Dreadlocks are distracting.

[daleduke17]

Because "FREEDOM" and "STOP REPRESSING ME!!!"

Rules exist, deal with it.

So, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

[Andara Bledin]

My school (public) had a school uniform, limited ear jewelry to two piercings (one each ear) with plain studs or sleepers, limited hair colours to natural/natural-like, boys hair must be short, girls with hair shoulder length or lower must have it tied back. No other jewelry except one religious pendant (if desired). No clothing other than that listed in the uniform.

This would so not fly in the US these days.

The hair length restriction is sexual discrimination, and the pendant is religious discrimination. Both are major no-gos for public institutions.

I honestly think the rules regarding hair in this case are at least moderately racist. They specifically ban dreads and fros, toss in mohawks for a white person hairstyle, then add "faddish styles" so they can pretty much go after anyone they feel like that isn't enough of a conformist.

Meanwhile, my high school allowed pretty much any hairstyle or color you wanted to have your hair, including shaved entirely, and we also had the highest curriculum in the district. Apparently, if you focus on teaching kids instead of wasting time on pointless control and conformity, you accomplish a lot more.

[violiav]

The hair length restriction is sexual discrimination,

At least once a school season I see a new report about hair length/style. Here's one from 2008.-- http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?se...cal&id=6549456

That being said, in my years in the San Diego Unified School District and GUHSD (Granite Hills, Go Eagles!) I never heard of anyone force to cut their hair down to a certain length OR being forced to remove dreads.

[MadMike]

They specifically ban dreads and fros, toss in mohawks for a white person hairstyle, then add "faddish styles" so they can pretty much go after anyone they feel like that isn't enough of a conformist.

That's the problem I have with vague expressions like "faddish", "distracting", "disruptive", etc. If some teacher gets a bug up their ass and decides that they just don't like something someone's wearing, they can make them stop, even if it isn't actually against the rules.

[fireheart17]

This would so not fly in the US these days.

The hair length restriction is sexual discrimination, and the pendant is religious discrimination. Both are major no-gos for public institutions.

Most schools both public and private (the co-ed ones) allow for unrestricted hair length-basically as long as it's tied up, it's fine. As for the pendant thing, while schools will state the rule, they generally don't enforce it so students will come in wearing pendants underneath their clothing.

I've actually heard the OPPOSITE in most cases, where parents have the right to apply for exemptions based on financial hardship, new location or a temporary move (ie travelling around Australia and want their kids to socialise for a few months or moved to a new school), religious reasons or cultural reasons.

The only schools I've seen that are picky on the hair length tend to be either incredibly elite or are single-sex. One boarding school I know of will actually send boys off for haircuts and bill them accordingly depending on said hairstyle. (in those cases though, it's more that they're at an acceptable length, they're not overtly crazy about it)

I honestly think the rules regarding hair in this case are at least moderately racist. They specifically ban dreads and fros, toss in mohawks for a white person hairstyle, then add "faddish styles" so they can pretty much go after anyone they feel like that isn't enough of a conformist.

The argument with the "faddish" styles I'm guessing is because they're trying to teach the kids about what a respectable appearance is and how to maintain it.

Meanwhile, my high school allowed pretty much any hairstyle or color you wanted to have your hair, including shaved entirely, and we also had the highest curriculum in the district. Apparently, if you focus on teaching kids instead of wasting time on pointless control and conformity, you accomplish a lot more.

I assume you mean "highest scores" not "highest curriculum" since curriculum is the guidelines for what kids need to learn by certain points.

As for the rest of your comment, I remember in my first year at a new primary school, we were all rounded up in the gym for a meeting on dress code. When it came time to nail polish, they admitted that they would actually send students over to a particular bitch of a teacher who happened to have nail polish remover in her drawer. Most students got around that by using white-out

Thankfully that teacher left after a year* and the rule was relaxed somewhat.

*-prior to a couple of years ago, all teachers could have contracts that went from 1-10 years. You could argue to have your contract extended (and many teachers did), but this particular teacher moved on along with two other teachers.

One of those teachers was AWESOME: when we went and visited our new teachers for next year, one of those teachers was substituting for the new teacher. The first thing he does is point to a cupboard with no handles and go "this is the secret cupboard." He then pulls out a butter knife "and this is the magic knife." He then demonstrated how to get that door open using said "magic knife" and inside were messages written by former students. (the classroom was previously his)

Sadly the new teacher wasn't open to that idea and had handles fitted and the cupboard was used for paper
When we were all in Grade 7, that room became a "multi-purpose" area for classes and he moved into a transportable classroom. That whole area has since been replaced with a more permanent structure.

[Nyoibo]

Why do you say "rules exist, deal with it" as if the very existence of a rule were itself justification for having it, regardless of reason?

