When Being Black Violates the Dress Code

    Braids are not offensive. There is nothing rational about banning braids from schools. A 6th year old black child was sent home from one Christian school in Florida for wearing braids.


    In a more recent episode, a sixth grade girl was sent home in tears because her Christian school said her braids violated policy. The case has gone to court.


    It is heart-breaking to watch the video. The school shamed the girl over nonsense. 

    Writer Shaun King shared the video in a tweet, writing: “Christ The King Middle School in Gretna, Louisiana expelled this beautiful young Black girl saying that her hair style was ‘unnatural.’ She was humiliated and removed from the school over it. Let’s be clear – this is Christianity as White Supremacy.”

    Braids may seem like an inconsequential thing, but in the larger scheme of things, it is part of shaming black bodies.


    All Christian schools and most other religious schools are TRIBAL, they exist to train children in the tribal religious cultural ways and not to appropriate culture from elsewhere.

    News at 11: Christian Schools have weird dress codes. Who knew? and when did they know it?

    However, the subject of the Louisiana case is the school's prohibition of *EXTENSIONS*, not her natural hair. why they care, I dunno - see sentence 1. But I think it's pretty clear that private schools can have their own dress codes without interference unless violates some particular guaranteed rights, whatever Shaun King says. Presumably they *might* bargain if a kid wore a wig because of chemo, though I saw something last week about a kid denied to wear a hat under same circumstances.

    Handbook: “Only the student’s natural hair is permitted. Extensions, wigs, hair pieces of any kind are not allowed.” 

    As public ridicule increases, these schools will change their nonsensical policies.

    These are private Christian schools - don't like it, send your kids to public.

    Breaking down barriers includes challenging private institutions. Black Mormons put pressure on on the Mormon Church to change doctrine. Black Catholics are under no obligation to comply with a hairstyle rule.

    Under no obligation to comply with rules? Are you crazy? You want rules of no n-word, no demeaning talk, equal access, etc, but then you're saying blacks don't have to follow any rules? Insane.

    Kids can be very competitive, can use clothes and hair as a battering ram, the ones who can afford thousands of dollars in fancy clothes, hair-dos, cosmetics, bags, etc use these to make other kids feel small and stupid. Perhaps this Christian school doesn't want the kids competing on $400 extensions but instead what they're learning - something that might hurt a poor black girl more than others. Mine got shut down for wearing too short pants the 1st day of school. Did I fight the school? Is it her "right" to be either too sexy or simply draw attention to herself when part of  the school's whole reason of existing is to set this tone, and my whole reason to have her there was a more controlled, less abusive environment? Or simply she picked the wrong time and should have realized the school'd be more strict first day. Anyway, what's with this "black person's always right, must define or break all the rules" attitude?

    PS - the school didn't have a problem with her outrageously dyed hair, but if so, we would have complied, or pushed back extremely carefully if somehow important to maintain her Rainbow People ethnicity. Okay, a joke, but should country boys be allowed to bring barn animals to school to uphold their traditions, should bathing once a week like on the farm be a cherished right? Cursing like in the fields? If not, why not? 

    It's his ridiculous title: When Being Black Violates the Dress Code. As if wearing braids equaled being black!!! He wants blacks to own braids. Bo Derek sent home from the black school as it were. Kicked out of prom for wearing a dress with a Chinese collar.

    Doesn't sink in with him how one can play a race card more than two different ways to Sunday. Could the school be racist? Of course, but you'll never know for sure, precisely because you want to own braids. And they don't want to admit braids are black. If you want to own a signifier that is actually a choice and not something you're born with,  don't cry if they use it against you.

    (Heck, I've got to admit some prejudice against full chador veiling with only eyes exposed. There was one of those in line with me at a clinic the other day, drove me nuts, wanted to yank it off her head so I could see her mouth when she spoke.)

    I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream

    The bottom line is that the hairstyle code will change just like the military hairstyle code changed. The schools are on the wrong side of history.  No need to scream.

    It's a Harlan Ellison story.

    I was thinking more along the lines of Frank McCourt Angela's Ashes as to the actual news story. Poor parent wants the best for his/her kid, tries, gets into the special school, still fails, because she's poor and can only do what he/she knows. Is embarrassed and humiliated. What he/she knows to do now after that, different from Frank's time, from seeing it in the news: make it into a racial fuss, that will get some attention. Wrong. Either you want in and for the kid to learn to play the game or you want out.

    then you're all for thanking Bo Derek for making cornrows more acceptable in the culture at large?!

    P.S. As a kid, it's always heartbreaking to be sent home from school for dress code when your parents dressed you. I'll never forget my mom getting into a fight with the nuns at school over sending me home because I was wearing a sleeveless dress that she dressed me in on a very hot day. I cried all night. She thought it absurd and wanted to fight it on principles of: how absurd to apply sexually-oriented rules to little children. Her arguing about it didn't help me much at all, I wanted to fit in and be accepted, she was basically using me as a pawn for her ideological beliefs.

    It's also quite heartbreaking to not have the same clothes as the cool kids. They can be merciless. The damage really doesn't heal well, you never fully get over it. For that reason, I am extremely sympathetic to the uniform thing for kids below high school age, as much as I am an individualist. It's because little kids don't often have choice, they don't often have agency or control.

    If she was in line with you at the clinic, why did you need to see her mouth when she spoke?  Was she talking to you?  And why, dear arta, did you write "one of those"?

