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.

  • 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.

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

                  it’s just the bare minimum appropriate for public.

                  And your definition of that is arbirtrary. A jewish person might deem the bare minimim to be long legs and sleeves. A muslim person might deem the bare minimum to cover the hair too. Some people find pants need to cover the knees, others find crop tops problematic. It all remains arbitrary. Is a boy wearing a skirt okay? what about wearing net stockings until under the skirt? Knee high leather boots? In our cultures these tend to be sexualized, even if they perfectly adhere to your underwear rule, theyd probably cause more concern than saggy pants.

                  Is wearing a hat or cap indoors disrespectful? in elementary school we had to take our hats off in class. In high school my jewish arts teacher always covered his hat.

                  Is it okay for men to be topless in Summer? ask around and you’ll probably get quite a few different opinions in your community.

                  None of these are right or wrong by principle. They are just the result of different cultural norms, hence arbitrary.

                  EDIT: Also in Kindergarden we were roaming around naked, playing with water and slising on water slides, which was perfectly acceptable in my state in my country. Two states over it would probably have caused a lot of discussions. Still i’m very happy that our bare minimum was to play around with water in hot summers as opposed to sweating like crazy.

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

                    Again, the minimum viable is no exposed underwear, inside a classroom, why is this hard for you?

                    I already made clear the point about nudity being inherently non sexual, in general, but the classroom is not the place for that due to the power dynamic, supervision, and objectives of the space.

                    Why are you describing wardrobe choices of adults, or people outside a classroom? Why bring that up? You are ambiguating the topic.