A Texas judge on Thursday said the Barbers Hill Independent School District can punish a Black student who wears his hair in long locs without violating Texas’ new CROWN Act, which is meant to prevent hairstyle discrimination in schools and workplaces.
The decision came after a monthslong dispute between the district and Darryl George, a junior at Barbers Hill High School who has been sent to in-school suspension since August for wearing his hair in long locs. Legislators last year passed a law called the Texas CROWN Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of hair texture or protective styles associated with race. Protective styles include locs, braids and twists.
But the Barbers Hill school district successfully argued it can still enforce its policy that prohibits males from wearing hair that extends beyond eyebrows, earlobes or collars even if it’s gathered on top of the student’s head.
Judge Chap B. Cain III issued the ruling after a short trial in which lawyers for opposing sides argued over the legislative intent behind the CROWN Act. Lawyers for Barbers Hill said lawmakers would have included explicit language about hair length had they intended the law to cover it. Allie Booker, representing Darryl George and his mother Darresha George, said protective styles are only possible with long hair.
Yeah, what about religious hairstyles, like Sihks having long hair gathered up on top of the head?
Just... let people have whatever hair they want...
"Absolutely not."
– Conservatives, probably
I’m a man that has mostly had long hair since I was 14. It’s part of my identity. Their whole ‘collar length’ rule is one I would simply have laughed at them for.
But I’m white (and a man). No one tries to bully me when I set boundaries.
Fuck those administrators and their heavy-handed attempt to step on that child’s sense of self. Their school rules do not supersede state law.
And their rules don't supercede federal law. Some religions forbid cutting of hair (e.g. Sikh), so that would be protected under the first amendment. If one individual is not obligated to cut their hair for religious purposes, surely another individual could choose to not cut their hair under the equal protection clause, even without claiming religious exemption. If not, one party gets special privileges that another does not just because they're part of a protected class, which is unfair.
That said, I think they can absolutely enforce hair not going beyond your shoulders, since people can tie their hair up. There may be practical reasons for it (e.g. safety, such as in a shop class), or just a uniform standard of appearance. But that's not what the article is about. If I were the student's parents, I would seriously consider appealing on constitutional grounds.