More dress code "violations"

[gaillardia]

What year is it?  This is ridiculous.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/15/mass-school-punishes-twins-for-hair-braid-extensions-their-parents-say-its-racial-discrimination/?utm_term=.6f26acf39c91

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

That the school bans even nail polish is just weirdly controlling. Their hair looks great and isn't at all out of the real of normal. Stupidity and discrimination, I agree/

[Sneezyone]

Braiding w/or w/out extensions is easy and time consuming but cheap. Braid hair is $4-7 bucks a pack at the beauty supply store and for under $20 bucks and three-six hours, depending on the style, your kid can look like a million. Using extensions also helps the styles last longer so you get more bang for your buck. Contrary to the school's arguments, black women where I grew up and down south don't usually pay a whole bunch of money for someone else to braid their hair unless it's micro braids. A teen neighbor used to do mine as a side gig. My neighbor in AR taught herself do do it (as I did before DD got locs, I'm cheap) so her daughter could look as good if not better than kids with means. In college, braiding side hustles were common too and none of my friends were rolling in discretionary income. Mamas, aunties, grandmas, sisters and friends usually braid their own kids for free. This is what happens when there is inadequate representation of various groups in leadership positions.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Sneezyone

[bettyandbob]

Ridiculous.

 

I hope they get a resolution soon.

[kiana]

Another link for people like me who don't have a newspaper subscription -- http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/12/malden-girls-disciplined-by-school-for-braid-extensions/

[FaithManor]

Note that the list of banned items is entirely targeted at girls, on top of which since this is a cultural hairstyle, racial discrimination. I am a little shocked that the ACLU had not already whipped the school into fear of legal nightmare.

 

As for the dyed hair? Highly discriminatory. A black child getting hair dye is more obvious than most white children. A brown hair student could get blond highlights without a teacher taking strong note of it because it looks more natural allowing said student to violate the policy with ease. Blonds going lighter also easy to do or adding brown lowlights.

 

It is not the business of the school to create a list of things that parents should not provide for their children in order to make others feel better about being lower income. These kids are going to grow up and go to work where co-workers are going to run the gamut of income levels and one is carrying a Wal-Mart purse while the boss carries Coach. That is life.

 

And really is some idiot educator trying to make the case that a girl's make-up prevents someone from getting an A in algebra????? Really??? If that really is the case, it is not the fault of the make-up wearer and the other student needs professional assistance and an attitude adjustment. Keep your own eyes on your own book, your own paper, your own work. Good grief.

 

There is lot of whackadoodle, misogynistic stupid out there. I weep for girls.

[MEmama]

Imagine if all the energy spent on tearing down was spent instead on lifting each other up.

 

I'm exhausted.

[Starr]

This is not the way I want to relive my youth. Sometimes it feels like nothing has changed...

[maize]

Reminds me of dress and grooming standards at many Japanese schools. Any dying or even permimg of hair was prohibited.

 

Which was problematic for girls with naturally curly hair (particularly common in those with Okinawan ancestry) who were required to provide proof that their hair was not permed.

[nixpix5]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Distracting? Decision based on SES? I am all for schools having clothing standards. Before homeschooling,.my kids went to a Christian school that had some tough guidelines but not like this. Even if they win this argument I cannot say I would want my kids to continue to attend this school. I would be afraid that they would continue to be treated unfairly after the dust settles.

[Greta]

Note that the list of banned items is entirely targeted at girls, on top of which since this is a cultural hairstyle, racial discrimination. 

 

Yes, I've definitely had the feeling for awhile now that dress codes are basically being designed to punish both femininity and blackness.

 

And is my experience unusual, or has this actually gotten worse in recent years?  When I was growing up, my school had a very simple dress code that was enforced evenly and fairly.  Now it's one story after another like this one.  WTH?

[SparklyUnicorn]

so dumb...so so so SO dumb

 

 

[Rebel Yell]

First, let me be very very clear that I agree one million% that the schools dress code is beyond idiotic. I also think it is terrible that these young ladies are being punished for doing things that have apparently been ignored in the recent past.

