Trackbacks & Pings

1. News for July 28 - Xenia Institute on 28 Jul 2008 at 10:15 am

   […] Denied Kindergarten for Being Native? | Racialicious Five year old Adriel Arocha is being blocked from attending school in a Houston-area school district. The reason? As an Apache, he has long hair that he has been growing in his Native cultural tradition that “violates” this school’s dress code rules. The kicker though is that the school board is willing to make exceptions on religious or other “proven” moral grounds, but doesn’t think that being Native American cuts it. […]

Comments

1. PerceptiveReality wrote:

   WHITE AMERICA!!! Need I say more. It’s a shame that we as a people in a “free” country still have to go through this, but as long as the power remains in the hands of the “privledged” we will have to go through this and much much more. What a sad sad time.

   Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 8:04 am ¶

2. Mikey wrote:

   Even beyond the flagrant racism of this, how does a superintendent decide that *this* is worth making a big deal over? Today, it’s a 5-year-old with long hair, tomorrow, they’ll replace math with Pokemon?

   I guess “flagrant racism” is probably the answer to that question.

   Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 8:06 am ¶

3. Ansel wrote:

   This is appalling. Somehow I’m not as surprised considering this is in a suburb of Houston.

   Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 8:07 am ¶

4. Renee wrote:

   One of the first things that occurred in Canada’s horrible school system was the forced cutting of the hair. It was an attempt to destroy native culture and cut ties to their belief system. I am not surprised to see that this is still occurring today. Many feel that it is appropriate to mock native culture for sports (see mascots, tomahawk chop) but when it comes to validating it as authentic suddenly it is not appropriate. This is enforcing whiteness as good and normal and was wrong in the past and is wrong today.

   Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 8:10 am ¶

5. Alexandra wrote:

   Ugh this is disgusting. I swear people of color’s hair has been one of the biggest battlefields. The wording of parts the actual dress code is even worse. “Hair shall not be excessively full (not to exceed two inches in fullness).” What does that even mean? Does a child with thick hair have to cut it? WTH

   Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 8:19 am ¶

6. Amanda wrote:

   I can’t help but feeling that the country moves back in race relations every day when I see a story like this.

   Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 8:21 am ¶

7. gatamala wrote:

   I saw this on tv a couple of weeks ago and literally yelled BULLSHIT to the screen. I will assume that there are no Sikhs in that school district.

   A DNA sample of his blood. I can’t say anything constructive about this, other than moving the goal posts is the 21st century method of waging our continuing war against indigenous folks.

   It’s a good thing Samson the nazirite wasn’t in Texas, cause he’d be denied entrance to school too.

   Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 8:24 am ¶

8. Lauren wrote:

   What’s interesting is that while much of this story is about delegitimizing the Native culture, the catalyst was an instance of gender policing.

   Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 8:39 am ¶

9. Abu Sinan wrote:

   Maybe the superintendent wants to send him off to an “Indian School” to be “normalised”.

   Someone clue this idiot as to what decade we are in.

   Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 8:43 am ¶

10. Lyonside wrote:

    Shorter Houston School Board: If it’s not our religion or culture, it doesn’t exist. God help the Sikh kid with long hair under a turban. Or the next Hindu boy or girl with a shaved head because a family member died (my hunch is that a bald head, esp. on a girl, would be ironically viewed as a violation).

    I wonder how much of the board’s hostility is rooted in the kid’s mixed appearance? The whole ignorant idea of “He doesn’t LOOK Indian.” Or to the idea that from a Western-European/white American perspective, braids and esp. double braids are “for girls”?

    I didn’t see the video, but I read the linked story - seems a bit disingenuous, as the report said that hair cannot be in tufts or tails for any “STUDENT.” Um, even girls? Does every girl in this district wear a pixie cut? Yeah, right…

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 8:52 am ¶

11. dave wrote:

    @lauren: spot on observation. this is a really good example of the intersection of gendered and ethnic oppression/bigotry/whathaveyou.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 9:26 am ¶

12. Caro wrote:

    That’s ridiculous… Lauren, you make a good point that it’s a dual instance of gender policing and cultural insensitivity.

