Unconventionally cute - suspended from school

[Ben Kenobi]

It amazes me how people will gladly limit their most important freedoms while clinging obtusely to licenses like hair styles for little kids in school.

Wow, I agree with Kid and Gepap.



Well said.

[Japher]

Mohawks are surprisingly common around these parts...

as are mullets.

If it were up to me I would ban mullets. Especially if worn by a chick.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


You think that a lot of the people who support freedom of personal expression for kids would also support taking voting rights away from ex-cons?

Yes.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Wow, I agree with Kid and Gepap.



Well said.

I'm sure they are thrilled.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by GePap

Limits on the right to vote, for example, taking voting rights away from felons even after they get out of prison.

Allowing the elected presidential executive to entrench itself in a form of creeping opacity and lack of legal accountability, in the name of homeland security.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap


If public schools can set rules about how kids can dress, they can set rules about how they can cut their hair. There is no freedom of hairstyling out there.

This is just about a haircut. If the kid had been suspended immidiately the first time he went with that cut, then I would say the school was out of line. But the school told the mother about the rule (even if not written down) and she chose to ignore it because she had some weird entitlement to abuse her kid with that hideous cut.

As far as I can see nobody is disputing the need for rules. But your haircut is first your private choice. Rules that limit this can be and are indeed made in various situations, but they should be both justified and clearly defined. If the article I posted is correct, there was nothing explicit about the haircut in the school's rules. "Properly groomed" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Then they referred to another very vague point about "anything that interferes with the conduct of education". By that they can just declare anything they want an "interference", which makes this a quite shady point IMO.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
But your haircut is first your private choice.

Not when you go to school. It never has been, except in specific schools who choose to allow any hairstyle that students choose.

[BeBMan]

Which is why I wrote "first", then added a line about restrictions being possible, thank you.

That doesn't change the need for justification and clear definition of such restrictions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
Which is why I wrote "first", then added a line about restrictions being possible, thank you.

That doesn't change the need for justification and clear definition of such restrictions.

There is not need for justification. The school has the right to set dress code regulations, period. Students have no choice in the matter. Actually they can be quite effective as a group if they choose to force changes in the dress code, but they have no power as individuals.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by GePap
It amazes me how people will gladly limit their most important freedoms while clinging obtusely to licenses like hair styles for little kids in school.

Strictly speaking, voting isn't a freedom. It is a civil right and a tool to use to secure freedoms.

Freedoms are things like your ability to do what you wish with your own body without some authority punishing you for it. So yea, how you style your own hair I think is one of the most basic freedoms people have. I don't even think Stalin made up a list of state-approved haircuts for Soviet citizens.

If you don't have control over even the simplest, most basic parts of your own body and own life, then you are not free.

You'll respond with the fact that many employers will impose restrictions on things like clothes and haircuts, but employees are free to decide where to work. So they are given a choice in the matter. Students aren't. They are forced to go to school.

What remains to be seen of course is whether the mother is forcing this haircut on him to prove some point or whether he really wants it and the school is forcing him to remove it. Either situation is equally wrong.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious


There is not need for justification. The school has the right to set dress code regulations, period. Students have no choice in the matter.

Bull****, any rule needs some form of justification, a reason why it should be a rule in the first place. Otherwise noone would know why a rule was there, and why it should be followed. Everyone running a public school could just make up any rule he wants, like having the kids running around naked or demand they all come to school with their hair being colored in red-yellow stripes. Of course this would be idiotic, because there is no good reason to do this.

The reason they give here is what they see as interference "with the conduct of education".

That they may have the authority to act in that way doesn't per se prove it's an intelligent move.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
If you don't have control over even the simplest, most basic parts of your own body and own life, then you are not free.

6 year olds never have been.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
Bull****, any rule needs some form of justification, a reason why it should be a rule in the first place. Otherwise noone would know why a rule was there, and why it should be followed.

The school makes rules in the best interest of the education of the students. That's the purpose of the school. It's implied that they don't need to justify every rule. They may have to however if people complain about the rule enough. The school has to maintain good PR with the community. That said, they can make any rule up on the spot if they wish, and if only a few people get mad about it the rule will stick and they need no justification for the rule.

Everyone running a public school could just make up any rule he wants, like having the kids running around naked or demand they all come to school with their hair being colored in red-yellow stripes. Of course this would be idiotic, because there is no good reason to do this.

Of course that kind of rule would need justification if there was any, and if that were a real situation. In reality, with cases like haircuts the administrator can make a decision without having to justify it. The only recourse the parent has is to get a group of parents together and go before the school board. That's usually very effective. However, just some nut who gives her kid a mohawk is going to be wasting her time.

The reason they give here is what they see as interference "with the conduct of education".

That they may have the authority to act in that way doesn't per se prove it's an intelligent move.

Sure it is an intelligent move. You have to learn in kindergarten how to get along in society. It's no time to be anti-social. The mother is very wrong for her actions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro


As far as I can see nobody is disputing the need for rules. But your haircut is first your private choice. Rules that limit this can be and are indeed made in various situations, but they should be both justified and clearly defined. If the article I posted is correct, there was nothing explicit about the haircut in the school's rules. "Properly groomed" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Then they referred to another very vague point about "anything that interferes with the conduct of education". By that they can just declare anything they want an "interference", which makes this a quite shady point IMO.

Except that rules almost never work that way because of the multiplicity of posibilities. When drafting a rule, are you really able to define and lay out EVERY single posibility? NO. You simply can't imagine every single thing. Take this grooming issue. According to you, they would have to before hand define what haircuts are acceptible. HOw would they do that? They would have to define every possible haircut? (what is a mohawk, what isn;t? What is the maximum hair length? What percentage of the scalp does it cover? What colors are we talking about? ) Then you could have someone take a haircut that is almost like those banned, but with one difference, and presto! It's not against the rules! This sort of thing is exactly why that rule is vague. And again, the school twice told the mother that the haircut her child had broke that rule in their eyes.

We are talking here about a grooming issue. The need of the school to run itself as it sees fit outweight in this case (by a significant margin) the ability of a parent to make their kid look how they please.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious

The school makes rules in the best interest of the education of the students. That's the purpose of the school. It's implied that they don't need to justify every rule. They may have to however if people complain about the rule enough. The school has to maintain good PR with the community. That said, they can make any rule up on the spot if they wish, and if only a few people get mad about it the rule will stick and they need no justification for the rule.

Of course that kind of rule would need justification if there was any, and if that were a real situation. In reality, with cases like haircuts the administrator can make a decision without having to justify it. The only recourse the parent has is to get a group of parents together and go before the school board. That's usually very effective. However, just some nut who gives her kid a mohawk is going to be wasting her time.


Sure it is an intelligent move. You have to learn in kindergarten how to get along in society. It's no time to be anti-social. The mother is very wrong for her actions.

It's fun that you keep mentioning the "no justifications needed" while including lots of possible justifications in your post like that rules would be "in the best interest of the education" or that "You have to learn in kindergarten how to get along"

How does anyone know something is in his best interest when nobody ever tells why that would be indeed the case?

Also, people having their own haircut does not fall under being "anti-social" in my book.