A Black Texas high school student who was suspended because his loc hairstyle violated the district’s dress code was suspended again upon his return to school Monday, an attorney for the family told CNN.

Darryl George has been suspended for more than two weeks because his loc hairstyle violates the Barbers Hill Independent School District dress and grooming code, according to his family.

The code states that “male students’ hair will not extend, at any time, below the eyebrows or below the ear lobes,” CNN previously reported.

  • krayj@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Dress code standards for hair and appearance are pretty dumb… but even as they are written in this school district, I don’t understand how this kid’s hair violates it.

    The code says the hair can’t extend below the eyebrows or below the ear lobes…and this kid’s hair is above his eyebrows and above his ear lobes. I’m looking at the student’s front, side, and back photos that are attached to the linked news article. What is the problem?

    • xkforce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The “problem” is hes black and the school wanted to punish him for that. But they dont want to just come out and say it just like they didnt want to show their faces back in the days of the klan.

      • Whirlybird
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Get this crap out of here, stop playing the race card where it’s not a factor.

        Does the rule only affect black people? No. Why do you think only black boyd would have long hair?

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      The actual dress code written in the article is:

      Male students’ hair must not extend below the top of a t-shirt collar or be gathered or worn in a style that would allow the hair to extend below the top of a t-shirt collar, below the eyebrows, or below the ear lobes when let down.

      It’s basically “no long hair, regardless of how it is styled.”

        • zzzzz@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          This view is rooted in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering”.

          I have no point to make beyond pointing that out as trivia.

            • Trebach@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Paul said a lot of things in his letters that only could have possibly made sense in the time and place of the person/city he was writing to. Yet almost 2000 years later, people are still taking it as an absolute truth.

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Paul flat out contradicts the Bible at points. Doesn’t he say to refuse food to people in your commune if they aren’t working?

                His sexism doesn’t make sense either. There is a very heavy implication in having the women who followed Jesus maintain their faith and belief when even the disciples did not. Maybe it’s unintentional, but it very clearly suggests that the women are far more pious and holy. Paul has no business saying they have no dominion over him.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          More like Racist School District is Racist As Fuck. Texas passed a law making this shit illegal, primarily because of this exact School District!

      • MiltownClowns@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not quite. He is not really wearing a style that would allow the hair to extend below the collar, brows, or lobes because he can’t just take out his hair style. Its not a pony tail to be removed and distract all the boys like in the movies, its been documented to be in place for at least 8 days. And even if he did his hair could stick straight out or stright up. Seems like the dress code was written for white people hair and instead of using any sort of common sense to not enforce or even just change the code the school is doubling down on murky rules in the national eye. If it walks like a racist, talks like a racist, and deprives black people of an education because of their hair its probably a racist.

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, no male Sihk students are allowed, unless there’s a religious exemption.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        below the ear lobes when let down.

        You know, I was coming in here to make a joke about how when the article says

        male students’ hair will not extend, at any time, below the eyebrows or below the ear lobes

        they would say that “any time” also applies when he takes a shower at home, but the code literally says that. Yikes.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s such fucking bullshit. Might as well demand a buzzcut and be done with it.

    • uuseernaamee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As far as I can tell, the “problem” is that the dresscode states that the student’s hair can’t extend below his eyebrows or ear lobes “at any time”. So, hypothetically, if this student took his hair down out of the braids, it would be longer than the dresscode allowed.

      This, of course, is fucking stupid reasoning. The school probably just doesn’t like this hairstyle - because racism - and is choosing to use an overly literal reading of the rule to try to force the student to change it.

    • n2burns@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      From the interview, his mother says it’s because if he let his hair down it might “extend below the eyebrows or below the ear lobes”. I think it’s a poorly written policy, because in my interpretation, he would only be in violation if he let his hair down, but he’s in compliance as long as he never does that at school. And even then, would for example, an afro violate that? It sounds like they should have included in the policy “male students’ hair will must be no longer than 3" at any point" but again, that’s a poorly written policy, waiting for holes to be punched in it.

    • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m assuming that his hair was slightly different from when this picture was taken. Not that it matters even a little bit. Codes like this are written for the purpose of giving authorities an excuse to persecute. Wouldn’t be surprising if they ignored plenty of violations from “upstanding” (read: white) students.