...it's grade school

I'm not arguing in favor of public school grooming codes. But if a school does establish a grooming code, why shouldn't we accept that the standards could be different for boys and girls?

Not when it comes to respecting religion.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

So you think it's okay to have different rules for boys and girls in public schools as long as it is based on religion?

No.  I think it's ridiculous that they they can violate his religion.

What differences between boys and girls are necessary to acknowledge?  

Until we get to restroom facilities I don't think there is an issue.  

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

I think it's ridiculous that they they can violate his religion

What differences between boys and girls are necessary to acknowledge?

What if his religion said he had to carry a knife to school? Or what if his religion demanded that he disrupt class in order to pray?

Are there any such requests in the pipeline?  (Although a Canadian Sikh student can wear his ceremonial knife as long as it is completely sewn into its sheath).

The overall thing to remember here is that this student is not asking to bring a knife to school...or to perform disruptive prayer practices (fyi, many companies provide a room for Muslims to pray in the required 5 times per day).  He is seeking to wear his hair in the required manner.  How is long hair on a boy and more disruptive on a boy then a girl?  More importantly how, here in the 21st century with its shaved heads, Mohawks, kaleidoscope colors and cuts (all following the Great God Fashion, I suppose), does a dude with long hair even provide a blip on the taste radar?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

How is long hair on a boy and more disruptive on a boy then a girl?

The district's dress code is established to teach hygiene, instill discipline, prevent disruption, avoid safety hazards, and assert authority

-Teach hygiene: Silly.  You wash short hair the same way you wash long hair...it just takes more effort.  Is there any indication that the young man did not wash his hair?

-Instill discipline: Silly.  Arbitrary rules about hair length won't instill discipline.  In fact, it might encourage rebellion.

-Prevent disruption: Silly...double silly.  Since when does hair length disrupt anything anymore? (except of course when skool admins choose to make an issue of it)

-Avoid safety hazard: Silly...triple silly.  If long hair was a safety issue then girls should have their locks shorn as well.

-ASSERT AUTHORITY:  Ding ding ding!  We have a winner folks.  The previous stuff is just fluff my friends.  I suspect this is the most important reason.  Our Adminisbots  just want to throw their weight around.  "We're going to make you follow  a bullshit rule.  Why?  Because we can and it pleases us to see you comply."

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Arbitrary rules about hair length won't instill discipline

Our Adminisbots just want to throw their weight around

Yeah, tell it to the Army.

Oh Jeez!  How could I forget?  We do have to instill discipline in the little buggers so they'll be more easily formed when they're needed for the next war.

Well, duh. Do pay attention next time.

Ok, I don't get it.  You seem to agree that this is a bullshit rule, arbitrary at best, unconstitutional at worst.  Yet you seem to support it.  Do you do so simply because an "authority" came up with it?  Turning it around, would you support a school rule that mandated that boys must have at least collar length or longer hair?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

How could I forget?

Yet you seem to support it

What the hell gave you that idea?

You just seemed cool with the idea that if an admin came up with it, it must be righteous.  It reminded me of a t-shirt I saw long ago.  "It's Company Policy...It Doesn't Have To Make Sense."

So you're willing to admit that rules about hair can be a measure to instill discipline?

In a military setting...where lives depend on the speed with which you follow an order...absolutely.  In an elementary school?...not so much.  Unless of course one believes that the training of tomorrow's cannon fodder begins today.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

You just seemed cool with the idea that if an admin came up with it, it must be righteous

Unless of course one believes that the training of tomorrow's cannon fodder begins today

The district's dress code is established to teach hygiene, instill discipline, prevent disruption, avoid safety hazards, and assert authority

I have to agree with Lou, it's a bullshit rule, used for no reason other than to bully children, who can't fight back.

And the legal system helps them do it.  Nice.

What a bunch of evil SOBs.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

...it's a bullshit rule, used for no reason other than to bully children...

I don't know what their reasons are, but the obvious one is that they intend to teach the lesson that non conformance with societal standards does not lead to success in life.

Which "societal standard" are we talking about here? The one that says men and boys can't have long hair (that died 30-40 years ago) or the one which says "you must do as the authorities tell you" (which is apparently timeless)?

but the obvious one is that they intend to teach the lesson that non conformance with societal standards does not lead to success in life.

Who are you, Doug Neidermeyer?  I'd be more critical of you, but I'm afraid it might go on my Permanent Record.

