Them’s the rules? Them’s the fuckin rules? Well, so’s the fuckin Constitution, and there’s a decent case that a hairstyle worn by a student is constitutionally protected speech or is constitutionally protected under the due process clause. So “them’s the rules” is a dumb argument, because it breaks the bigger rules.
Funny, that was the hair cut we practically were required to have when I was in school.
because school administrators have a tiny bit of power over other people, so they need to assert it in some way.
I felt quite sure this was going to be about lice.
There was a story in the local news a while back about a first grade girl who shaved her head to support her best friend who was going through chemo. She was suspended from school. I wonder how the girl’s friend felt when she heard. (I mean, a six-year-old girl who decides to do such a thing is pretty impressive. I think that deserves some serious kudos)
Yes, I know the school had a dress code. But aren’t they basically giving the message, “we don’t think it’s appropriate for you to support your friends who are going through something scary, by making them feel better about their looks?” It was just kind of, very insensitive.
I also do not care for Mohawks. But then, I’m Lenape and, historically (and pre-historically), we never really got along with any of the Snake People.
Conservatives are guilty of more political correctness, as the term’s now defined, than liberals: They think reality, from human-caused climate change to the reality that some people are gay or trans or so on and that it isn’t a problem, is politically incorrect, they get offended by it, and they try to legislate the reality out of existence, or at least attempt to legislate their way into being able to ignore it completely.
So some PC police conservatives got offended by how some kid is wearing his hair. What else is new?
Yes, those are the rules that are given to parents at the start of the school year. If she wants to get them changed, she should try. If she thinks his hair is constitutionally protected, she should make that argument. But flaunting the rules then publicly trying to smear the school for being anti-military is disruptive and dishonest and is flat out insulting to a school that is obviously very respectful of the military. I would support her if she handled it like an adult and a parent instead of a Fox News anchor.
First, it’s “flouting.” Second, if the rules are unconstitutional, then they can be ignored. A school who gives parents unconstitutional rules is in the wrong, full stop.
If you limit your argument to the idea that she’s unfairly smearing the school for being anti-military, then I’ll agree. But the rest of what you say, including the implication that she should obey the unconstitutional rules the school gives her, is wrong.
Speaking as an 8-year Army veteran, who spent an additional 7 years working as a civilian around the Army every working day, the kid’s hair is, militarily, just fine.
Plenty of soldiers went “bald/smooth” on the sides; others left a touch of “stubble.”
Both were perfectly acceptable.
The objections that no one in the military wears their hair that way, or that it isn’t a military-style cut, are just wrong.
The principal’s an idiot. His “I have the utmost respect for the military and its members. However,…” comes across to me the same way certain people say, “I’m not a racist, however…”
He definitely has anti-military prejudice. Why? Because anyone who leads with, “I’m not X/have nothing against X…” is clearly very anti-X. He deliberately singled out one specific hair style to ban. Why not say, “Multi-colored spiky hair is not allowed, as we’re not a music school/hangout for punk rockers?”
The mother’s also an idiot; she picked the fight, and fought it poorly.
Monumentally pointless nitpick here, but as far as I remember, no member of the Sex Pistols ever had a Mohawk.
Also, if the kid ever wants a job, he should take a look at the London Underground, who are obviously pretty relaxed about hairstyles judging by the fact that they employ this magnificent bastard:
I see this whole story like this… They probably ban any clothing that depict weapons. If he wore a shirt that saluted the military, the principal wouldn’t care at all. However, if he wore a shirt with a soldier holding a weapon and got into trouble, the mom would call the news and tell everyone how the principal hates America, the military and all the people who died for freedom!
No you can’t, you have to follow them or suffer the consequences until they’re determined to be unconstitutional. You can’t decide they’re unconstitutional on your own and do what you want. Look at the people who think taxes are unconstitutional and refuse to pay them. You make the argument and make the change, until then, the rule still applies.