 

However, these girls have gone to the school since K? So presumably, they were aware of the rules. And now the fight for their hair (reminder: I agree that the rule is every sort of wrong) is preventing them from athletic competition, Prom, and more? As a parent, if I chose to place my students in a school, I would still abide by the rules, even if I disagreed with them, and even if others seem to get away with violating them. (And I have done so at various homeschool classes) For exactly that reason: I wouldn't want my children's education and participation jeopardized over something like hair color, cleavage coverage, or the exact shade of khaki allowed in uniform pants.

 

So, aside from all of that, I have to say that not allowing anything like nail polish, hair color (and am I understanding correctly- not just blue or fuschia, but also subtle highlights or anything in the natural colors but produced by dyes? CRAY FREAKING ZEE!), make up, hair extensions? And that is supposed to eliminate anybody knowing who can afford more expensive stuff?

 

Do they require everyon to get a haircut from the same salon? Some broke folk can't even afford the $6.95 Children's coupon at Cost Cutters! Nothing stopping anyone from getting a $100 haircut. And no nail polish is just stupid. You can have a $75+ set of artificial nails with airbrush designs or buy a $1 bottle of Wet n Wild polish and do it yourself. So what? Does the school police the kids to find out if they got their tan at a spray booth, a European vacation, or mowing the lawn?

 

Unless the school provides identical uniforms all the way down to the same underpants, socks, and bras, and has monthly mandatory haircuts and nail trimmings, and also requires all families to have identical vehicles and live in housing valued within 5% or so of all students... where will it end?

 

I wish everybody was able to provide for all of their basic needs and many of their wants as well. But I cannot imagine how any of those schools rules will make that a reality. From my point of view, at best it provides an illusion of equal income/resources (sorry, best word escapes me) but does nothing truly useful.

[Ravin]

There are some otherwise excellent charter schools near me that I wouldn't send a child to entirely because of the unnecessary controlling of hair and such. I kind of get uniforms. But interfering with expression outside of school in the name of "no distractions" in school is unnecessarily controlling.

[SKL]

Yeah, I tell my kids they can do what they want with their hair in the summer.  During the school year, it stays natural.

 

I wouldn't have made that rule (hair extensions) myself, but it's not worth fighting the school about IMO - unless they came up with that rule randomly after seeing these girls doing it.

[Bluegoat]

I don't mind dress codes, and I think there are reasons to ague for ones that look for a fairly plain sort of aesthetic.

 

And I don't think it's a huge deal when it comes to light that a code doesn't really take into account cetian issues or ethnicities or really anything, when that hasn't been a big factor before - demographics change, trends change.  But when that happens, it makes sense to say - we should modify the dress code.

 

This is a real waste of time to me.  Dress codes, especially if they want kids to keep things like hair simple, really have to accommodate different hair and body types.  For some kids, braids are going to be a simple way to keep their hair neat.

 

Although the question in particular about the extensions could be an interesting one - if that had accepted  braided style without extensions, that would be drawing a slightly different line. 

[TravelingChris]

I think these rules are dumb and idiotic.  In this case, it was AA girls.  In another case, what would they do about a girl with alopecia areata or cancer who don't have hair and get a wig or hair extensions or whatever like that?  As the parents said, relaxing hair costs a lot of money too.  And not having had these issues myself, as Sneezyone says, the braid extensions at not the same price as the free flowing extensions.  Plus it makes a big difference if the hair extension is real or not.  (All I know about these things comes from being a fan of People's Court and having seen cases with hair extensions).  

 

But as everyone else says, you can't ever totally disguise the socio-economic classes.  Yes, having uniforms makes for less obvious differences.  But if you are observant, you see differences.  Book bags, shoes, other activities done, etc, etc.  And if you notice differences, so what?  Are people only supposed to be around others of the same socio-economic classes?  Are they supposed to treat people differently?  Treat everyone kindly and with respect and encourage all the students to do that too.

[TravelingChris]

I think these rules are dumb and idiotic.  In this case, it was AA girls.  In another case, what would they do about a girl with alopecia areata or cancer who don't have hair and get a wig or hair extensions or whatever like that?  As the parents said, relaxing hair costs a lot of money too.  And not having had these issues myself, as Sneezyone says, the braid extensions at not the same price as the free flowing extensions.  Plus it makes a big difference if the hair extension is real or not.  (All I know about these things comes from being a fan of People's Court and having seen cases with hair extensions).  