    It reminds me of when I was in elementary school and we had a couple of Sikh boys in our class who wore turbans. My school was very strict on no one wearing hats in the building, and I remember a few kids wondering and complaining openly about why those boys got to wear something on their head when no one else did. I remember at one point one of the Sikh boy’s dads came in to explain to the class about the fact that having long hair and wearing it in a turban was their religion and was different than just a hat. While it it sad/telling that the minority individuals had to be the ones to explain themselves, I’m glad that my school tried to turn it into a teaching moment rather than doing something like what happened in this story.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 9:35 am ¶

13. Taryne wrote:

    This story also make s me wonder if the superintendent/school board is working within the fallacy that native cultures are “over”, that these folks with long hair are romantics or attention seekers. I have heard such arguments leveled before about indigenous cultures or lesser understood cultural groups like Romani (Gypsies).

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 10:04 am ¶

14. Dorian wrote:

    Why is it that some of the stupidest things originate from school officials? So much for this thing called education….

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 10:29 am ¶

15. Joe wrote:

    [Mod Note - Sorry, I think you might be lost. See, last I read, you were heading back to the New Yorker site, with a cute little note to us “whiners.” Keep it moving. - LDP]

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 10:32 am ¶

16. Lyonside wrote:

    >Why is it that some of the stupidest things originate from school officials?

    Because so many are years removed from the classroom or never even WERE in the classroom to begin with. Incidently, that’s the same problem I have with the Catholic Church heirarchy - the men at the top are hand-picked at the start of their careers, and rarely/never (at least in the US) get to experience the realities on the ground.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 10:40 am ¶

17. Lyonside wrote:

    Sorry - did not mean to derail - but my point is, hierarchies are hierarchies - and too many people buy into their own press and think, “I’m high up, I must know better, my work here is done.”

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 10:41 am ¶

18. Joseph wrote:

    “[Mod Note - Sorry, I think you might be lost. See, last I read, you were heading back to the New Yorker site, with a cute little note to us “whiners.” Keep it moving. - LDP]”

    Oh, SNAP.

    Latoya is back all.

    Good. Not a moment too soon.

    (Food poisoning? Uch. Most–physical–pain I was ever in, I wanted to die. I’m glad you are through it. Now for God’s sake, take care of yourself: this place goes to pieces without you…)

    signed,
    Still-Not-”Joe” AKA
    Vanessa L. Williams

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 11:33 am ¶

19. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Vanessa/Joseph -

    Thanks.

    (And yes, it felt exactly like that. Though now I do have a very funny story about trying to get your hair/nails/face done while deathly dehydrated. Maybe I’ll tell it in the editrix letter.)

    /derail

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 11:38 am ¶

20. Joseph wrote:

    Oop. I apologize for the derail all: I meant to post that message to Latoya in the “Letter to the Editrix” thread…

    To avoid a further derail I want to say re: “gender policing” @Lauren (#8)–I echo Dave, this is a great observation. I’d been thinking something similar in reading through the “What Can I Do” thread because a question came up about the way boys and girls of color experience racial and ethnic self-hatred differently. It occurred to me that for boys (at least in my experience) ethnic/racial self-hatred can get tied up with a lot of “masculinity” baggage. Boys of color are often told their ethnic features or cultural/religious customs make them somehow feminine–since 1) “feminine” is the default umbrella for all sorts of foreignness and 2) normative, “white” masculinity is a narrow behavioral ideal that requires rigid policing to enforce.

    When I was a kid I hated my full lips, long eyelashes and curly hair before I developed any sense of them being Arab ethnic characteristics because I thought they made me look like a girl. And I thought that because that is what people told me. As an adult I know that the androgynous beauty of little Arab boys was the focus of a lot of colonial violence and abuse, but as a kid I just wanted to fit in, and I knew enough to know that the further away you were from being a girl, the better.

    Boys of color get a masculinity message from both directions–white, “normative” culture that fears and desires them AND whatever flavor “macho” comes with their home culture. It can be a tough thing to navigate these sometimes conflicting messages and develop a healthy self-image. I believe that the misogyny of many MoC can be traced to this original tension: a coded, racist message to not look/act/be like a “girl.”

