Black Texas student given additional suspension for loc hairstyle | CNN
www.cnn.com
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.

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.

  • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
    4·
    9 months ago

    So girls should not wear skirts or dresses? Because there it is relatively easy for underwear to become visible if someone is seeking to see it. In the same wake more loose pants or shirts could make some of the underwear visible briefly. That is why i consider it arbitrary. Whether underwear is visible or not is highly dependant on how pervy the teachers are staring at the girls.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      English
      14·
      9 months ago

      Dude really? Underwear should not be showing when the person is just standing/existing.

      Of course if you manipulate almost any wardrobe into the right shape you’ll be able to see underwear.

      Put more bluntly, under normal conditions, you should never see underwear.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        4·
        9 months ago

        But what are “normal conditions”? We ran around and played on the school yard. If girls were wearing dresses or skirts of course it was possible that underwear was visible briefly. The same would go for boys roughing around. But it wasnt and shouldnt be an issue because the issue are the people who sexualize minors.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          English
          11·
          9 months ago

          I’ve made it clear that running around or whatever is different.

          I’m all done arguing for not having minor’s underwear visible at-rest or just walking around. This is simple stuff. A skirt covers underwear. Sagging pants does not.

          A dress code that requires people to be fully dressed isn’t weird or prudish, it’s just the bare minimum appropriate for public.

          • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
            2·
            9 months ago

            it’s just the bare minimum appropriate for public.

            And your definition of that is arbirtrary. A jewish person might deem the bare minimim to be long legs and sleeves. A muslim person might deem the bare minimum to cover the hair too. Some people find pants need to cover the knees, others find crop tops problematic. It all remains arbitrary. Is a boy wearing a skirt okay? what about wearing net stockings until under the skirt? Knee high leather boots? In our cultures these tend to be sexualized, even if they perfectly adhere to your underwear rule, theyd probably cause more concern than saggy pants.

            Is wearing a hat or cap indoors disrespectful? in elementary school we had to take our hats off in class. In high school my jewish arts teacher always covered his hat.

            Is it okay for men to be topless in Summer? ask around and you’ll probably get quite a few different opinions in your community.

            None of these are right or wrong by principle. They are just the result of different cultural norms, hence arbitrary.

            EDIT: Also in Kindergarden we were roaming around naked, playing with water and slising on water slides, which was perfectly acceptable in my state in my country. Two states over it would probably have caused a lot of discussions. Still i’m very happy that our bare minimum was to play around with water in hot summers as opposed to sweating like crazy.

            • GBU_28@lemm.ee
              English
              11·
              9 months ago

              Again, the minimum viable is no exposed underwear, inside a classroom, why is this hard for you?

              I already made clear the point about nudity being inherently non sexual, in general, but the classroom is not the place for that due to the power dynamic, supervision, and objectives of the space.

              Why are you describing wardrobe choices of adults, or people outside a classroom? Why bring that up? You are ambiguating the topic.

              • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
                1·
                9 months ago

                Because your minimum is not more or less valid than a minimum demanding full length clothes. Or some rule that is targeting outfits specifically identified with black hip hop culture, like it is quite popular among american schools. And demanding that no underwear is visible in a classroom is weird in so far, that this seems not to be an issue in general, because that is already a thought of students and their parents, without any formal rule. So the example, while culturally and morally totally understandable, i also agree with the statement of you, is not so much relevant to the situation in schools. And there these rules are arbitrary.

                Just to give on example, one could also argue for hairstyles, that they shouldn’t be so long, that it represents a tripping hazard. Noone sane would disagree with it, but it doesnt need to be formalized in an explicit rule, because it is obvious and not a relevant issue.