 

But as everyone else says, you can't ever totally disguise the socio-economic classes.  Yes, having uniforms makes for less obvious differences.  But if you are observant, you see differences.  Book bags, shoes, other activities done, etc, etc.  And if you notice differences, so what?  Are people only supposed to be around others of the same socio-economic classes?  Are they supposed to treat people differently?  Treat everyone kindly and with respect and encourage all the students to do that too.

[Reefgazer]

The list of rules seems weirdly controlling, but these rules have been in place since the kids started attending and the ban is not on their natural hair, but about extensions.  Don't attend if you don't like the rules; when people walk away from what they don't approve, it sends a powerful message.  *shrug*

[LucyStoner]

The rules are pretty vague. So vague that I think the "they knew the rules" argument is totally BS. Especially because if it included bagged hair for braiding as hair extensions, it's a discriminatory rule.

 

So natural color braids are distracting? Or only braids that cost money? How much money is too much money? Can you only get a professional hair cut if you are white and can go to Great Clips with a $10 coupon? I doubt that any white girls have gotten in trouble after their mom took them to a pricey salon and spa for a $100 haircut as a treat. No white girls have subtle but pricey highlights? Sure they don't. :P

 

I'm with Sneezy on this. One can spend a lot on their hair but one needn't spend a lot. Assuming that long braids equals costly extensions is ridiculous. Maybe it does cost them and then: where do you get off telling people how much they can spend on their hair? Do none of the staff enjoy a cut and color?

 

When I got my niece's hair braided, it's been bartering with my friend's neighbor who also does my friend's daughter's similar hair at the same time. I gave her some cash too, because it's time consuming and she's doing them a big favor but she won't take much. It's not something she does professionally- just her kids and people she knows. There's a long tradition of having your hair braided by your auntie or grandma or neighbor.

Edited May 16, 2017 by LucyStoner

[MercyA]

Yes, I've definitely had the feeling for awhile now that dress codes are basically being designed to punish both femininity and blackness.

 

And is my experience unusual, or has this actually gotten worse in recent years?  When I was growing up, my school had a very simple dress code that was enforced evenly and fairly.  Now it's one story after another like this one.  WTH?

 

Just thinking out loud--do you think part of the problem might be that the clothing being sold now tends to be more skimpy or revealing than that typically worn in the past (except for those 60's mini skirts)?

 

I had busty friends when I was in high school, and outside of prom, I don't recall them ever showing cleavage. They weren't conservative and didn't follow any religious dress standards. It just wasn't done. Now I'm wondering if that was largely because the styles were so different. This was the late 80's, early 90's. Lots of loose-fitting sweatshirts and sweaters.

 

IDK. I've heard lots of people say that they have a very hard time finding clothing that isn't tight, see-through, or low-cut. That might be part of the problem.

[Garga]

Yes, I've definitely had the feeling for awhile now that dress codes are basically being designed to punish both femininity and blackness.

 

And is my experience unusual, or has this actually gotten worse in recent years? When I was growing up, my school had a very simple dress code that was enforced evenly and fairly. Now it's one story after another like this one. WTH?

 

 

I think they were always there, but that people didn't fight against them.

 

Just thinking out loud--do you think part of the problem might be that the clothing being sold now tends to be more skimpy or revealing than that typically worn in the past (except for those 60's mini skirts)?

 

I had busty friends when I was in high school, and outside of prom, I don't recall them ever showing cleavage. They weren't conservative and didn't follow any religious dress standards. It just wasn't done. Now I'm wondering if that was largely because the styles were so different. This was the late 80's, early 90's. Lots of loose-fitting sweatshirts and sweaters.

 

IDK. I've heard lots of people say that they have a very hard time finding clothing that isn't tight, see-through, or low-cut. That might be part of the problem.

When I was a teen in the 80s, everything was super baggy and a person could easily be covered up and look fashionable and edgy. The 90s was like that, too. But then the 2000s hit and everything is low cut and short.

