Was This Church Of England School Right To Ban Rastafarian Dreadlocks?

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6161817/Rastafarian-boy-12-wins-discrimination-case-dreadlocks-ban.html

Once more it seems that we have been forced to back down from our rules in English dress code, so as to fit in with other cultures.

[pixie374]

I don't personally know the school in the OP. Just that schools accept students with dreadlocks, even when they personally Don't like them, because they have to.

[Sqad]

Nobody seems interested in my post at 16.20....-:(

[pixie374]

I can't even see it, sqad. What was it?

[dunnitall]

IMO.... Anyone who relocates to another place other than their place of birth OR even if born in another country of which they are not related.... Needs to be aware of that country's culture.

I'd you do not agree with that culture...WHY are you living there??? If you want to uphold your own culture then please do not stay where you will be alienated!

The positive way is to take to settle in a country who accommodates your beliefs and culture. If this country doe not support it then you HAVE to choose your place of residence.

Even British peeps should make this decision IMO. You cannot speak or maybe make yourself understood in your country of choice then make the effort or leave.

Makes sense to me! Do not fight the system or hold that country to ransom with 'HUMAN RIGHTS' ...we don't have any unless birthright is there in every single country. Be good, be kind and leave behind!

[pixie374]

It's nothing to do with culture. Frizzy hair is easiest to control when tamed!

[Sqad]

Here we go Pixie......it seemed rather good at the time, but now feels rather......inconsequential.

"It would be interesting to know if Eton, Harrow or any of the elite English public schools had a ruling against dreadlocks.
If so, then after this court ruling, it would be interesting to see what changes are made.
No I realise it has little to do with the question, but i thought that it might be of some interest...........or not."

[pixie374]

Thanks sqad x they would be insane to turn down promising students due to a hairstyle. So I sincerely hope not. They, of all people, should have some brains.

[-Talbot-]

How did this kid get on?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/may/01/education.schools

I can't find any follow up on it.


If dreadlocks are allowed, how can a kid ever bee sent home again for an unsatisfactory haircut?

[Sqad]

pixie.......thanks, i feel better now ;-)

[pixie374]

Glad to hear it, sqad :-)xx

[pixie374]

Talbot, they only asked him to tie them back. That's a normal requirement for long hair at schools, too.

[Mamyalynne]

Sanchez still has his dreads.

[andy-hughes]

dunnitall - // IMO.... Anyone who relocates to another place other than their place of birth OR even if born in another country of which they are not related.... Needs to be aware of that country's culture.

I'd you do not agree with that culture...WHY are you living there??? If you want to uphold your own culture then please do not stay where you will be alienated! //

Everyone needs to be aware of the culture in which they live - be it the country of origin, or one to which they relocate.

But culture does not have straight lines and borders, it is a moveable feast.

I cannot think that it is right that anyone adopts each and every aspect of a foreign culture, which effectively erases the person, since our personalities are shaped by our culture.

For example - if you relocated to Texas, no problem with the language - it's broadly the same, and driving on the other side of the road is not a major issue.

But would you like to be compelled to own a gun? To have a subliminal distrust of black people? To eat grits for breakfast every day, and steak every night? To become proficient at line dancing, and wear Levi's, boots and a Stetson every time you go out?

All these things can be said to be part of Texan culture, and they are - but no-one embraces every single aspect of any culture, that is not natural.

Add to that the aspects of your culture that you don't wish to give up - drinking tea, having HP sauce on your cheese sandwich, getting a box of teabags posted from home - the list goes on.

When you think of it like that - and it is your culture that is being subsumed, then maybe it's not such a good idea, is it?

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - // If dreadlocks are allowed, how can a kid ever bee sent home again for an unsatisfactory haircut? //

I have answered this question twice already on this thread - third time lucky (?) -

There is a clear demarcation between wearing hair in a certain way for religious reasons, and wearing it for fashion reasons.

So if, as in this case, a pupil can offer valid reasons for a hairstyle that is faith-based, then it should be permitted, because if the pupil abides by his faith's tenets, then he or she is effectively without a choice in the matter.

If a non-Rastafarian pupil appears with dreadlocks, then that is clearly a fashion choice, and is not permitted under the rules.

It's not difficult to make the distinction - except of course for the governors of this school, who needed legal process to explain it to them.

[retrocop]

No one is forced to carry a gun or eat grits in Texas. I would suggest there is a difference between not wanting to adopt the things mentioned and trying to change an established culture as a new arrival.

[-Talbot-]

There is a clear demarcation between wearing hair in a certain way for religious reasons, and wearing it for fashion reasons.

So if, as in this case, a pupil can offer valid reasons for a hairstyle that is faith-based, then it should be permitted, because if the pupil abides by his faith's tenets, then he or she is effectively without a choice in the matter.




So you support discrimination then.
Personally I don't.

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - // So you support discrimination then.
Personally I don't. //

A five-word text-book example of the 'So' Rule - fabulous.

No I do not support discrimination - but that is not discrimination, and if you think about it, you can see that it is not - unless someone is looking to be a victim, but you have to stretch to get there, and the argument is not valid.

[-Talbot-]

It is perfectly valid.

You think it is ok for one kid to have the haircut and not the other kid. That is discrimination.

[andy-hughes]

Retrocop - // No one is forced to carry a gun or eat grits in Texas. I would suggest there is a difference between not wanting to adopt the things mentioned and trying to change an established culture as a new arrival. //

Of course they are not forced - entirely my point.

But who, in this instance. is trying to 'change an established culture on arrival'?

As a new arrival in Texas, you are entirely at liberty not to eat grits or carry a gun, but quite rightly, you would be unpopular if you tried to insist that everyone throws their coffee machines out, and stops speaking with a Texan twang.

But who would do that? The vast majority of people who arrive in any country to live, blend in with the indigenous culture, while maintaining aspects of their own culture that make them feel comfortable.

The issue only arises when the immigrant tries to force aspects of his or her culture on the indigenous population - OR, and this is the crux of the issue - the other way round.

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - // You think it is ok for one kid to have the haircut and not the other kid. That is discrimination.

I believe you are deliberately over-simplifying the issue in order to shoe-horn in your conclusion.

If you insert one word into your statement, it becomes more pertinent and realistic - and that word is 'because'.

I believe that it is ok for one kid to have the haircut and not the other kid - because …

and then I can list the reasons which have been explained fully in the debate, and I won't waste space repeating them.

Applying a rule for a valid reason does not make it discrimination - discrimination is applying a rule with the only reason being a difference between the two parties which is perceived, and not actually evident.

Sitting unruly passengers at the front of a bus because the driver needs to supervise them is a valid reason - sitting Rosa Parkes at the back of the bus because she has black skin, is not.

That is discrimination.