Religion is a good enough reason, but not culture? Why is religion so priviliged? Seems to me that a parent might be able to fight this rule on grounds of sex discrimination--girls are allowed to have long hair, why not boys. It's like forbidding girls to wear pants.

I don't see why hair should be the concern of anyone but the child and his/her parent(s).

Why does the school care about the length of its students' hair in the first place? Why should a boy need a religious reason satisfactory to an administrator to have long hair (esp when girls presumably don't)?

A friend of mine who is Native American never grew his hair long until high school, but the only time in four years that he cut it shorter than shoulder length was when his grandfather died, and he and his mother both cut off their hair and burned it.

It was his choice to grow his hair long, but it was also tradition. A choice to follow tradition. If there was ever any question that Judeo-Christian tradition prevails, and everything else is just "superstition," this Houston story drives it home.

Here is what I wrote the superintendant:

I am a Native American woman from the Southwest, near where the Apaches reside. Long hair is indeed a Native American tradition, and the belief that "an Indian man is nothing without his hair" is widespread. The line quoted is from the hit movie Smoke Signals, if you want proof.

I don't understand your distinction between religious and traditional beliefs, religious being ones you'll accommodate, traditions being ones you reject. Do you think the Hopi really believe anymore that Masaw the bat god created the earth? Of course not, but our religion is honored anyway as a tradition. You see, the traditions and the religion are one and the same.

Think about it, and change your policy.

What LynstHolin said, exactly!

LynstHolin: The "no ponytails" rule is for boys and girls. The "not over the collar" rule is for boys only, though.

It always amazes me that schools manage to get away with any dress code rules which only apply to one sex. How do they justify allowing highlights in the hair of girls but not boys, or sandals for girls but not boys? Is there any rationality buried under the chaos?

Another rule for Needville schools (from the link in the previous post):

• Highlights/Lowlights must be BLONDE in color for GIRLS. Hair Chunking is NOT allowed.

Why is blonde the only acceptable hair dye colour? I might have expected that "unnatural" colours like pink to be banned, but this why is blonde the only "modest" ("modesty" being the purported aim of this dress code) colour for hair?

They had a school district meeting last week, does anyone know what the final verdict on the little boy's case was?

in ref. to: "Do you think the Hopi really believe anymore that Masaw the bat god created the earth? Of course not, but our religion is honored anyway as a tradition."

When I read this I first thought that you were emphasizing the "ridiculous" aspects of Hopi traditoin, but then I figured that you probably didn't meant it that way, but it leads me to comment:

The issue at stake isn't whether people "really believe something that another human thinks is ridiculous." In fact, many religious traditions do not emphasize believe but do emphasize practice or way of life. "Orthodoxy" as correct belief is really a Christian idea. General respect for all religious traditions should not depend on the content of belief.

Here is what I wrote:

Regarding your decision to ban a young aboriginal child from your school, shame on you. Just because the childs, and his tribes, sense of religion does not fit nicely within your mono-theistic tradition, you are still not to deny this child, and his family, their first amendment right which explicitly states, in regards to religion, that you will not "prohibit...the free exercise thereof." If you truly consider yourself to be not only a good American, but a good Christian, you would have allowed this child to attend with no controversy. However, I seriously doubt you have the moral fortitude to live up to either ideal and as such I expect you to continue perpetuating a racist caricature of both Texas and Christianity, in its relations with the aboriginal population of what is currently known as The United States of America. My suggestion to you would be to read up on the history and culture of the Apache, and indeed all Native tribes, so as to not make a buffoon of yourself in the face of a people you clearly lack zero understanding of, and empathy for.

This story is just horrible. I find it interesting that although the main issue here is about the legitimacy of the native culture, the inciting incident was an issue about gender norms.

The tone and attitude of the superintendent is remarkable; as if this is just an issue about "kids today!" and their refusal to follow the rules.

I wrote:

I'm writing because of your recent decision to ban Adriel Arocha from kindergarten because of his hair. I'm sure you've seen more than a few letters of this sort.

It appears from your quote that you do not value cultural or traditional values if they lie outside of what can be defined as organized religion (more specifically, Christian organized religion). The native people of this land may not have had a central book or a Pope, but they certainly were, and are, very spiritual people. To deny the importance of their spirituality because they do not meet every Sunday to worship is unjust and naive. Perhaps before you make such rash decisions, you should research a bit about their culture and values. To Native Americans, length of hair has great significance.