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 12:26 pm ¶

21. Persia wrote:

    What’s interesting is that while much of this story is about delegitimizing the Native culture, the catalyst was an instance of gender policing.

    Intersectionality is not just a cheap buzzword.

    I would guess the ‘fullness’ line is a way to ban Afros.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 12:38 pm ¶

22. Anna wrote:

    Look like the decision has been made - http://www.click2houston.com/news/16908324/detail.html

    The Needville School Board held a public hearing on whether to allow Adriel to keep his long hair despite their dress code rules that specify boys cannot have hair below the collar.

    Adriel’s father said his hair is part of their Native American heritage.

    “It’s our ancestry. It shows where we came from; it’s wisdom and strength,” said Kenney Arocha.

    Members of the community spoke out to uphold the rules.

    “I’m just afraid if the district gives in, other problems will occur in the future,” said Shelly Sullivan, a former Needville student.

    The superintendent said he had already denied any changes, but on different grounds.

    “The child is not enrolled, not a student,” said Superintendent Curtis Rhodes.

    Ultimately, the board decided their rules would not change.

    A public hearing. Over hair. On a five year old.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 12:50 pm ¶

23. Anna wrote:

    Oh, even better. Said five year old is “refusing to follow the rules of the school” - http://groups.msn.com/marsvsvenus/lifephilosophy.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=60758

    Since the meeting, Arocha and Betenbaugh have been preparing to fight Rhodes and the school district. The family contacted the American Indian Movement, which has offered to speak to district officials. They also contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, which is deciding whether to take the case.

    The superintendent has suggested a possible solution would be to put Adriel in a classroom apart from other students with his own teacher. The district has an alternative disciplinary school, but Adriel is too young to be assigned to that.

    “In my 20 years in education, I’ve never had a kindergartner refuse to follow the rules of the school district,” Rhodes says. “So this is uncharted territory for us, too.”

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 1:02 pm ¶

24. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Anna -

    Thanks for the follow up - this school district is some bullshit. I am about to head into an afternoon meeting, but I will post the update when I get back.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 1:04 pm ¶

25. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Joe,

    That is an interest way to look at it. I never thought of it that way. My oldest son has very full lips, long eye lashes, all from his mother’s Arab side of the family. We got the “they look so cute they could be girls” about both of the boys from all sides.

    I found the DNA test thing more tha a bit offensive. Here in the USA we have a right to choose our religion as we see fit. Someone’s ethnic background shouldnt matter.

    Even if this young boy wasnt American Indian, if his family had made a choice to raise them in that tradition, that is THEIR choice and no one has a right to get in the way of that.

    As a white guy who has made a choice to be a Muslim I have heard the comments many times about why someone white would pick a non white religion to practice.

    Race no longer neatly matches religion, that needs to be remembered, and no one has a right to tell someone else what their religion does, and doesnt, require.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 1:45 pm ¶

26. Manju wrote:

    assuming this is a public school, i doubt this would pass constitutional muster. the school would need a “compelling government interest ” to enforce the code, a high standard…especially with a conservative court taking religious freedom very seriously over the establishment clause, a proper interpretation, imo.

    also, the republicans passed a freedom of religion act recently that would give him extra protection.

    Interestingly, the exceptions also raises an interesting constitutional issue. SCOTUS has generally frowned upon govt deciding which is a legit religious tradition and which is not, or which religion itself is legitimate, and even privileging religious beliefs over others. in other words, the church of the flying spaghetti monster gets equal protection to the catholic church, and atheist beliefs are protected as much as religious ones. excetptions are problematic.

    But there’s a lot of room for debate.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 1:48 pm ¶

27. gatamala wrote:

    lauren~ get outta my head.

