Girl says Florida school threatening expulsion over her ‘natural hair’

[PreachersWife2004]

Is it racist when the restaurants require that hair like this be netted?

 

[seashale76]

I think her natural hair doesn't apply to their rule and that this is ridiculous. A case for racism can be made- and I don't see her hair as a distraction. Actually- I quite like it.

That said- private schools have the right to be as petty as they like.

I had a friend who went to an all boy's Catholic high school for a year before leaving. He was put in detention quite often for not being clean shaven. He tried to explain that his hair grew quickly- only to not be believed. One day- he took his electric razor and went to the Dean's office and shaved in front of him. Then he came back at the end of the day to prove that his hair really did grow that quickly. Even still- they were going to continue being ridiculously petty about his beard growth and detentions. He had such a fantastic beard as a sophomore in high school that people thought he was a substitute teacher and he could buy beer without getting carded.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Is it racist when the restaurants require that hair like this be netted?

Restaurants require ALL hair to be netted. Even facial hair on men.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Restaurants require ALL hair to be netted. Even facial hair on men.

No, they don't. I've worked at several where it was not a requirement unless you worked in the back prepping the food.

 

[KitKatMatt]

No, they don't. I've worked at several where it was not a requirement unless you worked in the back prepping the food.

That's what I thought you were referencing.

Everyone who works around the prep area needs to net their hair (if they have any).

I've never seen a runner or a waitress (or a waiter with facial hair) have a net. I know a few who wear caps and other things that cover their hair but those are personal choices (they also wear them outside of the restaurant and during leisure time).

 

[Vanilla Scripture]

Private schools can not violate the law.
They can be petty but they can not violate the law.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Private schools can not violate the law.
They can be petty but they can not violate the law.

They didn't violate any law here. My nieces all have hair similar to this and they attend a private school with very similar rules. These rules are spelled out ahead of time and parents AND students sign forms acknowledging them. In the event that a parent wants their student to be exempt from some of the rules, it is possible, given the parent is willing to sit down with school administrators and discuss WHY the child should be exempt. My nieces don't particularly care for the whole "natural hair movement" thing and are more than willing to take steps to make sure their hair is not a distraction (and believe me, it could be if they just went au naturale!).

And yes, my nieces are biracial.

 

[Vanilla Scripture]

As I said private schools can not violate the law.

 

[RDKirk]

As I said private schools can not violate the law.

It's not a violation of the law.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

As I said private schools can not violate the law.

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by this. Do you believe they violated the law? Do you believe that there IS a law but that because it's a private school they are exempt from the law?

 

[Vanilla Scripture]

It's not a violation of the law.

Certainly so. Racial discrimination is certainly illegal.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Certainly so. Racial discrimination is certainly illegal.

First you have to prove that this is racially motivated. The policy doesn't state that it's only for black women.

This is part of the problem I see with claims of racial discrimination (And hate crimes to a certain degree). The idea that just because the person in question happens to be a particular race that it must be racism propagates racism.

I once visited a particular burger king drive through on a very wet rainy day. I ordered a meal with french fries. The woman that I observed fulfilling my order was black and had very unruly hair - most likely what people may refer to as "natural". As I was driving along munching on my food, I actually ate quite a huge hairball from my box of fries. It was black, just like the woman's hair who put my food together. I literally had to pull over to the side of the road and lose my lunch. I went back to the burger king and asked to speak to the manager. Unfortunately for him, I had saved the hairball. The people in the back preparing the food all had hairnets and none of them had hair such as the woman who filled my order. It was CLEAR it was her hair. The manager was very apologetic, as was the woman and the manager "requested" that the woman tie her hair back and put it in a net, even though she was not technically a food prepper.

It was fortunate that she did not see this complaint as being against her for being black, but given the reaction in this thread, I could easily see where one might make that assumption.

 

[RDKirk]

Certainly so. Racial discrimination is certainly illegal.

The first problem here is establishing the facts.

The school did not approach the girl about her hair. That is the only fact we have. The fact that the school did not take a first action against her belies a claim of racism.

All we have beyond that is possible clumsiness. "Blame the victim" is a lousy reaction, but it's not racist. I suspect that if a white girl complained of being sexually harassed by another student, something similar would have happened to her.

All the reporting about he-said/she-said is questionable. Proving that a white school admitted a black student because they are racists would be difficult.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sarcasm!
And it's wrong in the process.