You should muster a bit more respect for an elder Native American's effort to pass his culture and tradition down through the generations, though many have brutally tried to destroy it. That boy deserves to be able to retain his long hair and other customs important to him just as you retain the right to celebrate Christmas and attend your church. I truly hope that you overcome your prejudice and disrespect for the culture of Native Americans and reverse your decision.

Does anyone else find the dress code racist in other ways? I personally found the "Tufts, tails, cornrows or designs are NOT permitted." clause to be outright racist. Do they expect little black girls to get their hair relaxed? It seems like an explicit attempt to alienate blacks from their school.

I also might argue that this says a lot about how white standards of beauty serve as the dominant paradigm, especially due to the fact that black hair is simply not allowed! I know that in the past feministing did an article about how black women were required to have straight, smooth hair at a place of employment, of which I do not remember.

This racism seems to be of the same vein.

Re: choosing a religious tradition. Does a 5-year-old really choose any religious tradition? Religion is imposed on children until they embrace it or reject it.

I so would have been kicked out of that school. Clearly they like you to be little boxes on the hillside... little boxes made of ticky tack- all look just the same.

I wrote him, asking him to reconsider. I even told him a way to comply with the "religion" clause by getting their medicine man/spirtual traditionalist to write a statement about its place in their culture.

bastards!

I so would have been kicked out of that school. Clearly they like you to be little boxes on the hillside... little boxes made of ticky tack- all look just the same.

I wrote him, asking him to reconsider. I even told him a way to comply with the "religion" clause by getting their medicine man/spirtual traditionalist to write a statement about its place in their culture.

bastards!

On what Kasia posted:
Yeah, so my natural red highlights aren't ok, but my sister's natural blond ones are? I guess being Irish isn't modest enough?
The whole thing is ridiculous. I thought my high-school's dress code was bad when it came out during my senior year, but compared to this I was really lucky.

Awww hell... This is close to where I grew up (and a good friend went to Needville schools).

Anyway, Needville (and most schools in Fort Bend County, a pretty conservative area) has always had an f'ed up dress code policy. When I was in high school, Needville school dress code rules said no shorts, at all. In Texas. In an old school that half the time had no functioning air conditioning (at least, the old high school).

Needville is a rural community. I grew up in the outskirts of Houston (an area once considered the boonies), and I think Needville is in BFE. It doesn't make it right, but the old conservative farm boys don't much care for those uppity indigenous people.

I always had issues with my school dress codes growing up. For example, I'm 5'11" so any shorts which are 3 or 4 inches below my knee are practically impossible to find unless I go into the boys section. Unfortunately, the trend of bermuda shorts did not come until after I graduated from high school. So I was stuck wearing pants all the time, even in the 100 degree weather during the beginning and end of the school year. My beef was that they were measuring how much is not covered vs. how much is. If I'm wearing shorts with 5 inch inseams, that's a decent amount of leg being covered. There is no risk of seeing my underwear while I'm sitting down, and I'm pretty sure I can avoid distracting all of the "horny" teenage boys who I'm being protected from.

This dress code, however, totally takes the cake though. Why don't they just give the kids a uniform, if they're going to have that big a stick up their asses about everything they wear. I also find the specific rules that only apply to one gender really discriminatory. As well as the ones forbidding hairstyles that are mostly worn by blacks really bad. What the hell is wrong with cornrows? My ex boyfriend was growing his hair out, and was in that awkward phase where his short fro did not suit him very well. So he wore cornrows for a while. It was not a "reflection of the hip-hop culture" that so many (white) people like to point to when they forbid cornrows, it was a convenient way to still look good while his hair was in the in-between stage.

Also, I could not help but laugh when I saw the mention of "dew rags".....It's "'do" as in "hairdo" the head coverings have nothing to do with the little drops of water that collect on the grass in the morning. Idiots.

This is the most ridiculous dress code I've ever read.

Along with the hairstyle issues other people have mentioned, there's also:

"Boys may not wear makeup, wear nail polish, or color their finger nails."

"Boys are NOT allowed to wear sandals, unless socks are worn." (who wears socks with sandals...?)

"Boys are NOT allowed to wear dresses/skirts."

holy shit this is ridiculous and offensive on so many counts.

it looks like their whole dress code is royally sexist/racist/blonde-ist?/generally absurd.

it's hard for me to believe that in this day and age that we're arguing about HAIR LENGTH...in KINDERGARTEN no less. this sounds like a controversy from when my parents were in school. eegads.

It's their "choice"???