    That was my first thought. It’s the braids, cause that’s a “girl” style.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 1:56 pm ¶

28. Lisa wrote:

    How can a 5 year old “refuse to follow the rules of the school district”? At 5 you have almost no control over you hair style and whether you have hair down your back or a buzz cut; that is basically your parents call! I think the parents are right of course but for the school district to try to “blame” it on the little boy is just sick and twisted. And then considering giving him his own teacher or putting him into a disciplinary school?! What, is long hair on little boys catching or automatically makes the kid a delinquent? I hope that AIM and the ACLU slam it too those idiots. Some educators.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 2:15 pm ¶

29. Kaonashi wrote:

    This is absolutely disgusting, and the fact that the school district is even considering putting this kid in another classroom away from other students with his own teacher (or even worse, in the “alternative” school) smacks of bullshit. I’m quite sure the kids wouldn’t care whether he has long braids or not; they would probably think it was neat and want to learn more about his culture. Too bad the adults are being asshats about this.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 2:24 pm ¶

30. PaulPortland wrote:

    Dorian wrote:

    “Why is it that some of the stupidest things originate from school officials?”

    I agree with the response to this question that Lyonside wrote @16, but I’d like to add another one, echoing Woody Allen from Annie Hall - “…those who can’t do teach, and those who can’t teach, teach gym. And, uh, those who couldn’t do anything, I think, were assigned to our school.”

    Joseph wrote:

    “I believe that the misogyny of many MoC can be traced to this original tension: a coded, racist message to not look/act/be like a ‘girl.’”

    I’d also like to apologize for joining in the derailing of this discussion, but Joseph brings up an incredibly important point in regards to the separate gender battles being fought by WoC and MoC. Emasculation as a result of white racial supremacy touches on so many of the issues being faced by PoC in America, whether we’re talking about the IR disparity in Asian-American communities, the hyper-masculinity of hip-hop, or the tension between respecting “Old World” cultural values versus abandoning them in favor of “Western values.” The last thing I, as a MoC, want to do is advance my own agenda by embracing misogyny. But for a lot of MoC, the history of emasculation is so personal of an attack on their own self-image, that anger understandably often replaces constructive thought.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 2:49 pm ¶

31. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Re “What, is long hair on little boys catching or automatically makes the kid a delinquent?” Apparently nonconformity is catching. We learned this from rock ‘n’ roll in the 1960s and Robin Williams in “The Dead Poets Society.”

    Fortunately, schools usually lose these battles when people press them. A common case for Natives is wearing a feather at a graduation ceremony. Each school reacts as if its rules and “reasoning” are sacrosanct before it eventually caves in.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 3:29 pm ¶

32. NancyP wrote:

    Cute kid! Even without knowing the cultural meaning of the long hair (which I did not know), it’s Just Hair.

    The below is meant generally, not wrt the above case, but about ALL entering students:
    If I were the teacher, the only thing I would care about would be a requirement for toilet training (unless “special ed.”, or neurologically impaired). Clean would be nice. Not too tired to participate would be even better. But you don’t tell a kid that they can’t come as themselves - you are glad that the child comes in the first place. You bend over backward to make the child feel that school is a Good Thing. If a child is from a chaotic home, zie should be welcomed and given a respite, a safe non-chaotic place, in school.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 3:50 pm ¶

33. alex wrote:

    my first thought was about gender conformity as well. they can sue on the grounds of relgious/cultural discrimination, for sure, but couldn’t they also sue on the grounds of gender discrimination? i wonder why that aspect of the issue hasn’t been highlighted at all in mainstream media. i also wonder if a victory based on an argument of gender discrimination would feel like a victory to this family…

    as an aside, and i’m really not trying to derail here, paulportland, please be careful about your teacher-bashing. i love woody allen as much as the next new yorker, but come on. seriously. our society devalues education enough as it is. there’s a big difference between the bureaucrats who run school districts and people who work their asses off in the classroom.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 3:51 pm ¶

34. NancyP wrote:

    P.S. In the post #32, “Its Just Hair” means “not the school’s business”.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 3:53 pm ¶

35. PaulPortland wrote:

    @alex,

    My apologies for the teacher bashing. I’m a teacher myself, but that doesn’t excuse it. Still, it’s just a little gallows humor from the inside, kind of like the way cops or soldiers rag on each other and their profession in order to stay sane.

