School's ban on boy's cornrows is 'indirect racial discrimination'

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Nonetheless, I don't see how having hair like that inspires gang culture.BranKetra

If so, that looks like a white person who is dressed like a black gangster. In other words, that doesn't really help your argument. In fact, I'd say it does the opposite.

So if a black person dresses like that then they're a gangsta ?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So then laws discriminating against specific groups are okay since they are mandated by governments opinion. That means you've justified slavery...laws against gay marriage.....the laws in Middle Eastern countries that are harsh on women. Gotcha...LJS9502_basic

That's a nice strawman you've got there. Did you build it yourself?

And GrapeofWrath and I are speaking from a legal standpoint. A fact that seems lost on you. You remind me of the person who argued with me the other day that homosexuality has a felony, despite the fact that the Supreme Court struck down such laws years ago. This person literally said "well that's just an opinion". "Yes, and one that carries the most legal weight". This person could not get it through their head that in the United States, from a legal standpoint, the Supreme Court's opinion >>>> all others. So yeah, you can say it's an appeal to authority, and in the law authority is what matters.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="Overlord93"] Same reason you can't wear nikes to school, it makes you look like a chav. This is how the world works. Its the same reason why a company won't employ you if you have a tatoo. It is teaching children a way to live life. These schools have a uniform for a reason.

Bucked20

If so, that looks like a white person who is dressed like a black gangster. In other words, that doesn't really help your argument. In fact, I'd say it does the opposite.

So if a black person dresses like that then they're a gangsta ?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

That's a nice strawman you've got there. Did you build it yourself?

worlock77

And GrapeofWrath and I are speaking from a legal standpoint. A fact that seems lost on you. You remind me of the person who argued with me the other day that homosexuality has a felony, despite the fact that the Supreme Court struck down such laws years ago. This person literally said "well that's just an opinion". "Yes, and one that carries the most legal weight". This person could not get it through their head that in the United States, from a legal standpoint, the Supreme Court's opinion >>>> all others. So yeah, you can say it's an appeal to authority, and in the law authority is what matters.

Second the decision seems merely too PC. IE....let's make different rules for different groups to show we're all the same. Which doesn't actually work. IF anything these decisions keep people thinking they are dissimilar. All people should be treated equal. Not better and certainly not worse.

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Is this a chav?

If so, that looks like a white person who is dressed like a black gangster. In other words, that doesn't really help your argument. In fact, I'd say it does the opposite.

BranKetra

So if a black person dresses like that then they're a gangsta ?

Now you back tracking huh

do i think it was racist to say he couldnt wear his hair like that? no. do i think the judgement of the school was backed by fundamental misunderstanging of gang culture and their own personal racism? yes.

eitherway. his hair looked dumb. but id allow it. there was nothing wrong with it.

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]A lot of schools in england have a stricter dress code and teaching, and a lot of the time parents choose schools specifically for those reasons. These are old fashioned and highly sought after schools. This is a catholic school ffs. I went to a religious school, they weren't discriminative because they forced students to learn about chritianity.

Some schools in England wont allow a number 1 cut, despite it being a culturally significant haircut for a lot of english people. I don't see any court cases?

BuryMe

If the school just maintained that they expect their students to dress a certain way, they probably would have won. It's when they went into the gang BS that it started looking like some racial problem.

Pretty much this.

If they wanted to ban cornrows and other long hairstyles (which is their right), they should have simply said that they want their students to have a traditional look.

When they bring the gang culture nonsense into it, they deserve the outcome they got.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13803106 An 11-year-old boy who was turned away on his first day at secondary school in london for wearing his hair in cornrows, has won his case at the high court after a judge ruled the school's policy resulted in "indirect racial discrimination" The school only allowed a conservative "short back and sides" hairstyle for boys amid concerns that other styles could encourage "gang culture"brendanhunt1

I think that's indirect racism. I mean, how many whites or Asians have cornrows?

Also, considering it gang culture is pretty bad.

Not wanting him to look like a fool is racist? Didn't know only blacks could put their hair in that style.

Pirate700

The school had a dress code, he either follows it, or doesn't. If he doesnt then he'll face the consequences. What next? Someone's crying about a school not letting them exercise their second amendment and how that's unconstitutional? :roll: You go to the school, you follow the school's rules. There's nothing racial about cornrows, and to say otherwise would be generalizing(which would be racist.) And they're not doing it specifically because he's black, no-ones allowed to have cornrows at that school. If anything the school is only being racist BECAUSE they're giving him an exception due to his race. And the Boy is abusing his race to get around rules, which is unacceptable.Nibroc420

As others have pointed out, if they had just said it was against their dress code it probably would have been fine. But nope, they brought up the "gang culture" bulls***. BTW: this was in the UK, not the US, so I'm not sure why you're bringing the Constitution into this.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]The school had a dress code, he either follows it, or doesn't. If he doesnt then he'll face the consequences. What next? Someone's crying about a school not letting them exercise their second amendment and how that's unconstitutional? :roll: You go to the school, you follow the school's rules. There's nothing racial about cornrows, and to say otherwise would be generalizing(which would be racist.) And they're not doing it specifically because he's black, no-ones allowed to have cornrows at that school. If anything the school is only being racist BECAUSE they're giving him an exception due to his race. And the Boy is abusing his race to get around rules, which is unacceptable.worlock77

As others have pointed out, if they had just said it was against their dress code it probably would have been fine. But nope, they brought up the "gang culture" bulls***. BTW: this was in the UK, not the US, so I'm not sure why you're bringing the Constitution into this.