It's also a "choice" to wear crosses and the other religious shit they ALLOW!

According to the superintendent, since wearing crosses are a choice, that shouldn't be allowed either.

This is BLATANT racism.

It is racism and sexism folks! I also posted about this on my blog.

As a proud Ojibway woman this is why I have my hair long and most of the time in braids!

I thought about making t-shirts to support Adriel but maybe someone else could since I can't afford to do so at this time. Message me if you would like to maks t-shirts with me. I have some cool ideas!

This is totalitarian bullshit, designed to teach these kids that government, like this school, has the right to make all choices for an individual.

Schools have only a limited right to limit a person's choices in terms of hair or clothing. Short of, say, shaving swastikas into one's head, it's your personal business what you do with your hair, whether it's a religious decision, or even just a secular impulse.

Schools are not dictators. They are FAR overstepping their authority.

werechick commented at July 28, 2008 5:12 PM: "Schools have only a limited right to limit a person's choices in terms of hair or clothing. Short of, say, shaving swastikas into one's head, it's your personal business what you do with your hair, whether it's a religious decision, or even just a secular impulse."

Your comment reminded me of two cases, one IRL and one in a movie. I heard that someone lost custody of her kid after twice drawing swastikas on her daughter's arms and not washing them off before sending her to school. I could understand a school banning that. Also, in the movie B.A.P.S. there's a scene in which the two heroines accidentally block someone else's view of a movie screen with their tall hairdos. I could almost understand a school banning that too (unless all its class seating arrangements are by height or in circles).

"I was trying to find out what recognized religion they are that discusses they cannot cut their hair and the information I received then was basically it's their choice."

Religion be damned. It's a friggin' public school and they have no legitimate reason to dictate hair length. That is a preogative for parents, not a bunch of petty, head up the ass, zero tolerance worshipping government bureaucrats.

Your tax dollars, hard at work.

I actually know someone who sued over a situation like this and won - only it was a place of employment, not a school. They claimed he needed to cut his hair for safety purposes, even though he was a truck driver and always wore it in a tight braid that barely reached past the bottom of his collar. Maybe they should call someplace like the ACLU and sue the school.

My dad, a former high school and junior high/middle school administrator, has sported a ponytail since the 70s. He's currently an independent consultant on primary/secondary educational issues, and I'm sure would certify that long hair is not, in fact, the end of the world in schools. And that's without even getting into the racism, which can't be ignored. This is awful.

On a completely unrelated note, Sister Sassy- I can't BELIEVE someone other than my mother knows that song! She used to sing that every time any kind of conformity issue came up in conversation. Now it's going to be stuck in my head all week.

That dress code is ridiculous! It makes me feel silly for having complained about the dress code in high school. (though I still think it was unfair that skirt length rules got tossed out for cheerleading uniforms on game days. And I was even a cheerleader!) To think, my school system turned out completely successful, well-adjusted human beings, even though my best friend Dave wore skirts, and our class president had green bangs. Do they not think kids today are equipped to deal with concert T-shirts, shorts, or visible boy-toes?

This is what I sent to both the superintendent and the assistant super:

I am writing to you in concern for the protection of both Native American and
religious rights. The recent incident concerning young Adriel Arocha disturbs me because you reason that
this child may not attend school due to his long hair. Isn't the purpose of the dress code to prevent
distractions in school? Yet what is more distracting than banning a child from attending class?

As a follower of the Cunupa, the sacred Pipe, I do not cut my hair unless there has been a death in the family. It is only under these circumstances of mourning that I would cut off the part of my body that represents my spirit and the experiences in my life. My hair was cut last month when my grandfather passed away and it will grow out again to represent the year of grief following his death. Sure, I could get it cut every month but that would be both disrespecting my grandfather, as well as myself; to cut your hair when you are not in mourning is an act of shame. Which is more crucial, sir: the length of a kindergarten student's hair, or the fact he is attending school and learning? I hope you reevaluate your decision and realize this is a matter of religious expression and it must be taken seriously.

**And Maggie F. I do believe we crawled out of a hole in the ground in the Paha Sapa and that Whope brought us the seven sacred rights.

This is what I sent to both the superintendent and the assistant super:

I am writing to you in concern for the protection of both Native American and
religious rights. The recent incident concerning young Adriel Arocha disturbs me because you reason that
this child may not attend school due to his long hair. Isn't the purpose of the dress code to prevent
distractions in school? Yet what is more distracting than banning a child from attending class?