    Okay, back to the original purpose of the thread, and I promise, no more derailment.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶

36. Genevieve wrote:

    Oh my god. As soon as I saw his picture, I was like, “How cute! He’s adorable! I looked just like that at 5!!” But goddamn. I’ve had to have my share of fights with the public school system from when I was 4 and 5 years old, but as a female of color, I think the school authorities/teachers/etc were more likely to try and put me away and ignore me than force me to change and fit their standards (even though as an intelligent female of color ahead of my grade level they tried to hold me back in many other ways).

    I seriously hope that kid’s parents sue the school district, but other than that I wouldn’t know what to do… It’s just heartbreaking to see, both in terms of enforced gender roles, and enforced racial/ethnic roles. The other messed up thing is that if he doesn’t have a CDIB (Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood), which you have to have to be considered a “real” Native American by our lovely legal standards in the USA, he may not even have grounds for a lawsuit. DNA testing for race/ethnicity also doesn’t stand in court for Native Americans, because apparently there aren’t any DNA markers indicated indigenous status (according to the National Geographic study both my parents participated in).

    You would think another school would step forward and say they would accept him, even from the perspective of good PR, regardless of ethics. Unfortunately, when it comes to POCs, especially Native Americans, there’s kind of an unspoken untaught American history of getting the crap end of the stick.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 4:47 pm ¶

37. RainaWeather wrote:

    This reminds me a what happened in New Orleans a few years back. A girl at Cabrini high school got suspended for wearing braids, because “radical” hairstyles (like dreads) are not allowed.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 4:52 pm ¶

38. Stand Up or Shut Up wrote:

    This is ridiculous! What was going through this superintendent’s mind? This would represent an excellent chance to improve diversity within a school and to educate children about different cultures, but instead the school system denies the validity of Apache culture. The school system’s dress code rule is unfair, btw: what is wrong with boy’s hair falling below the collar? Are they afraid that allowing boys to have long hair will blur gender lines and turn their children gay?

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 5:41 pm ¶

39. Safiya Outlines wrote:

    This is just so sad. His hair is neatly tied back (so they can’t claim health and safety issues), what is the problem?

    This quote from the hearing just sums up what is wrong with the school board’s attittude:

    “I’m just afraid if the district gives in, other problems will occur in the future,” said Shelly Sullivan, a former Needville student.

    The concept that holding onto your culture =problem for society is deeply flawed.

    I hope he goes to a school where he is truly accepted.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 6:59 pm ¶

40. Ratrace wrote:

    How sad that this kid is being put through this wringer, but I also think this is an important lesson for him. This is one child who will never be blind to the issue of race in America. I hope he grows stronger and wiser from the example being set by his parents. Never surrender to colonialists.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 8:50 pm ¶

41. Lyonside wrote:

    >Are they afraid that allowing boys to have long hair will blur gender lines and turn their children gay?

    Yes.

    And also, they’re living in the 50s. What’s next, they preach to 7th graders about Reefer Madness?

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 9:07 pm ¶

42. Padraigin wrote:

    Even setting aside the bigotry, at what point did schools acquire the right to tell anyone what to do with their hair?

    I don’t care if he wanted to gel it into spikes every morning and have it dyed blue and green, that’s his and his family’s decision to make, even set outside of religion or secular custom.

    Schools should only interfere with a student’s choices in clothing or hair when it interferes with their ability to teach, say if a kid wanted to shave a swastika into his head or something.

    On a basic level, beyond even tolerance for other cultures, this is about tolerance for personal choice, which is the foundation of our republic.

    Assholes.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 10:16 pm ¶

43. Winn wrote:

    As usual, the perceptive Racialicious commenters picked up on the subtext of this crap with ease. I always torment myself by reading the comments section on stories like this, and while most were supportive of Adriel and his family, you had the usual mess about his long hair being a “distraction” or “disruption”, before the yahoos came out with comments about why the parents would allow their son to look like a “fairy” and insisting that the long hair would result in bullying because “boys shouldn’t have long hair”. There was even a thread-derailing discussion about the inappropriateness of the mom’s t-shirt, in support of an artist formerly aligned with the SuicideGirls. Apparently, this has some bearing on the hair issue, although I’ve yet to see the connection.