    Everyone in line was trying to figure out whether they should be in the line and comparing each others appointment papers, including her (one could only guess the sex from the tone of voice).  "one of those" merely meant one of those persons wearing a full black chador with only thing uncovered is a small slit for eyes. Actually, I made no presumption why this person was dressed this way, could have been for a costume party later that day, it was on the lower east side, after all. It is something more common in NYC lately, maybe it's the new black, as opposed to the old skin tight black where you could guess the sex.

    P.S. Let it be said right here and now that I would have no prejudice about interacting with people wearing ski masks! With those you can see enough of their face to know wassup.

    Na uh.  No way do I trust a ski mask unless I'm at a ski resort or on a mountain in winter.  We're talkin' horror movie territory.

    Men don't wear the full face cover, because it's meant to hide a woman's face.  Are you referring to a burka?

    Image result for full burka

    Your picture is not an Afghan burka, that's a chador as in Saudi Arabia. And my interaction was with as depicted but hers was much looser around the face. Looks like the woman in your picture has used a separate scarf to cover the lower part of the face and also the top of the head, so that if she wanted to reveal her face it would be easy to do. You point up a difference that is actually interesting, as the woman I was interacting with really was wearing more like a burka, except all black, as it was much loser around her face so that even less of her eyes and no facial movement showed, all one piece, top to bottom, a tent. So to reveal the face one would have to take it off completely. And I am seeing this  one piece black thing more often in NYC area lately, at stores, pushing baby carriages on the street, and the like. Let me add that I am not sure they are all mideastern immigrants, because sometimes the men that accompany them do not seem to be mideastern immigrants, you overhear the couple talking while shopping and they do not always have accents.

    So no matter how you define it, or describe it, it is a religious expression that should be respected, no?

    Most of the women I encounter choose the less strict version - long dresses (which are usually lovely) with their heads covered.  Sometimes I meet someone in full burka, which is always black or very dark brown; the encounter is the same.  I have unfortunately observed others who are less than appreciative of their rights ... but generally I'm happy to see folks treated like folks by other folks. 

    eta: Yes, I often hear the difference in dialect, accent - or silence - as well.  Unfortunately, it's usually when the women wearing their burkas are with men of different backgrounds.

    Here's the only place I'd differ with you. Not just folks if just folks means socialization. Because the religious expression here is: I am cloistered from emotional interaction with the public. Automatically implied: if I happen to chose to enter into a transaction with non-cloistered, I get to see their face and emotions but they do not get to see mine. Full covering is quite different from hijab/modesty, it is an intentional cloistering message.

    Full covering is quite different from hijab/modesty, it is an intentional cloistering message.

    When you say it's intentional, you're saying that they choose to be covered.  They do, but for reasons that you and I may not agree with or even understand - but that they most certainly consider a part of how they present themselves in society.  Full burka (not just hijab) is most definitely different, but is no less a representation of religious dogma to be respected.

    Other than that one experience, have you talked to a fully covered woman?  If so, did you find her any different than anyone else?  And I'm curious that you considered that one instance as an intentional show of non-interaction, almost as though it discombobulated you.  Why?

    It discombobulated me because she was speaking from behind a curtain!

    Yes I have tried to chat in store lines. I have said hello on the street. And got: crickets. It is not the same as trying to chat with an ultra orthodox woman, there one only has the problem of standoffishness due to tribalism. Once again, unless being faked, this dress is there to signal to others in public: do not speak to me unless I speak to you, because I am live in seclusion from any society where males are present. I just don't agree with you, barefooted, woman who dress like this are in purdah.  You can only really chat with them in a private space where only females are present. I admit that I have never run into one in a women's rest room or dressing room or in the privacy of her home where she can show her face.

    The religious choice being made here is to interact with others outside of family as little as possible. Certainly is a human right just like it is for cloistered nuns: to be left alone within a small community. But make no mistake that that is what this signifies.

    BTW, am I the only person who goes out of his way to speak to blind people, just to say hello?

    Yes.  And you're really weird, so stop doing that.  You should only make a point of saying hello to deaf people - LOUDLY.  They appreciate it.

    Men don't wear the full face cover,

    actually not true any more and relates to your joke about face masks, in places like Syria and Afghanistan where there's terrorism men are wearing burkas to get past guards, and with hiding weapons and bombs and evading authorities, is increasingly common, they are having trouble figuring out what to do about that. It's not like you can put up a full TSA type screening equipment everywhere

    Men don't wear bukas.  Using them as face masks to hide terrorist activities is not - and can never be - considered the same thing.  Period.

    Chador as equivalent to scary murderous clown mask, something I'm more familiar with...

    Put me in the category of "anything goes except covering the face" (presuming it's their own choice) - I think of covering the face as inhuman, a kind of personal prison, aside from costume parties/mystery games. It's designed to separate, cut off from others. I can't imagine a good reason unless contagious or has something horrible that needs hiding.

    I can't imagine it, either, it would terrify me to always have my face covered.  But I don't believe these women have a choice, so I don't judge them for it.

    Could be, it all depends on how tribal they want to remain.

    There's also the issue that with private and charter schools, a lot of parents tend to like the uniform ethos, where all children are made to look alike when they are at school, so they don't get into thinking about and compete about appearance.

    That can include hairstyles. For example, a military academy might make all the boys get buzz cuts.

    My parents fought against getting uniforms at my parochial school, but a lot of parents wanted them. My parents liked the idea of individualism and thought dressing everyone alike was like Sovietism. I secretly wished they would be outvoted, because the girls with more money had nicer clothes, and I was ashamed of the discount store style clothes my mother made me wear. I would have been much happier and more confident if we all wore uniforms and the other girls couldn't judge me by my appearance.