As a follower of the Cunupa, the sacred Pipe, I do not cut my hair unless there has been a death in the family. It is only under these circumstances of mourning that I would cut off the part of my body that represents my spirit and the experiences in my life. My hair was cut last month when my grandfather passed away and it will grow out again to represent the year of grief following his death. Sure, I could get it cut every month but that would be both disrespecting my grandfather, as well as myself; to cut your hair when you are not in mourning is an act of shame. Which is more crucial, sir: the length of a kindergarten student's hair, or the fact he is attending school and learning? I hope you reevaluate your decision and realize this is a matter of religious expression and it must be taken seriously.

**And Maggie F. I do believe we crawled out of a hole in the ground in the Paha Sapa and that Whope brought us the seven sacred rights.

I wrote:

I am writing to you in concern for the protection of both Native American and
religious rights. The recent incident concerning young Adriel Arocha disturbs me because you reason that
this child may not attend school due to his long hair. Isn't the purpose of the dress code to prevent
distractions in school? Yet what is more distracting than banning a child from attending class?

As a follower of the Cunupa, the sacred Pipe, I do not cut my hair unless there has been a death in the family. It is only under these circumstances of mourning that I would cut off the part of my body that represents my spirit and the experiences in my life. My hair was cut last month when my grandfather passed away and it will grow out again to represent the year of grief following his death. Sure, I could get it cut every month but that would be both disrespecting my grandfather, as well as myself; to cut your hair when you are not in mourning is an act of shame. Which is more crucial, sir: the length of a kindergarten student's hair, or the fact he is attending school and learning? I hope you reevaluate your decision and realize this is a matter of religious expression and it must be taken seriously.

**And I do believe we crawled out of a hole in the ground and that Whope brought us the seven sacred rites

I wrote:

I am writing to you in concern for the protection of both Native American and
religious rights. The recent incident concerning young Adriel Arocha disturbs me because you reason that
this child may not attend school due to his long hair. Isn't the purpose of the dress code to prevent
distractions in school? Yet what is more distracting than banning a child from attending class?

As a follower of the Cunupa, the sacred Pipe, I do not cut my hair unless there has been a death in the family. It is only under these circumstances of mourning that I would cut off the part of my body that represents my spirit and the experiences in my life. My hair was cut last month when my grandfather passed away and it will grow out again to represent the year of grief following his death. Sure, I could get it cut every month but that would be both disrespecting my grandfather, as well as myself; to cut your hair when you are not in mourning is an act of shame. Which is more crucial, sir: the length of a kindergarten student's hair, or the fact he is attending school and learning? I hope you reevaluate your decision and realize this is a matter of religious expression and it must be taken seriously.

**And I do believe we crawled out of a hole in the ground and that Whope brought us the seven sacred rites

Hair is recognised as being central to many religions. Not cutting it is one of the basic principles of Sikhism. This guy disgusts me.

Stephie: The superintendent did say that he would have made an exception on religious grounds, but that he didn't believe that being an Apache would count for that. I think his whole argument is bullshit, but I can't believe he wouldn't have allowed a Sikh to have Kesh if "religious grounds" meant anything at all to him.

I think that this is a perfectly fine rule. If we made exceptions just because of peoples cultures it wouldn't be a rule it would just be an expectation. I think it would be appropriate for the parents to try to get the rule changed as opposed to trying to find a way to get around it.

What has always bothered me (besides the obvious racist/sexist issues) about dress codes, and claiming religion as a exception, is that the school board often does an investigation to see how religious you are. They judge you from a secular stand point on whether you are following every aspect of your claimed religion to a T. They have to judge how serious you are.So if you are Jewish and male, and you want to wear payot (long sidelocks) but for what ever reason you do not follow kosher, but everything is orthodox, you aren't serious enough.

Who gets to decide what is religious and what isn't? Who gets to judge your expression of your chosen religion? And when is personal spirituality not religion enough?

And honestly this has to do with the cultural/religious makeup of the community. I grew up in a up-and-coming suburb northwest of Los Angeles. Historically it's been pretty agricultural, but always pretty white. In school we were not allowed to wear St. Christopher medallions. Not because of the religious aspects, but because they were "gang wear." Which discredits the religious aspects, long standing white cultural aspects(ie: giving someone your medal) and is plain racist against the latino population. And it's not even like we had a big gang problem. There were two gangs in the area, and they mostly were friends, they just tagged/claimed different territory. It never effected schooling for anyone.