    As a Texas Pagan, I am particularly concerned about the superintendent’s reference to a “recognized religion”. What an easy way to continue to marginalize and disregard an already disenfranchised minority: question the legitimacy of their religious beliefs. Goddess, I’m tired…

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 11:51 pm ¶

44. waxghost wrote:

    Someone on Feministing pointed out that several other parts of their dress code were racist as well, such as highlights or lowlights having to be blonde. I don’t think I want to know the world where LOWlights are blonde…

    I know someone who had basically the same issue at his work. He sued, with the help of someplace like the ACLU (didn’t ever know exactly what institution was helping him), and won. And I know for a fact that he didn’t have a CDIB because he isn’t genetically Native American. So I think this family should sue the hell out of this school district and I believe (hope) that they would win.

    Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 12:03 am ¶

45. Prometheus wrote:

    Assuming this is a public school without religious affiliation, why is this even happening? And, like many of the readers here I noticed that the story included a more latent message of gender discrimination as well. To alex (comment 33), I think the reason this aspect of this story is not being addressed is because this is a little boy. Too often do we look at gender issues as only concerning to women and members of the LGBT community. The sad part is, from reading this article, I’m not really sure if the parents are even aware of this gender aspect. Unforunately, it is an all too familiar indication of our chauvanistic and “straight” way of looking at gender. This is really a shame.

    Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 12:50 am ¶

46. An Uninspired Muse wrote:

    Wonderful.

    What issues will spawn from a 5 year olds hair? Will the school burn to the ground?

    Its sad that the education system is going you know where in a hand basket, with shooting and whatnot but this child cant go to school because he has long hair.

    Its Texas….so I’m not surprised, just disappointed

    Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 3:58 am ¶

47. Mickey wrote:

    God I love my home state! *snorts*

    This isn’t Texas’ first run in with the long hair issue. A young man in east Texas was told he could finish his senior year at alternative school if he refused to cut his hair.

    For this young man it was a personal choice to wear his hair long, not religion/culture like the cutie face in the picture. It’s apples and oranges I’m sure, but it does show how even in 2008, Texas school districts still see long hair=bad.

    I’m also not sure how they are able to get by with the argument that it’s the dress code, since this is a relgious issue.

    That would be like telling someone that they can’t wear a yarmukle/turban (sp) to class, because the dress code says no hats.

    Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 8:37 am ¶

48. Julie in Virginia wrote:

    “I’m just afraid if the district gives in, other problems will occur in the future,” said Shelly Sullivan, a former Needville student.

    Yes, I believe ‘other problems’ may occur. Other problems like, THINKING, RESPECTING OTHERS WHO ARE DIFFERENT, and the feared TOLERANCE might spread unchecked through Texas hills and swamplands.
    On that note, PerceptiveReality, your “WHITE AMERICA!!! ” comment kind of p*ss(s me off. I am a white American, and I find these School Board wingnuts just as offensive as you do. So maybe next time be a little more specific when casting blame. Like, WHITE RIGHT-WING CHRISTIAN CONSERVITIVE SEXIST RACIST XENOPHOBIC MORON AMERICANS OF EUROPEAN DESCENT!!!! I can live with that.
    Thanks.

    Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 12:22 pm ¶

49. justme wrote:

    Just happened across this story from another site. I am a white American and this is a load of crap. I don’t think any kid should have to cut their hair for school and especially not when there are valid cultural/religious/spiritual reasons for them to have long hair. Making the dad submit a DNA sample is ridiculous. The superintendent sounds like a jackass who’s drunk on his own power. And, for the record, not all white people are bigoted morons: a lot of us aren’t at all and we are embarrased by and ashamed of those who are.

    Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 12:54 pm ¶

50. RedLeaf wrote:

    School boards are elected - seems the people of Houston with any sense of conscience should know what to do about this. School board and budget elections are notoriously low turnout. A well executed vote drive would have them all out in a heartbeat.

    Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 4:49 pm ¶

51. bdsista wrote:

    Did anyone catch the Separate But Equal offer to put him in a separate classroom? Uh, maybe its me, but that totally violates the ruling in Brown v the Bd of Education case. Then it was skin color, now its hair length. I also agree that the two inches of full ness also permits them to deny afros, dreadlocks, twists and any other non european hair. I would love to see this in court.

    Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 11:19 pm ¶

52. Kaonashi wrote:

    Every time I think about this, it makes me madder and madder.

    After all of this drama, if it were my child I wouldn’t even want him going there.

    Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 11:25 pm ¶

53. locked wrote:

    i remember seeing this story on the news (i think that i watched it online) and hearing the people who supported it.

    These people were very afraid of “change”. Their comments really alluded to that because they were like “if this, then what next?”. One opponent even looked out of breath over it.

    I wonder if he can pin his hair up while in school?

    Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 6:49 pm ¶

54. locked wrote:

    oh, and I wonder at what point would they say that an afro-textured-hair-black-male-student hair is too long? considering the fact that his hair would grow “up”, instead of “down”.

    would he be forced to straighten his hair to prove that it isn’t really “that” long???

    ohh the humiliation this 5 year old boy is going thrhough.

    Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 7:05 pm ¶

55. runicNomad wrote:

    The DNA test was to prove he was a sovereign entitity and did not have to follow the rules.
    secondly I am unsure why one would want to put or subject any child to traditional education it is a hurtful and mind numbing place generally speaking.
    thirdly the reason Why they are not allowing him into school is not in the terms of a race factor it has to do with the fact they know if he enrolls and it is against the rules than that is the precedent for his future actions and others students actions.
    Sums it up right here:
    “In my 20 years in education, I’ve never had a kindergartner refuse to follow the rules of the school district,” Rhodes says. “So this is uncharted territory for us, too.”

    when will we lay down this idea that the mainstream sides that have been chosen for us to fight about are not any better than each other.
    feel into it
    no mind

    Posted 02 Aug 2008 at 1:31 pm ¶

56. JerryJef wrote:

    Applying school dress codes on hair length to Native American males is nothing new. If it goes to court, the boy’s parents will probably lose.

    Many years ago when long hair for teenage boys was becoming fashionable, I was asked to research cases on the application of school dress codes against long hair. I found at least one case in every circuit of the U. S. appeals courts. Every case but one upheld the right of the student to wear his hair long. The one exception involved a Native American boy from Seminole, Oklahoma. This boy did not claim his long hair was an expression of his freedom of speech. He claimed instead that he wore his hair long in observance of the culture and religion of his people. The Tenth Circuit in Denver upheld the lower court finding that the red man’s culture did not supercede white man’s dress codes.

    The Court’s ruling was stupid and idiotic to me back then and it still is today. The only hope for a successful court action is that the boy lives in the Fifth Circuit and not the Tenth.

    Posted 02 Aug 2008 at 4:26 pm ¶

57. Mimi wrote:

    My issue with this is on so many levels. First off, right off the bat the schools are sex stereotyping… a girl can have long hair but not a boy? So much for gender equality there. The cultural thing just makes me even more upset. I HATED the fact that growing up as a kid I was pretty much “required” to give up my real first name because it was to ethnic for the other kids to pronounce. The worst of it is, I still go my Mimi (the nickname) even though I should know better by now. Since kindergarten I was told to introduce myself as Mimi. This is horsepoo! Down with the sex stereotyping and the loss of a cultural identity.

    Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 7:40 pm ¶

58. DHFabian wrote:

    This is outright discrimination, and we have laws that are supposed to protect the people.
    The school’s decision is morally reprehensible, and am embarrassment.

    Posted 12 Aug 2008 at 7:46 pm ¶

59. N. Goodface wrote:

    Being Native myself (Lakota), it’s sooo frustrating to hear about this prime example ethnic cleansing. It’s disgusting! I’m surprised they didn’t cut his braids right off like they did to my great grandfather. My husband (Navajo), myself, and our 3 sons and 3 daughters all have waist-length or longer hair. We take pride in our culture and our hair. Luckily, we have never had this issue because our children go to a school that celebrates Native American/Hispanic cultures. Oh yeah, and my sons have pierced ears, which is a Lakota tradition, not just the left ear, both. Our beliefs and passing them on to the next generation is immensely more important than other’s opinions. Culture and religion aside, I think the length of your hair should be up to you, not your government. Much love and frybread!

    Posted 31 Oct 2008 at 10:14 pm ¶

Post a Comment