Isn’t that just an effect of her making it a military argument? If she had claimed racism, he would be forced to say he’s not racist, then we’d all think he was racist because he said he wasn’t. I know what you’re saying and agree that it often sends up a red flag. But in this case, she screamed ‘he hates our fallen heroes!’ That’s a pretty shitty thing to say. I can’t fault him for saying ‘no I don’t.’
He didn’t single out a specific military haircut to ban. The handbook says “mohawk style and other extreme haircuts” are not allowed. It doesn’t say anything about military haircuts, although military haircuts and mohawks are similar. I imagine 99.9% of kids with mohawks don’t have them to support the military, so if a person hated the military, I don’t see how a ban on mohawks would do much to further that agenda. They just banned an “extreme” haircut, the mohawk, and one kid decided to get a mohawk to support the military.
We also don’t know that it was the principal that made the rule, just that the county school board leaves it up to individual schools to write the dress code. It may have been on the books 20 years before he became principal, or everyone may be right and he may have banned mohawks because of his deep rooted hate for the military and our fallen heroes. Common sense tells me it’s not part of his rabid anti-military leanings, it’s just a rule about mohawks and a mom with a special snowflake.
Doesn’t look like a military haircut to me, but I also don’t have any issues with this haircut. Of course, I wouldn’t care if it was a real mohawk and dyed purple.
People spend their time worrying about the strangest things.
Please try to get it right. First, & second, she is not in grade one, nor is she six years old. Third, her friend was with her when her head was shaved. Fourth, She did get lots of “kudos”.
http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/vote-bald-is-beautiful
/www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-sher/about-the-student-suspended-for-shaving-her-head-to-support-her-friend-with-cancer_b_5036728.html
I live in the area, so I am fairly aware of what happened. I believe that the outcome would have been the same without all of the media hoopla. In the end, she is in school after missing ONE day. As I understand it, no discipline was recorded at the school against her or her family.
I am fairly sure that the OP about the military style haircut is very similar. No big deal that was blown out of proportion by a sensational media & a overzealous mom.
They are at best only superficially similar. Image search “High-and-Tight” and see how many images you get back with completely bald sides. Pursuant to Army Regulation 670-1, the kid’s clearly sporting a high-and-tight, and if it’s in the friggin Army Manual regulating and delineating personal appearance and grooming (page 16 of the PDF), it can hardly be classified as “extreme,” can it?
If “military style haircuts” aren’t banned, then why the principal’s suspiciously specific comment about “not being a military school?” By saying that, he’s specifically enforcing the “hair rules” against what he perceives to be an extreme “military-style” haircut.
Which it clearly, factually, is not.
Sure you can–and then you have to suffer the consequences. The flip side is that if you enforce rules that are unconstitutional, you also have to suffer the consequences. Same thing if you enforce really stupid rules. In this case, the principal is having to suffer the consequences of getting international negative attention for his dumbshit decision. He made his bed, he can hardly complain when it’s bedtime.
Perhaps I exaggerated when I said you can ignore unconstitutional rules. I should have said that it’s meet and proper to refuse to follow them.
I can’t understand why a kid with a completely shaved head is any less of a distraction at school then a High-and-Tight.
I thought the battles over school dress codes had ended in the 1960’s. There were practically no dress code rules at my school in the 1970’s. Other than revealing too much bare skin.
Its kind of sad to learn we’ve regressed into silly dressed code rules. The fascist state always seeks to stifle individuality and enforce group conformity.
On the constitutionality issue, I’ll cross post my post from a different thread:
Hairstyle regulations are actually pretty likely to be upheld, though as Left hand’s cite showed, not universally so. Maybe you could make an argument that your hairstyle was a political statement, but I think you’d have a hard time convincing some judges of that.
I am a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. I dont hate the military; I recognize that is a necessary evil. I don’t give a shit about this or any other kids hair (as long as its clean/doesn’t smell and is free of vermin.)
Please elaborate.