On a serious note, I think the above observation supports my earlier contention that you support this rule...despite being against grooming rules.  You may secretly love this grooming rule since it encourages the kind of conformance that leads to success in life.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

You may secretly love this grooming rule since it encourages the kind of conformance that leads to success in life

I am ambivalent about the Texas school's rules, but I can see that an argument could be made that the role of a public school goes beyond the narrowest academic mission - all sorts of public schools intervene in their students' lives in ways that fall far outside the scope of academics. If you are against grooming rules on principle, are you similarly opposed to schools having free lunch programs or sex education?

I am ambivalent about the Texas school's rules, but I can see that an argument could be made that the role of a public school goes beyond the narrowest academic mission - all sorts of public schools intervene in their students' lives in ways that fall far outside the scope of academics.

I share your ambivalence to an extent (although I come down far more on the side of letting the kid keep his hair), but I think that there are better ways to teach this lesson to children than this.  The problem isn't that the school is teaching children that conforming to certain values will usually make the path to success a bit easier, but rather that the school is setting itself up as the arbitrator of what those values are, and is assuming that those values are static.  That may (although I'm skeptical) work well enough in a small Texas town where change is somewhat slow, but in today's world, where your average corporate drone is probably going to drone about in at least four or five companies over the course of his/her life, it's far more imperative to be able to be flexible and adapt to new circumstances than it is to learn by wrote to obey one set of rules and values.  

The idea that there is one ideal work culture and path to success may have been true in the 1950s (although again, I'm skeptical), but that's hardly the case now.  In an east coast company, keeping your hair cut short and wearing a three piece suit to work may well be the path to success for most people - but keeping the same attitude at a high tech start-up in Silicon Valley could well alienate you from your coworkers and hinder your advancement.  It is true that being anti-authority for the sake of being anti-authority will probably hinder a person's success, but it's equally true that being blindly compliant to some supposed cultural ideal is just as problematic.  I think that, ironically, the school's insistence on such a narrow and arbitrary set of rules based on just such a supposed ideal is probably far more likely to breed malcontent, anti-authority workers than it is to turn out the successful, desirable workforce the policy is supposed to promote.

The idea that there is one ideal work culture and path to success may have been true in the 1950s (although again, I'm skeptical), but that's hardly the case now

Job interview? He's not going to just live off the indian casino payments?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Having a non-standard hair cut might exclude you from an interview from some jobs, but certainly not all.  This blog entry sort of sums up the point I'm trying to make.  You have a guy who goes on and on about the importance of dressing in a certain way (based on his experience working at certain companies), but then at the end he mentions that in his new job at Google: After all of this, I do have to admit that my new career experience at Google (week six as I write this) has got me a little wrapped around the axle however, as the vast majority of Google employees simply wear jeans and t-shirts to work. And those really bad boots -- I think they call them Uggs. So now I'm thinking I may have to adjust my strategy some in this new world of work that is filled with Generation Y.  So here you have a guy who thought he had it DOWN as far as how to dress (to the point that he felt qualified to write a four or five paragraph explanation of the best ways to dress for success), and then he admits in the end that at his new job all of his expectations were thrown right out the window.  That's what I'm trying to get at.  I agree with you that conformity can be a path to success (I don't think it's the only one, but it may well be the easiest), but the key is to combine conformity with adaptability.  If the Texas school rules seemed aimed in that direction, I might agree with them - but my impression of the rules is that they are meant to encourage unquestioned, inflexible conformity to one set of rules, rather than adaptive conformity to maximize results in new situations as they present themselves.

He's what, about five or six? What sort of job is he going to apply for? Oh, you meant what sort of job would he apply for 12 to 20 years from now. Fashions change and, who knows, perhaps big hair will return with a vengeance.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

He's what, about five or six? What sort of job is he going to apply for?

...perhaps big hair will return with a vengeance

"I thought you said you saw his photo."

Yes I did say that.  Thus I saw it.  Looked a bit windswept to me.

"That's not "big," that's "unkempt." And that's unlikely to ever be in fashion."

Unkempt ... windswept.  Fashion's in the eye of the beholder.  And, if the fashion lords can bring back Journey and Abba, anything is possible.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Umm.... Did any of you notice that his hair is normally in two tight braids?

The newspaper took a few beautiful photos in their photo shoot, but that's not how he wears it normally.  And his mother's blog points out that he always wears a helmet on his pony, so you couldn't see his hair well in the first place if they took a picture of how he normally looks.

Chalk up one more victory for "entertainment journalism".

And that's unlikely to ever be in fashion.