 

But it's changing a bit. The fit of shirts is looser now and maxiskirts have been around for a bit. Leggings and loose tunic tops cover more than they used to, though they can be lower cut than back in the 90's/80s.

 

All the tight/lowcut/short clothes will look dated after a while. The trends come and go--tight/loose, covered/uncovered. Back and forth. (Like the miniskirts in the 60s/70s, vs the baggy clothes of the 80s.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Garga

[bolt.]

I think the original intent of the "dress code" is fairly clear: it is designed to eliminate significant visual markers of class and wealth.

 

This form of 'modesty' gets a lot less attention in most situations where dress is being controlled, but I don't think it is any more or less legitimate as a foundational concept for a dress code. Dress cues *are* a major sociological factor in assigning status in peer groups. To me, this is a very good reason to attempt to ban general categories of "extravagant" (ostentatiously expensive) treatment of hair and nails.

 

However, in this case an error has been made. The ban on the category of "hair extensions" shows that the code creators think of non-black hair as "normal hair" (and the practice of extensions in non-black hair is an extravagant practice). They failed to realize that for black girls and women "hair extensions" have a very different function. They are neither expensive nor ostentatious.

 

For the two categories of hair to be ruled by the same rule creates inequality: one group is banned from an extravagant style, and the other is banned from an ordinary and affordable style.

[Garga]

I think the original intent of the "dress code" is fairly clear: it is designed to eliminate significant visual markers of class and wealth.

 

This form of 'modesty' gets a lot less attention in most situations where dress is being controlled, but I don't think it is any more or less legitimate as a foundational concept for a dress code. Dress cues *are* a major sociological factor in assigning status in peer groups. To me, this is a very good reason to attempt to ban general categories of "extravagant" (ostentatiously expensive) treatment of hair and nails.

 

However, in this case an error has been made. The ban on the category of "hair extensions" shows that the code creators think of non-black hair as "normal hair" (and the practice of extensions in non-black hair is an extravagant practice). They failed to realize that for black girls and women "hair extensions" have a very different function. They are neither expensive nor ostentatious.

 

For the two categories of hair to be ruled by the same rule creates inequality: one group is banned from an extravagant style, and the other is banned from an ordinary and affordable style.

The writers of the rules might not have known what they didn't know. If they aren't black, they wouldn't know that extensions aren't expensive and ostentatious for the black students. OR, they knew it, but didn't know how to word the policy where it didn't become discriminatory sounding for the white students.

 

Think of a policy where they ban extensions, except for AA students. That would also be discriminatory.

 

Honestly, they couldn't win either way, other than to let anyone have hair extensions. That's the way I'd have gone. But, then we go back to: perhaps they didn't know how inexpensive they were for the AA students and so they didn't realize it would be an issue.

 

Now that they know, they should get rid of that part of the policy.

[Greta]

Just thinking out loud--do you think part of the problem might be that the clothing being sold now tends to be more skimpy or revealing than that typically worn in the past (except for those 60's mini skirts)?

 

I had busty friends when I was in high school, and outside of prom, I don't recall them ever showing cleavage. They weren't conservative and didn't follow any religious dress standards. It just wasn't done. Now I'm wondering if that was largely because the styles were so different. This was the late 80's, early 90's. Lots of loose-fitting sweatshirts and sweaters.

 

IDK. I've heard lots of people say that they have a very hard time finding clothing that isn't tight, see-through, or low-cut. That might be part of the problem.

  

I think they were always there, but that people didn't fight against them.

 

You both make very good points! For a couple of weeks now, my daughter and I have been hitting the local clothing shops trying to find her some denim shorts. She wants at least a four or five inch inseam. We cannot find anything in her size, not one single pair, that has longer than a one inch inseam! When I was growing up, shorts that short were rare and were considered pretty showy. Now, apparently, that has become the norm. So no doubt the change in clothing styles has played a role in how dress codes have evolved.

 

But I'm still surprised by the level of restriction (nail polish, really?) and the way that rules about hair always seem to start from a place of white hair types/styles being the standard.