    I know you know the truth about braiding these days, though. It is not the case that everyone is wearing the simple cornrows of childhood of days gone by. Women can spend a fortune on braiding, it can be competitive and include lots of beading and decoration.

    You are reading this rule as racist when you were arguing elsewhere that other races shouldn't have appropriated the style! Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Braided hair is either a race signifer or it's not.

    You can't know what this school is thinking with this rule, you can't really know whether they are being old-fashioned and judging braids as a signifier of blackness, like you do, or if they just want children to all wear plain unadorned hair, a dress code. Just like they might require that none of the girls wear jewelry or makeup and the boys have hair above their collar.

    And you yourself can't have it both ways. Either a hairstyle is a signifier of something like race or it can be appropriated and shared by all and then it's no longer a signfier of race or tribe. If you keep it as a signifier, then it's something that others can use against you if they don't like your tribe. Like men wearing hasidic hair curls, it means something to others: it means I am a Hasidic Jew. With most other people, you don't know their religion when you see them.

    The hairstyle rules have only impacted children of color like the sixth-grade girl sent home in tears.

    Chemicals to keep certain texture of black hair straight are also expensive, braiding can be done at home. The economic aspect is a non starter.

    you're arguing with them, not me.

    I'm trying to make you see something about your arguments here big picture, that your arguments elsewhere about appropriation and pro-tribalism are in conflict with your arguments here. From many other things you've said, you should be supporting the school's right to remain tribal., they get to have students wear the hairstyles that signify their culture. You can't have it both ways, tribalism one day and multi-culti diversity and acceptance the next day.

    Edit to add: The child would not be going home in tears if her hair was left natural and not braided. It's just that simple. They cannot discriminate against her skin color and natural hair texture because it is against the law. They can discriminate against hair styles, hair styles that you proudly support as having black cultural signification and which you think people of other skin colors shouldn't be appropriating.

    Tribes can challenge the behavior of other tribes to change behaviors. Blacks refused to ride segregated buses and boycotted businesses to effect change in whites.

    Edit to add:

    Im responding to the situation regarding a biased hairstyle rule. 

    We have had the argument you want to have many times already. 

    The hairstyle rules forces many to apply potentially harmful chemicals to the hair of their children. It also requires out of pocket expenses. The hairstyle rule is biased.

    Even the military relaxed its biased hairstyle rules.



    I recommend you follow 

    Remi Adekoya​ @RemiAdekoya1

    Journalist | Commentator | Current PhD Candidate in Political Science.

    on twitter. He's a Nigerian who lives in the UK, also happens to have a Polish mother. Very up and coming in an Obama sort of way. Has interesting stuff to say like this:

    The Catholic school that sent a sixth-grade black girl home for wearing braids has rescinded the policy regarding hairstyles.


    The Catholic school officials saw the crying black student who came to them for an education. Instead of educating, they humiliated her. The school changed its position. They listened and altered their hairstyle code.

    Thank goodness for Identity Politics. Pressure was placed on the school because the ruling on hairstyles only effected black children. Identity Politics resulted in a rational hairstyle code. The “ national creed “ argument said that it was OK for a sixth-grade girl to be sent home in tears. The “national creed” is a bogus argument. 

    You mean "thank goodness for internet shaming as a bully pulpit". Hope you stay on top.

    The hairstyle code was ridiculous. It only impacted black children. I truly don’t understand your argument.

    It impacted anyone wearing extensions. White girls wear extensions too, even some white dudes.

    The only student impacted at the school was black. 

    Absurd yet again. 5 out of 40 pages are about dress code - you can see the hair portion on page 18, which contains much more than the quoted bit on natural hair and extensions. Obviously she was not being singled out - they're anal about dress, hair, cosmetics, jewelry, etc, which is their right.


    They have a right to have their code. The code was successfully challenged. This is no different than the military being pulled into the modern era.

    Yes, because a young teen wearing hair extensions is one of the most pressing issues that blacks face, and allowing black students to wear hair extensions is one the most critical hurdles a small Catholic school in Louisiana faces on the road to modernity, and of course hair extensions are equivalent to integrating the military or allowing black children to study next to whites or gaining the right to vote, and while "successfully challenged" means a school of perhaps 100 people faces condemnation from global social media and threats of lawsuits it could ill afford, it's all good, they likely deserved it, being so backwards, and it's all about equality as well as making sure things are adjusted for those kids when equality isn't good enough.

    They sent a girl home in tears over nonsense. They realized their error. 

    The code would also require a child undergoing cancer treatment to attend school bald, despite the fact that that make make an individual child feel uncomfortable. 

    By sending the student home in tears, the school opened themselves up to ridicule and lawsuits.

    Edit to add:

    The school remains open for business.

    Whether it's nonsense or an error is a matter of opinion. I have to echo arta's comment above. Children go home from school in tears after being ridiculed by classmates over not having the "right" fashion and hair style. 

    I had a friend who was a very liberal highly educated single mother of three. We once discussed her wish that the public school her children attended required uniforms and a strict dress code. Like arta's parents I had an initial aversion to the idea of requiring children to dress in uniforms. She explained that she simply did not have the money to afford the up to date fashions and her children were mocked for their dress. She wanted to shop at thrift shops for clothing but it was a difficult to find clothing her kids would accept given the fashion standards their peers insisted on. 

    I had friends who attended the local  catholic school and they had to wear uniforms and adhere to a strict dress code and hair style. When styles began to change in the 60's and I began to let my hair grow long they had to keep it cut short. I still have problems with the idea of uniforms and strict dress codes for school children. It smacks of militarism to me. But in discussions with my friend I could see the other side of the issue. Dress codes are not automatically about racism.

