historically don’t get the benefit of precedent or rights afforded to adults, unfortunately. Hope to see a different outcome here.
The kicker is that Texas passed the CROWN Act this year, so discrimination based on hairstyle is actually illegal here now.
This is basically a test case for the new law: https://www.aol.com/news/texas-school-district-suspended-student-010157918.html
That’s actually my theory. The CROWN act is designed to prevent racial discrimination and went into effect on the same week. My bet is that this kid is being used as a scapegoat to get the law challenged by the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS can’t rule on it; it’s a state law designed to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyle
Loco parentis, not only do children not have rights, but everyone in the school system is like their parent. They can “raise” them anyway they want, sadly.
This is actually false. Students do indeed have constitutional rights. And you must meet the same strict scrutiny standard to restrict them.
Of course! But it’s up to them to interpret those constutional rights and implement them. It would be nice if they were held to a high level of scrutiny.
They’re also minors, so although they have constitutional rights, they can’t really make decisions for themselves. They can’t vote, it’s not a choice to go to school, a lot of schools use mandatory “volunteer” work, they can’t decide what kinds of essays they want to write (often just reaffirming the opinions of the teacher), etc…
A really good example is saluting the flag. Technically it’s a students right, not to salute/ pledge a allegiance to the flag (there was a 1940’s court case I believe) but they’re still often forced to do it to this day.
Ladies and gentlemen and everyone else:
The land of the free
Conservatives: pErSoNal ReSpOnSiBiLiTy.
Also Conservatives: No, not like that! My feelings!!!
Am I the only one seeing this kid’s picture and thinking he’s the least offensive teenager I’ve seen this week?
Dress code standards for hair and appearance are pretty dumb… but even as they are written in this school district, I don’t understand how this kid’s hair violates it.
The code says the hair can’t extend below the eyebrows or below the ear lobes…and this kid’s hair is above his eyebrows and above his ear lobes. I’m looking at the student’s front, side, and back photos that are attached to the linked news article. What is the problem?
The “problem” is hes black and the school wanted to punish him for that. But they dont want to just come out and say it just like they didnt want to show their faces back in the days of the klan.
The actual dress code written in the article is:
Male students’ hair must not extend below the top of a t-shirt collar or be gathered or worn in a style that would allow the hair to extend below the top of a t-shirt collar, below the eyebrows, or below the ear lobes when let down.
It’s basically “no long hair, regardless of how it is styled.”
Land of the free, home of the “long hair is only for girls”.
This view is rooted in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering”.
I have no point to make beyond pointing that out as trivia.
Sucks to be Samson
Right? I wonder how Paul thought about that?
Modern depictions of Jesus in shambles.
Paul said a lot of things in his letters that only could have possibly made sense in the time and place of the person/city he was writing to. Yet almost 2000 years later, people are still taking it as an absolute truth.
Paul flat out contradicts the Bible at points. Doesn’t he say to refuse food to people in your commune if they aren’t working?
His sexism doesn’t make sense either. There is a very heavy implication in having the women who followed Jesus maintain their faith and belief when even the disciples did not. Maybe it’s unintentional, but it very clearly suggests that the women are far more pious and holy. Paul has no business saying they have no dominion over him.
More like Racist School District is Racist As Fuck. Texas passed a law making this shit illegal, primarily because of this exact School District!
If you have to tell people how free they are, they’re not.
Not quite. He is not really wearing a style that would allow the hair to extend below the collar, brows, or lobes because he can’t just take out his hair style. Its not a pony tail to be removed and distract all the boys like in the movies, its been documented to be in place for at least 8 days. And even if he did his hair could stick straight out or stright up. Seems like the dress code was written for white people hair and instead of using any sort of common sense to not enforce or even just change the code the school is doubling down on murky rules in the national eye. If it walks like a racist, talks like a racist, and deprives black people of an education because of their hair its probably a racist.
We need to start living by the “see a racist/Nazi, punch a racist/Nazi” standard.
Common sense would help if it was an oversight. It’s not.
below the ear lobes when let down.
You know, I was coming in here to make a joke about how when the article says
male students’ hair will not extend, at any time, below the eyebrows or below the ear lobes
they would say that “any time” also applies when he takes a shower at home, but the code literally says that. Yikes.
So, no male Sihk students are allowed, unless there’s a religious exemption.