[Ravin]

  

You both make very good points! For a couple of weeks now, my daughter and I have been hitting the local clothing shops trying to find her some denim shorts. She wants at least a four or five inch inseam. We cannot find anything in her size, not one single pair, that has longer than a one inch inseam! When I was growing up, shorts that short were rare and were considered pretty showy. Now, apparently, that has become the norm. So no doubt the change in clothing styles has played a role in how dress codes have evolved.

 

But I'm still surprised by the level of restriction (nail polish, really?) and the way that rules about hair always seem to start from a place of white hair types/styles being the standard.

 

Your problem has an easy solution. Buy pants and cut them into shorts of the length your DD wants. 

[Greta]

Your problem has an easy solution. Buy pants and cut them into shorts of the length your DD wants.

Easy? You seem to be assuming I'm capable of sewing a nice hem on a denim garment. I'm not so sure! :lol:

[bolt.]

When I worked with cadets (Canada) the rules around female hair, nails, makeup, and jewelry were much more strict than these ones.

 

I got the impression that there wasn't any implicit inequality or discrimination issues: maybe because the rules were so strict that? Maybe because they were drawn from the Canadian armed forces, so discrimination issues had already been thought through before they became cadet regulations?

 

(Extensions weren't a subject of the rules because hair had to be "up" in very specific ways. Any extensions wouldn't be noticeable. Hair dye was permitted as long as the result was 'any (one) naturally occurring hair colour' -- 'stripey looking' highlights were out, but anything that appeared as if 'somebody could have been born with that hair' was allowed.)

 

They did have rules about bra colours! Maybe they should have had thicker fabric for the shirts instead.

Edited May 16, 2017 by bolt.

[Ravin]

Easy? You seem to be assuming I'm capable of sewing a nice hem on a denim garment. I'm not so sure! :lol:

 

 

All you have to do is roll the hems and tack them at the side seams.

[Greta]

All you have to do is roll the hems and tack them at the side seams.

Well she's a lot more crafty and capable than I am, so I will pass your suggestion along to her! Thanks. :)

[marbel]

Easy? You seem to be assuming I'm capable of sewing a nice hem on a denim garment. I'm not so sure! :lol:

 

I used to be a pretty decent sewist.  (I think that is the new term instead of seamstress.)  I used to make a lot of my daughter's clothing, including shorts. They were not that easy to hem evenly.   And, some trouser styles don't "translate" well into shorts.   We had at least two epic failures using thrift store jeans.  :-)

 

To an earlier point:  necklines are much lower and more open than they used to be.  Feminine t-shirts that don't show a lot of cleavage and/or don't fall far away from the body when bending over are hard to find.  Unisex crew-neck shirts don't have those problems, but they are not feminine or universally flattering.  

[almondbutterandjelly]

  

You both make very good points! For a couple of weeks now, my daughter and I have been hitting the local clothing shops trying to find her some denim shorts. She wants at least a four or five inch inseam. We cannot find anything in her size, not one single pair, that has longer than a one inch inseam! When I was growing up, shorts that short were rare and were considered pretty showy. Now, apparently, that has become the norm. So no doubt the change in clothing styles has played a role in how dress codes have evolved.

 

But I'm still surprised by the level of restriction (nail polish, really?) and the way that rules about hair always seem to start from a place of white hair types/styles being the standard.

Old Navy has denim shorts with 5" and 9" inseams.  LL Bean has some with 6" inseam.

[vonfirmath]

I used to be a pretty decent sewist.  (I think that is the new term instead of seamstress.)  I used to make a lot of my daughter's clothing, including shorts. They were not that easy to hem evenly.   And, some trouser styles don't "translate" well into shorts.   We had at least two epic failures using thrift store jeans.  :-)

 

To an earlier point:  necklines are much lower and more open than they used to be.  Feminine t-shirts that don't show a lot of cleavage and/or don't fall far away from the body when bending over are hard to find.  Unisex crew-neck shirts don't have those problems, but they are not feminine or universally flattering.  

 

I bought boys shorts for my daughter last year -- couldn't find all the colors we might have preferred but we were much more comfortable wearing the shorts and decided to exercise our colorful side on the tops.