I don't think I like the idea of school systems deciding how students can and can't wear their hair. The uniforms, yeah, ok. But hair? I'm pretty sure I would hate that when I was a student, so I'd be a hypocrite to support it, I suppose.TransFishers

[QUOTE="TransFishers"]I don't think I like the idea of school systems deciding how students can and can't wear their hair. The uniforms, yeah, ok. But hair? I'm pretty sure I would hate that when I was a student, so I'd be a hypocrite to support it, I suppose.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="TransFishers"]I don't think I like the idea of school systems deciding how students can and can't wear their hair. The uniforms, yeah, ok. But hair? I'm pretty sure I would hate that when I was a student, so I'd be a hypocrite to support it, I suppose.TransFishers

Gang culture?

Anything could be related to gangs these days.

Gang culter?

Anything could be related to gangs these days.

Gaming-Planet

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Why? Certain schools want to uphold some class. It's the same reason uniforms are in place. Besides, it's not like he's being forced to go to THIS school. He wants to have cornrows, and he want to go to that school. Sometimes you can't have everything, but this kid placed his race card right, and got both. Such a fair world, if this boy was white and wanted cornrows, he'd be kicked out. Can't do that when it's a black kid. Such a double standard.Nibroc420

Wait, so you've talked to the heads ofthe school about policies concerning race and explosion? DroidPhysX

I think you mean "Expulsion" and no.

However if you'd read the article..

"He was refused entry to St Gregory's as an 11-year-old on his first day in 2009 because he had the cornrows StyIe- with hair braided, close along the scalp.

He was forced to attend another school. He does not wish to return to St Gregory's despite the outcome of the case."

Which would entail that he'd not be allowed back at that school, because he was violating a rule. Aka: Expelled.

However now, he's allowed back at the school because
"G's African-Caribbean family claimed the styIe was of importance to his cultural identity."

Do you honestly believe that a white person could get away with claiming their cornrow's were a part of their cultural identity?

Idk if it's racist. That'd depend on the beliefs of who's implimenting the rules. I do think it's discriminatory though. If it's about not promoting a gang or thug culture, then that'san ignorant stereotype about the hairstyle. Gang cultures usually exist because of poor economic conditions. Hairstyles have nothing to do with how someone will behave.

Everyone's panties are in a bunch because "banning cornrows isn't direct/indirect racism!" Obviously. I don't know why so many are wasting their time and energy arguing that point. What's worse is that people are arguing the school's right to enforce their dress code. Twice in the article it says the banning of Cornrows is not unlawful. This thread is filled with opinions so irrelevant I'm hard pressed to believe anybody still objecting actually read the article.

Mr Justice Collins said the ban by St Gregory's Catholic Science College in Harrow was not unlawful in itself, but should have taken into account individual pupils' family traditions...

Mr Justice Collins, sitting in London, ruled that the hair policy was not unlawful in itself, "but if it is applied without any possibility of exception" such as in the case of G, "then it is unlawful".

The judge said in future the school authorities must consider allowing other boys to wear cornrows if it was"a genuine family tradition based on cultural and social reasons".

Following the hearing, G's solicitor, Angela Jackman said: "This is an important decision. It makes clear that non-religious cultural and family practices associated with a particular race fall within the protection of equalities legislation."

...and my favorite part, The school said it had "always striven to ensure that our uniform policy, including that related to hair ****, is fair and equitable to the wide range of cultures which make up our school community".

I'm not the the brightest bulb in the pack, but it sounds as though the boy's family could have negotiated with the school to allow his cornrows. I also reccommend reading the analysis by Dominc Casciani. I will quote him as well, "The issue at the heart of the ruling is not explicit religious or racial rights - but the broader and more subjective question of what is culturally conventional."

Not at all, if a white boy did that they would still tell him he had to change it.

Well the thing is, a lot of gang members wear cornrows. It's reflected in our pop culture. Rap, movies, games... it's about as common as do rags. Schools have the right to ban any particular hair or dress styIe they want if they feel it can be associated to unwanted behavior and/or activity. This is why school uniforms were invented. It just seems that anybody can take something and instantly make it racist... :| "Student was banned from school for being black." Ok, if that's what the news article said, then yes, I'd call racist. But this, I don't really see it that way.JustPlainLucas

I stopped reading right there cause you sound like a fool.

To guy above me. Hi. The fact that the banning of cornrows is "not unlawful" hasn't a bearing on whether or not there was a discriminatory act. You see, indirect discrimination can be lawful if reasonable and Justice Whateverhisname Justison decreed it unreasonable (from what I could gather) because it's an absolute poilcy. He did make the assertion that the act is discriminatory. grape_of_wrath

"The hair****was important to the boy's cultural identity," said his family. :lol:

MasterKingMP

"The hairstyle was important to the boy's cultural identity," said his family. :lol:

School are trying to control hairstyles too? I see nothing wrong with the style seeing that I wear it myself from time to time.

Racist, no. Stupid, yes

Considering all the boys have to wear their hair the same there is nothing racist about this at all. Why the way someone wears their hair is important however is another thing completely! Silly rules.

"The hairstyle was important to the boy's cultural identity," said his family. :lol:

MasterKingMP

Just like dreads,cornrows are a big part of black culture

[QUOTE="MasterKingMP"]

"The hairstyle was important to the boy's cultural identity," said his family. :lol:

Bucked20

Just like dreads,cornrows are a big part of black culture