Actually, it's fairly accurate in this case. Just because someone cries "racism" doesn't make it so. If there is something racist in this school's policy, point it out. Otherwise, claims of racism are baseless.

 

[TheDag]

How students wear their hair is the business of a private school. How they dress, as well. The 1st amendment does not apply to private schools, only government institutions.

That same school explicitly prohibits mohawks, shaved designs, and rat tails, for instance.

yes I realise that private schools have this kind of policy and some government schools as well. From the comment in the OP I assumed we were ignoring that bit and discussing if it is right or wrong for a school to do this.

I did have a go at a principle who made a rule that kids could not dye their hair yet her hair was coloured. Teachers should have to follow all rules students have to follow that do not restrict their ability to do their job.

 

[RDKirk]

I did have a go at a principle who made a rule that kids could not dye their hair yet her hair was coloured. Teachers should have to follow all rules students have to follow that do not restrict their ability to do their job.

That would, again, be a failure of the school to properly and fully identify their policies. In the Air Force, for instance, the policy is clear enough in stating purpose and details that the organization can properly discriminate between someone who is coloring her gray from someone who dyes her hair pink.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

yes I realise that private schools have this kind of policy and some government schools as well. From the comment in the OP I assumed we were ignoring that bit and discussing if it is right or wrong for a school to do this.

I did have a go at a principle who made a rule that kids could not dye their hair yet her hair was coloured. Teachers should have to follow all rules students have to follow that do not restrict their ability to do their job.

No. Teachers are adults. Students are not.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

I wonder if this school would harass a Muslim girl wearing a hijab and using the same excuse. It's a distraction.

Highly doubtful.
I agree with those who say this is racist. Just because she doesn't process her hair so as to comport with what whites think looks proper for their approval, she's threatened.

I don't blame her mother for wanting to send her to a better school. Her acumen will thrive somewhere where she's not held back for being black. Her hair is the first excuse. Had she stayed what would be next?

And I would love to know the racial population of this school. How many other black children attend? What's their hair like? Or is she the only one there? If she is, that explains everything. Harass until she leaves.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

The first problem here is establishing the facts.

The school did not approach the girl about her hair. That is the only fact we have. The fact that the school did not take a first action against her belies a claim of racism.

All we have beyond that is possible clumsiness. "Blame the victim" is a lousy reaction, but it's not racist. I suspect that if a white girl complained of being sexually harassed by another student, something similar would have happened to her.

All the reporting about he-said/she-said is questionable. Proving that a white school admitted a black student because they are racists would be difficult.

Not really. Very often private schools gain federal credits for opening to minorities. Your argument here is therefore flawed because you don't have anything to support the later part of it.

Secondly, just because they permitted a black girl to enter in doesn't mean there isn't racism involved in this harassment of this young girl.

A lawsuit would determine the racial population in the school, and provide opportunity to find out how many others have been disciplined for violating the distraction rule.
This young girls hair is styled naturally. What is being demanded by these authorities through implication in how they word their rebuke is that she make her hair to appear as a white person.
That is racism.

 

[RDKirk]

Not really. Very often private schools gain federal credits for opening to minorities. Your argument here is therefore flawed because you don't have anything to support the later part of it.

Secondly, just because they permitted a black girl to enter in doesn't mean there isn't racism involved in this harassment of this young girl.

Having spent practically all my life as "the first" and "the only" black person in school and work environments from the 60s until really very recently, that's basically my life story. She is nowhere I haven't been.

Again, the only fact we have is that the school had said nothing about her hair until harassment by the other students became an issue.

Harassment by other students is actually the issue here. I totally agree that the school appears not to have handled harassment by other students in the best manner possible.

A lawsuit would determine the racial population in the school, and provide opportunity to find out how many others have been disciplined for violating the distraction rule.

This young girls hair is styled naturally. What is being demanded by these authorities through implication in how they word their rebuke is that she make her hair to appear as a white person.
That is racism.

In terms of what we don't know, we don't know "how they worded their rebuke."

The only thing reported is what a 14-year-old claimed she was told, and I know by too much experience that a 14-year-old--even an honest one--is not necessarily a reliable reporter of what was actually nuanced when what he or she has been told had "no" as the bottom line.

We know nothing at all about "she make her hair to appear as a white person"--absolutely nothing. It's necessary to make sure our presumptions are kept distinct from our facts.