You think this backwater bunch of racists gives a fuck about religions that aren’t their particular flavor of Christian?
deleted by creator
That’s such fucking bullshit. Might as well demand a buzzcut and be done with it.
As far as I can tell, the “problem” is that the dresscode states that the student’s hair can’t extend below his eyebrows or ear lobes “at any time”. So, hypothetically, if this student took his hair down out of the braids, it would be longer than the dresscode allowed.
This, of course, is fucking stupid reasoning. The school probably just doesn’t like this hairstyle - because racism - and is choosing to use an overly literal reading of the rule to try to force the student to change it.
I’m assuming that his hair was slightly different from when this picture was taken. Not that it matters even a little bit. Codes like this are written for the purpose of giving authorities an excuse to persecute. Wouldn’t be surprising if they ignored plenty of violations from “upstanding” (read: white) students.
From the interview, his mother says it’s because if he let his hair down it might “extend below the eyebrows or below the ear lobes”. I think it’s a poorly written policy, because in my interpretation, he would only be in violation if he let his hair down, but he’s in compliance as long as he never does that at school. And even then, would for example, an afro violate that? It sounds like they should have included in the policy “male students’ hair will must be no longer than 3" at any point" but again, that’s a poorly written policy, waiting for holes to be punched in it.
It’s well written for its intended purpose.
Poor kid. 2 weeks of his schooling disrupted over complete bs. Dress code is already mostly bs, but leave it to Texas to take it the nth degree and dictate hair length. Not even in Utah do they have such draconian rules on hair length.
If it makes you feel any better he probably isn’t missing much because of how little funding texas schools have to work with.
That’s probably the only time I’ve seen the word “loc” outside of Don’t Be A Menace.
Don’t really think the school has a leg to stand on here. It’s a neat and tidy haircut. It’s not something I’d get done, but that’s mostly because I’m a mid-40’s balding white man.
Suspending someone for having a black haircut is asking for trouble. Even in Texas.
I just wanna say I think this hairstyle is beautiful!
Agreed! It looks really good. The fact he was suspended for this is an absolute disgrace by that district.
That’s my biggest issue here, beyond racism, what right does a public school have to tell a student what they can do with their body? This was meant for the other comment
Not only is his hairstyle beautiful, it suits his face extremely well. If I were his mother I would fight them all to let him keep it as it is (or move to a better disrict, if I had the means)
Is it a new thing to call dreads a “loc hairstyle” or something? I’ve never heard anything but ‘dreads’ or ‘dreadlocks’.
Short for leave-in (conditioner), oil, cream. It’s the method of care for certain hairstyles.
Here I was thinking that loc was for “locks” which itself was for dreadlocks
The term has been around at least since the mid 90s.
yeah it comes from OG Loc
Man, CJ you busta.
Yes. Not sure how new it is, but that’s what it means.
How to Maintain Locs
Note to anyone melanin-deficient: Don’t put wax or oil or shit in dreads it prevents felting (just as natural hair grease does). Doesn’t really matter if you have thick curly hair thus black folks do it because it’s a quick way to deal with frizz, if you have any other hair structure though you’ll end up with candles instead of dreads.
The method for whiteys also works for black folks, and that’s residue-free, silicone-free soap (ordinary shampoos contain silicones to replace grease and thus prevent felting), then mechanical treatment: Palm rolling, root tightening, as well as crocheting (with a crocheting needle if you have someone to do it for you, otherwise a large needle with a string loop). Never use a hair-dryer instead learn to headbang, make sure to actually let your dreads dry to the core (can take a whole day from not dripping to dry, depending on temperature/humidity). Once in a while a sour rinse (apple cider vinegar or citric acid) to flush out mineral residue, ending every wash with a cold rinse also helps, that has to do with how the little scales on hair react to temperature, cold closes them.
As to specific products: I use Frosch dish washing detergent because I trust them to not put nasty shit in it, if you don’t have access to it use specialised dread shampoo (or if you don’t fancy smelling like janitorial lemon). Hard soaps can work but they’re not always stellar when it comes to being residue-free, some are right-out atrocious. Dudu Osun generally isn’t, and generally worth the price. As to acid: Actually straight citric acid dissolved in water. The same stuff I use to clean, or put in food if in a pinch (it’s food-grade). String for the needle: The absolute best you can get or you’ll be tearing it all the time.
The term dreads or dreadlocks is considered pretty racist depending on who you ask. But I’m not black so honestly wouldn’t take my word on the topic as gospel at all.
