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.

  • BOMBS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    164
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      87
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • dmonzel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • FlickOfTheBean@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Racial targeting aside, I think there’s a big difference between visible underwear and a hairstyle. It’s not the same conversation

        • tryptaminev@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          yes it is. Both categories are arbitrary, enforced selectively and originate on discrimination

          • Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No. Seeing undergarments could very obviously be construde as indecent. I don’t see how a hairstyle could qualify as the same.

            • tryptaminev@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • tryptaminev@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • tryptaminev@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’ve made it clear that running around or whatever is different.

                    I’m all done arguing for not having minor’s underwear visible at-rest or just walking around. This is simple stuff. A skirt covers underwear. Sagging pants does not.

                    A dress code that requires people to be fully dressed isn’t weird or prudish, it’s just the bare minimum appropriate for public.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      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”.

      • eric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

          • eric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.