    This school resolved the issue. Apparently, they are going to meet with the parents. 

    Did they resolve the issue? My friend would not have thought this was a good resolution given her desire for strict dress codes. She wanted the school to require uniform hair styles as well as dress. I can understand that dress codes can ignore the difficulties of students with very curly hair and that mostly affects black students but I fail to see how disallowing hair extensions is a racial issue.

    If people object to the decision. they have the right to publicly object.

    You bring up an issue for discussion than you refuse to discuss when someone posts ideas that differ from your own. Neither of your comments addressed anything I posted. That's your modus operandi. You're not interested in a dialog. All you want to do is lecture us.

    I think I’m on the receiving end of the lectures.

    No, you're on the receiving end of an attempt to discuss a subject you thought was important to bring up on this discussion site. What ever, I'll go back to ignoring you.


    Would you like cheese with that whine? If the purpose of your writing is to persuade, or to get amens, if I were you I would think about how you are scoring here and why. I am thinking maybe you just like victimhood in both style and content? It turns you on, gets your blood going?

    To be fair, I think the lecturing thing should be what the blog section is for. In your face honesty about any agendas you might have. And the right for everyone else to sermonize back and criticize and dislike what the writer is saying and how he/she thinks or give megadittoes.  I just didn't like it when he brings that to a news section thread where a bunch of us are trying to analyze what's really going on without having to get into moral judgments and righteousness and protest and call-and-response and such.

    Admitting a secret on that front: I think we are often too nice and complimentary to the masthead bloggers. The best way to improve as a writer if you are serious about it and/or about the issue you are writing about  is to read your critics.

      Oh crap, I cleaned out the wrong one while you were shortening.

      Sorry, AA - please redo your comment as best as u can, and next time i'll backup stuff before I remove dupes.

      Done and how so is VERY INTERESTING. Went back on my browser (Chrome) and both old versions were still there even though you had already deleted. Saves the previous version of Dag including comments

      Cool, then I can cull with abandon!

      Sometimes the masthead bloggers are so good I'm afraid to critique them. Like arguing literature with Dr Cleveland or history with Wolriach. I'm not ignorant but they so clearly know so much more about those subjects than I that I'm afraid I'll look like a fool. The praise isn't sucking up. They are very good writers.

      I don't care what position a person takes on an issue. But if they're going to bring up a subject they should be willing to address the differing points of view others post on that subject.

      Admitting a secret on that front: I think we are often too nice and complimentary to the masthead bloggers. The best way to improve as a writer if you are serious about it and/or about the issue you are writing about  is to read your critics.

      Well, there's that.  And absolutely, positively that.  Did I mention THAT?

      It boils down to Michael Wolraich and Peracles (whose name most of us don't know, especially those of us who remember Cafe days and other personas) when we consider who the "bosses" are.  Doc Cleveland is real-world busy, Maiello and Cardwell are bloggers.  I'm not sure where Ramona is, though she has other fishes to fry, so I'm hoping she's happily doing just that.

      Desider(o). Just sayin'. If you don't know me, your heat protection was better than imagined. Next life I'll be El Cid.

      Oh, Desider(o),

      Nice kinda orange, but nuclear isn't really my thing.

      Chances are that I've come to know the mushroom cloud better than either of us expected - but my original point wasn't about that.

      I like to think of it as "mushroom picking" in an Oppenheimer/ econometrics/ vote rigging kind of way (choosing winners & losers), and indeed "orange is the new orange" as we try to hold our nuclear family together without succumbing to fission or meltdown.
      Sorry, what *was* the original point?

      Yes, people who are not involved in the school, don't live in Louisiana, don't pay for the school nor take care of the children - they have the right to object. And since there are several billion on the internet now, the school will likely be forced to accede to the rabble's opinion, whether it helps prepare kids for the future or works against it.

      William Burroughs used to talk about the "Right Virus Fuckers who always had to be right". In his curious optimism, they could be drowned or dragged through the street to put them out of *our* misery, but the opposite has happened - they're more emboldened.

      rm, you're letting yourself down.  It's your thread!  You started the whole thing because you felt strongly enough about the subject to speak up and say so - good on ya!  Yet you don't seem to want to defend your point, which makes it seem as though you have no point to defend.  And if that's true - if you've been persuaded to change your mind - then say so.  Don't just fade away.

      I have made my point. Braids are not filthy or sacrilegious. Many girls have to use chemicals to meet the hairstyle code. I can’t make you care about that issue. Braids are easier to maintain then the chemicals. 

      When we enter into discussions about simple things like hairstyles, no one sees a reason to reset the standard. Everything is fine as it is. When we discuss identity politics, it is labeled as a bad thing. The same happens with cultural appropriation. Even when discussing the word nigger, nothing needs to change. Whites should be free to use the word. When Hillary lost, one of the first argument was to blame identity politics. Democrats should focus on white voters. The arguments that I see propose that absolutely nothing needs to change. Blacks are simply overreacting.

      Identity politics got black voters out to the polls. It got multiple DAs voted out of office. It got the school to rescind a ridiculous hairstyle rule. I don’t see the “national creed” side offering anything of value. We were even arguing about white actors being able to portray Asians.

      I make my points. I don’t expect to change your minds. 

      The school said *natural* hair, not extensions, not colired, no wigs, etc. They say things like "hair is not to be over the eyebrows".

      The school is preK to 7th.