Here are some modern hair styles for your edification.  Look closely and you'll see that maybe half of these stylish "do's" make the fellah wearing it look like he just rolled out of bed after a night of frenetic sex.  This one is the best.  The addition of a suit says that he's ready for a busy day at the call center.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Here are some modern hair styles for your edification

The addition of a suit says that he's ready for a busy day at the call center

If you are against grooming rules on principle, are you similarly opposed to schools having free lunch programs or sex education?

Free lunch - optional.
Sex ed - Optional in some districts, iirc.  Otherwise, it's an academic subject so I don't see the point.  We might as well outlaw evolution (I'm lookin' at you, Kansas).  

Cutting hair wore long for religious reasons - Not optional.

Nice riff on the title though.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

We might as well outlaw evolution...Cutting hair wore long for religious reasons - Not optional

Presumably the school administration (and likely the community) would disagree with you

Aren't you presuming that the school admin and the community doesn't get a bit of a thrill by pushing around the young and different?

JJC - I hope there are no goth kids in this district.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Aren't you presuming that the school admin and the community doesn't get a bit of a thrill by pushing around the young and different?

I hope there are no goth kids in this district

What if his religion said he had to carry a knife to school? Or what if his religion demanded that he disrupt class in order to pray? Does the school have to allow any crazy violation of the rules if the student claims that an act is based on his personal superstition?

OK, do we have an instance where that is happening?  It's hair.  

I'm fairly certain there isn't a First Church of The Divine Circus Geeks in Houston. ;)

This is not a crazy violation of school rules.  It's a hairstyle.  BFD.

All of them, I suppose.

In grade school?  Why?  What do grade school boys do differently that requires special acknowledgment, other than pee standing up?

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

&gt What if his religion said he had to carry a knife to school? [...]

OK, do we have an instance where that is happening?  It's hair.

One of these items is a ceremonial bladed weapon known as a Kirpan.  See the "legality" section of the preceding link for some information on how various countries and several jurisdictions within the U.S. have dealt with balancing a student's religious obligation against rules prohibiting weapons in school.  (Oh.. as it happens, Sikhs also have rules against cutting their hair.  I don't imagine that the small-town west-Texas school district we're talking about has needed to deal with any yet, however.)

This is not a crazy violation of school rules.  It's a hairstyle

I get the sense that you are arguing against a grooming policy. I pretty clearly stated above that I am not arguing that a grooming policy is a good idea. All am arguing is that once a decision has been made to enact a grooming policy it is perfectly reasonable to have different standards for boys and girls.

I get the sense that you are arguing against a grooming policy. I pretty clearly stated above that I am not arguing that a grooming policy is a good idea. All am arguing is that once a decision has been made to enact a grooming policy it is perfectly reasonable to have different standards for boys and girls.

Ah, gotcha.  Again, very few differences are necessary.  No exposed underwear covers both sexes.  Hem length covers both sexes without specifying garments, or could be done with slashes; skirts/pants.  There is no need to say only girls can have long hair, in fact, it would seem to be deliberately discriminatory toward certain ethnic/religious groups.

And again, why is it reasonable to have different standards for boys and girls?  Or would a better question be, other than the idiots in the Texas courts,  who says it's reasonable?

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

Well, look at it this way.  They've already established they don't care about hair length in and of itself, since there is no such rule for girls.  So unless they can come up with a good reason why our delicate Y-chromosomes can't handle all that hair, then it is (like so many others) an utterly arbitrary and pointless rule, and a double standard on top of everything.

I agree.

If it's unsafe, then it's unsafe for both sexes.

If it's based strictly on sex, it's discriminatory.

Sadly, I'm not very surprised at the decision, but they were wrong. :(  I just can't help thinking in another state it would have gone another way.  

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

They've already established they don't care about hair length in and of itself, since there is no such rule for girls.

What that establishes is that they don't care about girls' hair length.

So unless they can come up with a good reason why our delicate Y-chromosomes can't handle all that hair

Perhaps a reason like, "boys tend to rougher, more physical play, which can lead to greater chances of injury for those with long hair"?

Perhaps a reason like, "boys tend to rougher, more physical play, which can lead to greater chances of injury for those with long hair"?

lol

I've got a 10 year old girl who put a hole in one of our walls when she was 8.  And she outweighs my 11 year old boy by 45 pounds, most of it muscle.

Boys are rougher my arse.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

I've got a 10 year old girl who put a hole in one of our walls when she was 8.  And she outweighs my 11 year old boy by 45 pounds, most of it muscle.