 

This issue is what is getting me to try and learn how to sew my daughter's clothes. I can generally find stuff for my son that fits his style and I'm okay with. On the girls side? Not so much and I'm not sure I want to be buying her clothes on the boys side as we grow up.

 

[SKL]

I bought boys shorts for my daughter last year -- couldn't find all the colors we might have preferred but we were much more comfortable wearing the shorts and decided to exercise our colorful side on the tops.

 

This issue is what is getting me to try and learn how to sew my daughter's clothes. I can generally find stuff for my son that fits his style and I'm okay with. On the girls side? Not so much and I'm not sure I want to be buying her clothes on the boys side as we grow up.

 

I also bought my kids some boy shorts last year.  :)

 

I buy their necessary clothes online, where there are more style options, including shorts that are mid-thigh and longer (even for girls).

 

I really hate the styles that have girls nearly naked while boys are comfortably covered.  I've always felt this way though.  :)

[scrapbookbuzz]

Wow, that school is messed up. Seriously, people, what does hair have to do with getting an education?

Except now maybe the school admin can get an education on FREEDOM and different cultures.

Nobody but the administration is going to feel deprived because somebody got their hair done. smh

[Paige]

I'll admit my ignorance on extensions, but how can a person know just by looking that the girls' hair is braided w/ extensions vs their natural hair? How can the school know what any child's natural hair color is? It seems incredibly intrusive and presumptuous. 

[Big Buckin' Longhorn]

Yes, I've definitely had the feeling for awhile now that dress codes are basically being designed to punish both femininity and blackness.

 

 

OMG. You are literally the first person I have ever heard acknowledge this.

 

I went to a private xtain school growing up and spent the vast majority of my youth depressed and angry because at least a couple of times a month I was sent home for "dress code violations," which were really just disguised racism.

 

Unfortunately, my parents were completely brainwashed and rarely stood up for me. I eventually acted WAY OUT so I could get myself thrown out of that school. It was the happiest day of my life.

 

Thanks.

[gaillardia]

Is there a rule for a student who has a double mastectomy and wants to wear prosthetic breasts? Is that allowed?

My opinion is that it is taken too far. I'd be protesting and inviting everyone to start wearing hair extensions and braids, just because.

 

I'm piffed they'd have that kind of "dress code". 

 

Kiana, I do not have a subscription to the Washington Post and was able to view the article with photos. Where I first saw the story was on a different paper's website, so I went to the original source. 

I'm sorry if anyone had to search around for the article.

[I talk to the trees]

Imagine if all the energy spent on tearing down was spent instead on lifting each other up.

 

I'm exhausted.

How true!

[Mom-ninja.]

OMG. You are literally the first person I have ever heard acknowledge this.

 

I went to a private xtain school growing up and spent the vast majority of my youth depressed and angry because at least a couple of times a month I was sent home for "dress code violations," which were really just disguised racism.

 

Unfortunately, my parents were completely brainwashed and rarely stood up for me. I eventually acted WAY OUT so I could get myself thrown out of that school. It was the happiest day of my life.

 

Thanks.

I worked at a credit union that had a policy against curly hair. Women (not men with curly hair) had to straighten their hair or keep it up. Why? Because curly hair did "not look professional and polished"

 

Um, yeah. Strike for white women with curly hair and strike for all black woman. Men were not required to straighten curly hair. They just had to have their hair short.

 

Tell me how that policy is not racist and sexist.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Mom-ninja.

[bettyandbob]

The girls' hair is neat and typical of what I see among black women in professional occupations. The dress code was written by people who have no understanding of black hair or cultural habits.

 

Part of me has been wondering what the school would do if a girl did not straighten her hair and wore a more natural look. They might find that distracting.

 

This isn't about knowing an arbitrary rule. This is about having rules that apply in an unfair manner.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Diana P.

[LucyStoner]

Also, the amount of time my niece and I save the mornings she's here and has braids? It's golden. There are many reasons people choose to braid and among them is not having to do your hair each and every morning. We are talking extra sleep in the morning and extra study time at night. Not letting girls have braids is INSANE.