      The school lays all this out in a 40-page document with obvious headings that's required for parents to read (skim)

      If the parents have an issue, they can bring it up before Sally goes to school.

      Or they can bring it up on social media and try to make it seem this was concocted to be racist against 1 girl.


      Hair extensions are like fancy manicures with false nails except they are far more time consuming, and also far more expensive if professionally done. I can't ever imagine parochial schools allowing either. Mother Teresa should be your favorite model. Vanity is sin. Ashes to ashes. angel

      Edit to add: some girls can naturally grow nice nails and will make all the other girls who can't feel like shit. This will all play out on the playground despite what teacher is trying to teach you about Mother Teresa and vanity.

      Even dermatology might be suspect, you shouldn't really care about acne if it isn't life threatening.

      The argument is that the extensions are better than harmful straightening chemicals

      Sister wouldn't want you to use those either. Vanity is sin, you shouldn't care about what you look like. Just be clean and tidy and ready to learn.

      Sister Mary Elephant?

      That is not the message sent by the school if they require chemicals to fit the code.

      A judge resolved the issue, the state, not the community, not the school. I'm sure everyone respected the private school's founders' religious beliefs and customs. Of course they did.


      The dress code of LeBron James' I Promise school is interesting, it is not actual uniforms but  "uniform style" clothing. So that takes some of the militarization thing out of it while still getting across that "this is no place for you to play fashion games, you leave that behind here as this is serious business."

      Interesting too that the Obama's came out in strong support. Because that's getting into the whole "competing with public schools" thing of charter schools with is still quite controversial with the pro-teachers union crowd. (I think it does help to have a  role model sports figure supporting it-for a bad reason-they have more clout with the public at large, when in an ideal world they shouldn't have.)

      A bit of background on Terrytown and CTK school, as long as people around the world are going to pass judgment.

      Terrytown is an unincorporated township in New Orleans of 23,000: 1/3 black, 1/3 white, 1/4 hispanic, and the rest Asian, Pacific, etc. 20% of the households are single mothers, 1/4 of kids are under the poverty line. Median household income is $34k.

      Terrytown butts up against Algiers, notorious for high crime and poverty, inluding half the murders committed by teens, in parts over 50% of kids live in poverty. 

      CTK is a private Catholic school with 300 kids in PreK to 7th grade, 30 teachers, charging $5000 full-time, and $2000 for half-time/daycare, along with available scholarships for those in need. School population is 60% white, 10% black, 15% Asian...

      Besides a normal Catholic focus, I assume the school is concerned with surrounding crime, poverty and poor social conditions, especially among its students that might adversely affect their studies and success. As noted, 5 of 40 pages of the school code deal with dress & appearance of some sort, while many others deal with various behavior.

      This is a long way of saying I suspect the school and its administration have much bigger concerns than approving hair extensions, and I'd suggest the black community *there* does too, whatever the media and kneejerk advocates that drive the outrage might say. Yeah, the global community can make a fuss and force its will on a small school in the south with a total budget of around $1 million, a school providing a needed social function and trying to push forward good ethics and a good example.

      But the international community agrees that hair extensions should rise in priority, as well as shaming the school so it knows that any of its future actions will be in the mocking public eye - because it's southern, religious, and now presumed racist. Any decisions will now have an eye towards satisfying global opinion at the expense of their religious/ethical/pedagogic/social beliefs. The same global opinion will do little to improve the situation in Algiers, cause that's a larger situation of 50,000 people they can't bully, whereas a small school? Easy target.

      Is this from Breitbart?

      It seems over the top.

      It's *ALL* over the top. Dumbfucks who can't mind their own business all over the world are telling a private non-profit church-school-charity down in the poverty, crime-ridden South what it can do. Not something important, but hairstyles.

      People are idiots, we've established that quite well - do we need to give them more control of things they don't understand?

      Free speech allows people to have opinions about things happening elsewhere in the United States. 

      The fact that crime exists does not take away their ability to have an opinion 

      The school did not close because of the controversy 

      just came across a little proof that serious people do care about the serious stuff and figuring out solutions rather than playing culture wars:

      The largest grocery here started paying checkout/stocking jobs significantly more - suddenly you have all these youngdudes at the register rather than old ladies, not just in the city, but towns and villages, other chains struggling to compete... never seen these economic indicaters in display so quick and widespread.

      There was a celebration of black hair textures at New York Fashion Week


      Some stylists suggest that white fashion designers and houses are actually catching up with styles that are  worn by black women


      Let's break down this post.

      Braids are not offensive.

      The school did not claim such, though "box braids" (often synthetic hair) and extensions are not the same as natural "braids", so some confusion in intermingling the 2 terms.

      There is nothing rational about banning braids from schools

      That is personal opinion posing as fact. Schools have set different levels of dress codes for centuries - for reasons of discipline & controlling order, preventing jealousy or competition, to keep differences in wealth out of the classroom, etc.

      Can a private Catholic school ban hoods, knives, gang colors, face-covering burqas, hooped earrings, lewd tatoos, nose & lip piercings, pink hair, racist/sexist t-shirts, "excessive" makeup, ritual cuttings, jewelry, overly fancy designer clothes, mohawks...?  Can it require a traditional plaid Catholic School uniform, but still have to allow these other things?

      A 6th year old black child was sent home from one Christian school in Florida for wearing braids.  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/school-zone/os-private-school-boys-hair-20180814-story.html

      no, he specifically was rejected for having long hair instead of hair above the ears- here he is, hair in his face and touching his shoulders & backback straps. There is absolutely nothing wrong with his hair *in a school that allows it*, but a private school *should* be able to define its own codes within reason, excluding deliberate bias. Certainly I was not allowed to have hair this long in my private school, but somehow my final year they became less strict or they just got tired of dealing with me.