The existance of a rule being its justification is applicable to almost all rules, people at a basic level tend to be incapable of governing themselves and therefore must be governed, to do that rules must be made to take in the lowest common denominator and are going to piss off others.

So, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

Agreeing, I think, people tend to get up in arms about something against rules when it's something they like or support, but when it's against the rules and they don't like it, then suddenly it's ok

[Andara Bledin]

I assume you mean "highest scores" not "highest curriculum" since curriculum is the guidelines for what kids need to learn by certain points.

No, I actually mean curriculum. My high school would consistently set the bar higher than any other school in the district for the students attending. As a result, we tended to have a high percentage of AP classes, and those tended to be difficult to get into.

[Duelist925]

The existance of a rule being its justification is applicable to almost all rules, people at a basic level tend to be incapable of governing themselves and therefore must be governed, to do that rules must be made to take in the lowest common denominator and are going to piss off others.

No. No. Also no.

A rule must have a reason beyond its own existence to exist. There must be some reason for it to be enforced.


"No mohawks" is a rule that has, at least, a somewhat legitmate reasoning behind it--mohawks are outlandish to most, and distracting.

"No dreads" or "no afro's", has almost no reasoning behind it--those are both natural hair styles for some people of african decent, and enforcing it is borderline, at best, racist. While something could be said for no "massive" fro's, since those could be just as distracting at mohawks, outlawing them entirely is essentially telling someone "Your natural hair is bad".

Agreeing, I think, people tend to get up in arms about something against rules when it's something they like or support, but when it's against the rules and they don't like it, then suddenly it's ok

People are up in arms about this because it's a stupid, arbitrary rule, which borders on racist.

[Nyoibo]

Dreadlocks aren't naturally occuring they are shaped, unless you count natural as letting them form by not brushing, as for the afro, I'm assuming that they mean the actual hair style which is not completely natural, afro-textured hair does form like that, but has to be teased into an afro if we're talking the 70's style.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm assuming that they mean the actual hair style which is not completely natural, afro-textured hair does form like that, but has to be teased into an afro if we're talking the 70's style.

What does "afro-textured" even mean?

I personally know two people who, were they to leave their hair unstyled other than washing and combing/brushing, would very quickly end up with what would be refereed to as afros. One of them keeps his short to not have to deal with it, and the other spends rather a large amount of money on regular thinning just so he can put it in a ponytail because he likes to keep his hair long.

I can totally agree with any regulations against hair over a certain height over the head. That is not only reasonable, but serves a purpose and is entirely non-discriminatory. Banning afros because afros is just inane.

Any rule that exists for the sake of its own existence is inane and actually undermines the authority of the one enforcing it because if one rule is utterly pointless, then maybe all the rest of them are, too.

[Nyoibo]

What does "afro-textured" even mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-textured_hair

It's a specific hair type, mainly "black", african, polynesian.

[Andara Bledin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-textured_hair

It's a specific hair type, mainly "black", african, polynesian.

Got it, thanks. I misread the original sentence, anyway. >_<

The rest of my post stands, however. Rules for the sake of control with no other purpose are counter-productive and only weaken authority and other rules.

[hinakiba777]

The two major issues that i have with the rule are:
1) The girl had dreads for the whole of the previous year, without anyone commenting. Then this year they chose to enforce the rule. Even if it was a reasonable rule, choosing to enforce it so late makes things confusing.

2) The rule really is discriminatory. It's equivalent to stating people can't have their hair curled because that is "faddish". It's just the natural set of a person's hair, and a hairstyle that is easily adaptable. Dreadlocks are no distracting. Afros can be, but that just depends on the length and height. I can understand regulations for that, but not banning them outright.

I'd like to refer to something I said in a thread about hair colours. A friend of mine attended a school where students could only have their hair natural colours like red, brown, blonde, and black. Grey is not on the list. My friend started gray at 15 and by the time she was started her senior year her hair was totally grey. The school board spent the whole year coming to a decision about whether she was breaking dress code of not, as she refused to dye her hair. They apparently came to a decision after she graduated, though she never told me what was the decision.

[violiav]

The school board spent the whole year coming to a decision about whether she was breaking dress code of not, as she refused to dye her hair. They apparently came to a decision after she graduated, though she never told me what was the decision.

Wait. They couldn't figure out if NON dyed hair was breaking dress code?

[SongsOfDragons]

Wait. They couldn't figure out if NON dyed hair was breaking dress code?

I think this is what happens when the physical section of a uniform (i.e. not the clothes) are so convoluted and the rule-keepers so inconsistent that anything unexpected gets tangled up horribly in all the red tape.

Writing a school uniform code is trickier than it looks - I'm writing a fictional one and it's difficult to keep the balance between realistic expectations and, well, a school uniform.