Edited May 16, 2017 by LucyStoner

[Greta]

I used to be a pretty decent sewist.  (I think that is the new term instead of seamstress.)  I used to make a lot of my daughter's clothing, including shorts. They were not that easy to hem evenly.   And, some trouser styles don't "translate" well into shorts.   We had at least two epic failures using thrift store jeans.  :-)

 

 

 

Thank you for the warning. I was wondering if the thigh is cut to a different shape/size for jeans versus shorts, then it might not be such a simple thing to modify them.

 

 

OMG. You are literally the first person I have ever heard acknowledge this.

I went to a private xtain school growing up and spent the vast majority of my youth depressed and angry because at least a couple of times a month I was sent home for "dress code violations," which were really just disguised racism.

Unfortunately, my parents were completely brainwashed and rarely stood up for me. I eventually acted WAY OUT so I could get myself thrown out of that school. It was the happiest day of my life.

Thanks.

I'm glad you eventually got out of there! But it must have been rough, especially not feeling supported by your parents.

[LucyStoner]

I really want to send some white with natural colored hair extensions to that school. The ones like a pop star or screen starlet would wear to have that super thick bouncy white girl hair ideal and that costs about $300 minimum. I would bet everything I have or will ever have that the school wouldn't do anything unless their attention was called specifically to it.

Edited May 16, 2017 by LucyStoner

[Katy]

This reminds me of a charter school in Des Moines maybe 5 years ago.  They banned afros, which worked fine until they tried to kick out a little girl for having natural hair. Her mother raised hell in the media and demanded to know how a public school had a right to force her daughter to wear her hair in a way other than they way it grew.  I think the whole decision was overturned in less than a week.

[bolt.]

I'll admit my ignorance on extensions, but how can a person know just by looking that the girls' hair is braided w/ extensions vs their natural hair? How can the school know what any child's natural hair color is? It seems incredibly intrusive and presumptuous.

I imagine that the extensions would be obvious based on the fact that school children go to school on a daily basis. Their hair would be unlikely to naturally grow 6+ inches over the weekend.

 

I think that a school would assume the child's natural hair colour was the one they were wearing on the first day they came to that school -- a drastic change would be likely to draw attention. Questions would be asked.

 

It's not like the children are being examined with fresh eyes every day: these people are expected to know the children personally. That includes knowing what they look like.

[Farrar]

I'll admit my ignorance on extensions, but how can a person know just by looking that the girls' hair is braided w/ extensions vs their natural hair? How can the school know what any child's natural hair color is? It seems incredibly intrusive and presumptuous. 

 

In the case of a continuing student getting lengthy extensions, presumably it's relatively obvious simply because the hair can't grow that quickly. But if it were a new student, I agree and with the hair color you really can't know. Completely absurd.

[Farrar]

Also, I can't be the only one thinking of this...

 

"Didn't two weeks in hairdo detention have any effect on you?"

[Paige]

I imagine that the extensions would be obvious based on the fact that school children go to school on a daily basis. Their hair would be unlikely to naturally grow 6+ inches over the weekend.

 

I think that a school would assume the child's natural hair colour was the one they were wearing on the first day they came to that school -- a drastic change would be likely to draw attention. Questions would be asked.

 

It's not like the children are being examined with fresh eyes every day: these people are expected to know the children personally. That includes knowing what they look like.

 

I understand about the hair not growing super fast, but I don't know...I'm not observant enough to know if a kid's hair is normally shoulder length how long that should look in braids. 

 

But what about the first day of school? If a kid comes in with dyed brown hair and maintains it....who would know? If the same kid's hair is suddenly blonde, was it dye, or did the kid have a stylist return it to its natural color? If a girl comes in with braids with extensions worked in from day one, who would know? If it wouldn't be obviously unnatural on day 1, it shouldn't be a problem on day 101. I have a friend who dyed her hair dark brown for years-she thought it looked more professional. I never knew.

 

One day she got tired of the upkeep and showed up light blonde- we all thought it had been dyed, but it was her natural color and the stylist had just removed the dye. How can you tell if a dark blonde girl has natural highlights, or stylist created highlights? It's not always obvious, and therefore enforcement is arbitrary. 

[goldberry]

This reminds me of a charter school in Des Moines maybe 5 years ago.  They banned afros, 

 

Waaaa????  That's insane.