      (I'll also point out here that there are other photos that look slightly neater, but teachers are also making judgments based on a normal day/normal appearance, say by 6th period and not arriving fresh at school in the morning).

      Here's the boy in previous years, when he no doubt would spur less controversy - specifically because his hair meets the school's dress code which states:

      • Girls should have uniform skirt, button down embroidered shirt, cross tie, with black shoes and socks. Girls may wear post earrings – No hoops or other jewelry. Hair should be neat with no unnatural color.

      • Boys should have dark blue pants and an embroidered uniform shirt and navy tie, black shoes and navy socks. All boys hair must be a tapered cut, off the collar and ears. There are to be no dreads, Mohawks, designs, unnatural color, or unnatural designs. No combs or net caps.

      What else?

      C.J. wore the dreads through kindergarten, and was still in love with them in the summer, when Stanley and his wife decided to switch him to a smaller, more hands-on school.

      So they got a scholarship through a state program to help with the tuition, and enrolled him in Book Christian: 48 students, about half a dozen teachers — counting the piano teacher and Sue Book.

      So they got a scholarship to afford a better school with lower 8:1 teacher:student ratio. But dreads were more important. That's their choice. Not one I would make, but that's what freedom's supposed to be about. The father made it clear that even if his kid could have put his hair up, they wouldn't have compromised with dreds.

      In a more recent episode, a sixth grade girl was sent home in tears because her Christian school said her braids violated policy.

      No, her braids (synthetic "box braids") violated policy, period, no question. This policy had been updated, with copies sent out earlier in the summer and available the first day of the year. With *5 pages* of dress code restrictions, it's obvious that parents should review this, and in fact the family *did* review it, and the school rejected it, and so they supposedly spent "a lot of money" in changing her hair style to comply, though it seems strange that they didn't confirm this with the school before "spending a lot of money".

      However, the "tears" were a nice touch, with Shaun King getting in the middle as usual.

      The case has gone to court.  https://people.com/human-interest/faith-fennidy-hair-removed-catholic-school/

      Lovely - just what a small, poor community & faith-focused school needs is a lawsuit.

      It is heart-breaking to watch the video. The school shamed the girl over nonsense. 

      Actually the video is rather bizarre, all at an angle, with spastic closeups of the girl's blouse (with blue stains) and her leaving the house with an untied shoe. If the video's designed to make you seasick, it comes close.

      Writer Shaun King shared the video in a tweet, writing: “Christ The King Middle School in Gretna, Louisiana expelled this beautiful young Black girl saying that her hair style was ‘unnatural.’

      Uh, obviously synthetic hair is "unnatural" in any normal sense of the word. This has nothing to do with or against "beauty" and everything to do with a Christian school's approach (choice?) to discipline & uniformity.

      She was humiliated and removed from the school over it. Let’s be clear – this is Christianity as White Supremacy.”

      Let's be clear - this is not clear. Even the newspaper op-ed describes her hair as "short, neat braids" when those artificial extensions still go down to her back & aren't particularly "neat" as you might describe cornrows or beaded dreads/braids or other styles. (the dress code also prohibits lines in the hair, et al - whether this is racist or how white boys also do their hair - I think I saw Bieber with this - is another post/outrage).


      Braids may seem like an inconsequential thing, but in the larger scheme of things, it is part of shaming black bodies.

      Because as we all know, braids as a common hairstyle among blacks in the US go back to the 1970s, so must be part of their cultural identity?

      Or that by not allowing an artificial extension of women's hair, we're shaming their *natural* hair? My laptop called - says that doesn't compute.

      In any case, *THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH MAKING THAT CASE", though like with Serena, not on the playing field/first day, but intelligently in advance with communication.

      In any case, a legal body has blocked enforcement, the lawsuit has been withdrawn, and it seems the girl is going to another school, presumably one that fits those worried about their particular hairstyle (vs say an education?).

      Meanwhile, meet Raenell Houston, the superintendent of Catholic Schools for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, appointed Feb 2017. I'm sure she appreciates the accusations of "White Supremacy" lobbed at her.


      The school is set to have a discussion with the parents today. The SC Hook rescinded their rule regarding braids.

      The school remains open. There is nothing in the Bible that says braids are not allowed. The school made an arbitrary decision. Arbitrary decisions can be reversed as happened in this case.

      FFS, there's nothing in the Bible about jeans, miniskirts, piercings, tattoos or hair down to your ass either. Is it possible for you to discuss this issue sanely with real relevant facts?


      Edit to add:

      It was in response to your post 9/11/18 at 830P

      I'm sure everyone respected the private school's founders' religious beliefs and customs. Of course they did.


      Well, their personal feelings for setting up their school got trampled on through a ham-fisted "racist" social media smear. I don't think your sarcasm works. It's global social media micro-managing. If they set up their private school thinking the best times for wakefulness are 6am to 1pm, the internet blows up & decides they need to do 8:30 to 3:30. If they want to offer psychology as a core subject, the internet decides they need to offer more physics instead. If a school wants to have students stand more during the day, the internet will decide they need traditional desks. How is this freedom? Is conforming the world to black hairstyles really the ramparts we need to lay our lives down on? In 2018, we need fewer options of diverse lifestyle, a bizarre modern analog of Henry Ford's " you can have any color of car you want as long as it's black"?