Does she play tackle football? Or wrestling? Has she expressed any interest in doing either, as part of a school team, or in gym class, or just for fun with friends?

I'm as non-sports oriented as guys come, but had done both in all three types of instances while growing up. I can tell you that long hair even to collar length is a liability on those occasions, and that having hair pulled from your head is No Fun. I can also say that the number of times girls joined in playing was zero.

Also, you've gone on record as having a somewhat atypical daughter. I bring this up only to note that I'm trying to describe the typical patterns in boys' behavior one would expect Arocha to encounter, so she's not the best counterexample.

I'm as non-sports oriented as guys come, but had done both in all three types of instances while growing up. I can tell you that long hair even to collar length is a liability on those occasions, and that having hair pulled from your head is No Fun.

What does that have to do with whether this is a good idea or not?  Hair can be dealt with without cutting - it can be tucked under a helmet, braided, whatever.  If hair is such an issue, why not just require all male children to shave their heads bald?  Would you support that rule, for the sake of safety?  If not, why not?

My long ago ancestors can attest that after being pillaged by the Vikings, long hair didn't slow down their tormentors.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Hair can be dealt with without cutting - it can be tucked under a helmet, braided, whatever.

Yeah, forcing all kids to wear mandatory helmets during recess because of one prissy parent is surely the solution imposing the least infringement on personal liberty.

If hair is such an issue, why not just require all male children to shave their heads bald?  Would you support that rule, for the sake of safety?

I doubt I would campaign to install a rule like that, but I wouldn't have a problem with it were it already in place.

Also, you've gone on record as having a somewhat atypical daughter. I bring this up only to note that I'm trying to describe the typical patterns in boys' behavior one would expect Arocha to encounter, so she's not the best counterexample.
Maybe.  I have noticed that girls aren't exactly feminine these days.  And they're big.  I've  noticed she is not the largest girl in her class, so strength and size-wise she isn't all that unusual.  We're breeding a bunch of Amazons around here.  Childhood is nothing like it was when baby-boomers were children.   Have you seen a girl try to sit in a skirt lately?   Yikes.    They're more like boys all the time.

Oh, and that hole in the wall?  That wasn't even on purpose.  

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

"boys tend to rougher, more physical play, which can lead to greater chances of injury for those with long hair"?

So, I guess you've never seen Girls Lacrosse.

Here's a hint:  They ain't wearing them goggles because they look good.

However, I will grant you that most boy's sports (basketball, football, baseball, car repair) are rougher than the more ladylike sports (knitting, cooking, breastfeeding).

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

this is the comment, along with #6 by ivyafire, i wish i'd been able to make, but not eloquent enough to manage.

i wish people could just be people and not feel bound by gender

Part of being human is being bound by sex. Gender is a wholly social construct.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Gender is a wholly social construct

Gender is not determined by sex. Gender is determined by individuals based on their beliefs about sex. Gender is a liberalized, intangible concept.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Gender is determined by individuals based on their beliefs about sex

be·lief /bɪˈlif/ -noun - something believed; an opinion or conviction.

in·nate /ɪˈneɪt, ˈɪneɪt/ -adjective - existing in one from birth; inborn; native.

How exactly are "beliefs" "innate."

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Beliefs are innate when they are caused by biological factors.

biology makes you pick pants over skirts every morning?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Biology determines that there will be sexually-determined differences in behavior. Culture will affect the particular differences in many cases, such as with clothing fashions.

By the way, going back to your radically mistaken idea that "[g]ender is determined by individuals based on their beliefs about sex," I'd like to point out that if that were true, we should expect to see many, many genders, yet the classification of gender is a binary quality across all cultures. Such universality of a behavior is the strongest indication that it is biological rather than determined by upbringing.

By the way, going back to your radically mistaken idea that "[g]ender is determined by individuals based on their beliefs about sex," I'd like to point out that if that were true, we should expect to see many, many genders, yet the classification of gender is a binary quality across all cultures.

Um, no. There are two sexes. Genders are the social roles attributed to individuals based on their sex. There are two (common) sexes and therefore most people are expected to fit into the two (established) genders. In some cultures men wear make up. In some cultures men wear skirts. In some cultures men wear long hair. Are those different genders? If your point were true the answer would be yes. But the answer is clearly no. Those are variations in concepts of gender created by the societies in which those men live. What changed in human biology in 1964 that American women now wear pants like men instead of dresses?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.