      The world is intact. The only change was in an arbitrary hairstyle code at one school. The military made a hairstyle change and still functions. 

      The top health official in Michigan will stand trial for issues in Flint


      Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” debuted in Flint on Monday


      The fight continues.

      This was a good exercise, helpful for me to see the game play going on here. Saying so because I don't want you to think you wasted your time on one track minds. I now see a little girl and a small community being made a pawn of a political opportunist with bigger goals in mind. I think Shaun King might benefit from a long talk with wiser older minds, like with Al Sharpton about mistakes made in the 80's.

      Yeah, Shaun King's been a funny cat since the start of BLM,
      kind of trying to brand himself as much as anything,
      taking things out of context, etc.

      The lawsuit against the school has been dropped. The school changed its policy on hairstyles. Two girls who were sent home because of braids are allowed to return to school. The school is intact. The Bible is intact. Life goes on. Cool heads prevailed.



      The Bible was never threatened. The private school's ability to deliver education as it sees fit is. Congratulations, you've just affirmed Donald Trump's strategy of smear people in social media and threaten lawsuits they can't afford to get your way. The only big question for me is whether black students will receive the right to wear earbuds with hip-hop as part of their essential ethnic identity. Anything less would be racist.

      Times change. The argument is that braids are a better alternative than chemicals. The school adapted.The superintendent may switch to braids.

      So you're participating in an international flame-shame fest because you suddenly discovered the dangers of hair chemicals? do you know how insane that sounds?

      The worst thing is for an issue so trivial, rather than discussing with school personnel privately and professionally (as I have dozens of time), Shaun King pushed an over-the-top Jesse Jackson-style full-court press. So rather than the kids being accepted as just normal kids with a particular point that needed to make, they're part of some big PC play that tells everyone "give blacks everything they want or they'll call you racist and you'll be sorry". Great way to fit in.

      And you're still dodging the big issue of personal freedom, that groups should be able form schools and other institutions and run them according to their ethics and worldviews as long as they don't trample on basic rights. Hobby Lobby vs abortion? hardly a basic right for religious employers to lord their *birth control* views over employees. But you're stuck in the weeds of "oh, hair products contain chemicals".

      Miss Michigan came out the other day and kicked everyone in the gut, pointing out Flint & the rest of the state didn't have clean water. *THAT'S* a chemical issue - lead in your drinking water. This other mucking about is just infuriating - you're simply not serious. I guess I should just not give a shit - you're a waste of time.

      You are the one obsessing over this issue. The school made a decision. 

      I’m waiting for the Superintendent to rock the extensions. 

      I'm obsessing because you talk about rights and racism 24x7, yet you can't parse an ironical bullshit trampling of rights. It's so fucking ironic, because often black organizations need the space and privacy to tailor things to what their community needs. And then a Catholic school - not black, not white, but mixed - tries to do things in an ethical and equitable and sober fashion, and you're happy to get all in their face to tell them how to do things. I think it sucks. I'm not Christian, but I'm fine with them figuring it out themselves.

      And it's even more ironic that they gave financial aid to the 1 family to afford this school for a better education. Seems compromise is way the fuck out of fashion - my way or the highway.

      - my way or the highway

      C’mon. That is what you consistently argue. You dismiss cultural appropriation, etc. because you don’t agree. The public gets a vote on issues and you don’t like the results. Welcome to the club. You want things your way, everyone else be damned.

      Edit to add:

      I stated that the school was on the wrong side of history and thought that they would eventually change the code. The code changed faster than I thought. It is possible that the workplace will become more friendly to braids and extensions. That change will happen more because of a change in the military code than actions taken by this school. I do not see this as an earth-shattering event. The school made a minor change and allowed two students back in class. 

      I noted they're 2 miles from Algiers. You don't care that they might be stuck with a kid too young, that they'll get caught up in drugs, that they'll be in gang violence, that they'll miss out on a real education. You care about their fucking braids. You're a poser, a waste of space. Enough with your bullshit posturing.


      You have lost it. 

      Crime in Algiers has NOTHING to do.with the school hairstyle code.


      Maybe, maybe not. When you start to worry about bad influences in black communities, call me. As long as you fuck around with non-serious issues, you're a waste of space. Why do you think blacks have 1/20th the savings of whites? A steady aggregation of bad decisions and bad e environmental factors. I take this serious. You'd rather gloat over Serena acting like a bad girl or argue about who invented braids. Seriously, grow up.

      Like I said, you have completely lost it. Have a nice day.

      Like I said, you've dug into hairstyles at the expense of important issues. Have a contemplative day.

      Nothing to contemplate.I have argued about negative aspects of hardcore rap and the dangers of calling each other niggers. The response was essentially, white people ought to be able to use the word nigger and that music is music. 

      On to other things

      Yes, you've assessed everything on your own terms w/o contemplating or learning anything. Like one foot nailed to the floor, going in circles. And yeah, the n-word is one heap of irrelevancy - a lot of serious shit going on w much bigger consequences.

      I don't think that was the response here. It's certainly not what I said in any discussions of rap and the use of the word nigger. I don't hold that opinion and I doubt any one else here believes that. Your problem is you don't read and consider the arguments that people make here that disagree with you. You come here arguing against some strawman you've made up in your head and nothing anyone posts moves you away from the argument you're having with your strawman.

      Agree 100% on two points you make with exceptional clarity here, ocean-kat

      Your problem is you don't read

      You come here arguing against some strawman you've made up in your head and nothing anyone posts moves you away from the argument you're having with your strawman.

      p.s. And that's why one is drawn to use the terms preaching or lecturing, because that's a tool used by preachers and lecturers. It's not discussion, it's a sermon and preacher knows best and the audience is there to listen and say amen.

      And you have no problem with PP,s responses?

      Kids giving up a scholarship so they can wear long dreads or box braids? Trying a private Catholic school's dress code by opinion of international social media? Whether school rules affect discipline and teaching effectiveness? Whether you can get what you need out of small schools by reading the rules and negotiating with them privately, seriously rather than kicking in lawsuits to bully them? So much to disagree with me on.

      Don't get me wrong , my cousin did a Title IX suit against a university that had no electric outlets in the women's lockers, other issues to challenge...

      You are amusing. The girls are allowed to enroll. Who gave up a scholarship? You are still having a meltdown.

      The girls got to party at some fancy LA event, so I guess all's ok - how ya gonna keep em down in the swamp once they've seen gay Hollywood.

      Meanwhile the 300-student Catholic school in NOLA will continue its business of giving kids in a tough environment a good education and trying to instill modesty in an immodest world.


      The girls are back at the school.You are not making sense.

      You know that for sure? The reports I saw said they didn't know. I figured someone paid to move them to a school more attuned to celebrity fashion status.
      But if not, when they don't do their homework will Shaun King lead another internet charge to black-splain their situation?
      & will the white kids get to wear their Geezer t-shirts & Justin Bieber hats now?
      Will the archdiocese carefully scan which Bible passages are read to make sure any King James mentions of slavery fit 2018 standards?
      Big Brother's watching, but relax & have a great school year!
      Ever think about how Trump gains traction in backwaters areas? here's a good case study.
      ETA - girls went to NY for the BET party, not LA. My bad. Don't think any teachers got to go.

      That is the chemical product market that many black girls have to use to comply with the hairstyle code.

      Bullshit. More victimology. Most sales because "girls just wanna have fun" as the saying goes.

      Your article is about the chemical hair industry. 

      You have completely gone off the rails.

      Yes, and your first assumption is to blame it on mean old bosses or schools forcing poor black women & girls to use these products, rather than simply "these are the popular hair trends". You're able to create a victim every which way you spin.

      Your first assumption is that societal pressure has no impact. The appears to be a trend of more black women going with their natural hair. 


      There are products directed at care of natural hair.


      The current black hair care market innthe US in 2.5 billion.

      Edit to add 

      Commentary from first article


      Blodgett even shared her journey on social media.

      “A lot of the times we’ve been told straight is beautiful. You see that on all the publications, you see that in the media.”

      Oh, so the girls could have gone with natural hair products & been better off?
      So the school didn't really have to change their dress code for them?
      Thanks for splainin - takes a few trips to the wheel to get it right.

      The school allows braids.

      Natural braids at the allowed length. Not artificial Box Braids, etc. Is this really so tough?

      The school amended the rule

      The Catholic Church felt that dealing with the scandal of predator priests was more important than braids.

      Edit to add:

      Bob Jones University now allows interracial dating

       Blacks can be full fledged Mormons

      Rules change


      - "Rules change"
      - "Shit happens"
      - "I made him an offer he couldn't refuse"
      -  "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
      - "Their time had come"
      - " As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers"
      - "I let him go"

      Yes the school changed the hairstyle code.

      The school changed the hairstyle code after international social media attention and a lawsuit that escalated from state to federal level. So undoubtedly the school decided the lawyer costs and bad publicity were not worth it, and quickly gave in. Your phrasing might imply there was some meeting of minds or agreement, yet with a gun against their head and money they could ill-afford, I'm sure the damage-control decision was just to shut it down as fast as possible, however it interfered with their traditional dress code.

      So now that the girls have been treated to a weekend of vanity in New York, they can come back to their school (if they really are still attending) and feel all proud of their braids and how they fought the man - rather counter to the humble non-boastful, non-physically proud attitude the school was hoping for.

       ....You're able to create a victim every which way you spin. by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/13/2018 - 9:21am​

      Victimhood uber alles, that's the plan. For eternity, hopefully. It's scary with the white masters disappearing, got to make sure someone replaces them.

      This whole thread has been a waste of time arguing about victimhood views that are deluded because they are no longer the norm from a member who is into glorifying the glamour of old timey protest movements.

      All one has to do to know that is to follow former first lady's Twitter feed and see how she has turned that whole thing around to a movement of self-empowerment for black women and morever, black students, that has become her passion and she continues major work on it.

      Get with the program rmrd, stop being so negative and so glass half full, see that the times they are a changing, promote the positive, not politics of resentment and tribal animosity. Quit being a racist yourself if you want others to:

      As you start this new school year, I want you to strive to work harder than ever before, challenge yourself to reach new heights, and seek opportunities that will help you grow. I believe in you! #BetterMakeRoom https://t.co/vMPZ3qBoP5

      — Michelle Obama (@MichelleObama) August 28, 2018

      You have to let go of the 60's and the Underground Railroad, they ain't coming back and you aren't going to get your chance to participate in them, sorry. Plus what looks glamorous and heroic in the history books actually it wasn't that much fun. We're well into the 21st century and time to move on to new paradigms. Like Obama advised, stop feeding the old dying Trump trolls clinging to their guns and bibles.

      The school changed its policy. It is 2018.

      Let me know when Michelle Obama starts protesting that it's unfair  that she is forced by whitey's cultural norms  to straighten her hair

      I’ll let you know but it has nothing to do with the school hairstyle code.

      Maybe she’ll address it in the book that’s coming out in November 


      Latest Comments