Oh yeah, I heard South Africa has incredibly strict rules in thier schools. You sure make good Iced Tea though.reg42 said:
Four year old Texas boy suspended due to long hair
- Thread starter Grayjack
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Actually they do have the right to complain. Although I can understand that they are a little ***** if they do.Ledan said:
Yeah, if this is a public school, the kid should be fine, but if its a private school, they have every right to tell him how long his hair should be. But, since he's in Texas, (and me, not being familiar with Texas schooling policies) they may even have the right to do that in public schools as well.
True. Maybe they don't have much of a choice? It would explain why they're going to such lengths...teisjm said:
Hmmm... I feel divided.
On one hand, I entirely agree that rules are rules and that people should have to follow them, because otherwise what exactly is the point in having them in the fist place.
But this rule in particular is mad-crazy. For anyone who has not seen the video, the child's hair is entirely normal hair. As in, not even 'entirely fine for a hippy' hair, but just normal everyday hair. It is only considered 'long' in comparison to a buzz-cut, which is apparently the shining ideal the school wishes to promote. It's about as distracting as white bread...
Anyhow, I think the answer should be that whilst rules are rules and they shouldn't be broken, unreasonable rules should be opposed, protested against and all such other reasonable actions taken to countermand them.
On one hand, I entirely agree that rules are rules and that people should have to follow them, because otherwise what exactly is the point in having them in the fist place.
But this rule in particular is mad-crazy. For anyone who has not seen the video, the child's hair is entirely normal hair. As in, not even 'entirely fine for a hippy' hair, but just normal everyday hair. It is only considered 'long' in comparison to a buzz-cut, which is apparently the shining ideal the school wishes to promote. It's about as distracting as white bread...
Anyhow, I think the answer should be that whilst rules are rules and they shouldn't be broken, unreasonable rules should be opposed, protested against and all such other reasonable actions taken to countermand them.
Rules are here to protect society. They are here to make sure that we don't fall into anarchy. They are here to protect the common welfare of the people. Anything beyond that is not the job of the government, be it local, state, or federal.
School systems are entirely at fault for these sort of things. Their job is to make sure that students have the equipment, teachers, and environment to learn well. However, they streach that "environment" aspect to the point that it resembles the elastic waistband of President Taft.
But more to the point: the school systems have no right to be able to control these children like this. Some people here are saying that it would be much better just to shave the kid's head or cut it or settle on a compromise. Normally I'd agree with compromise, but in cases like this, where things can have the potential to become very influential, backing down or settling is NOT the answer. Give these people an inch and they take a couple hundred miles.
School systems are entirely at fault for these sort of things. Their job is to make sure that students have the equipment, teachers, and environment to learn well. However, they streach that "environment" aspect to the point that it resembles the elastic waistband of President Taft.
But more to the point: the school systems have no right to be able to control these children like this. Some people here are saying that it would be much better just to shave the kid's head or cut it or settle on a compromise. Normally I'd agree with compromise, but in cases like this, where things can have the potential to become very influential, backing down or settling is NOT the answer. Give these people an inch and they take a couple hundred miles.
As I have posted elsewhere in this very thread: There is a group of judges called the supreme court and the primary job of these judges is constitutional law. While no where in the constitution does it state that children have no rights, and you or I might read it as saying they do have rights, it is the rulings of these judges which matter. Time and time again they have sided with the government, in particular schools, when it has come to issues like this one. This means children do not have a recognised right to free expression of speech because the courts won't uphold any case where a child is trying to sue the school for breaching said right.IHateDaManSkirt said:
The general mindset of the courts is, until you reach a certain measure stick age, you don't have the ability to make rational decisions. This is why minors can not sign legally binding contracts and are hold to a lower standard of responsibility in a court of law. It takes a great deal of paperwork, expense and time to get legal recognition as a separate entity then your parents or those put in charge of you. Even then there usually has to be circumstances that make it dangerous for your parents to take legal responsibility of you, such as abuse, on top of proof that you can make rational legal decisions yourself.
Till this mentality and derived rulings change... well the government has the ability to tell you how you can and can not appear on public grounds and your parents just out right own you. Nor will this mentality change as minors are viewed, fairly I think, as unable to take care of themselves.
Now cutting long hair in violation of religion?
Religious cases do have a higher chance of being heard. Normally they don't get as high as the SC though, as lower courts rule in favour of the child before then. Yet if you read the briefs there is something interesting in them, the mention of the child's parents! This is because the parents right to bring their child up in a certain religion is argued in these cases, more so then the child right directly. Indeed in the brief I am looking at now, A.A. v. Needville Independent School District (Texas again, go figure), the rights of the parents are mentioned before the rights of the child. They are so entwined in the cases I have looked at it is clear to me that the only way to win these cases is if your parents are claiming their rights have been violated right along side of your own.
Still, it is a good use of a laymen legal interpenetration to just tell the school your religious rights are being violated and you will sue if they don't cease. Very few schools want the bad press that comes with such accusations, even if you don't file a suit, and will usual back down before it gets to a court. The few that don't, well as long as your folk say they want you to have long hair for religious reasons then the appeals court will side with you.
But hell, the appeals court is far more progressive then most courts, including the SC, so your better off with them looking into your case to begin with. With how stacked towards pro-authoritarians the SC has become it is a toss up to which way they will rule on anything these days. Hell even the 'pure constitutionalists,' non-progressives that at least based their rulings on the words within said constitution, have become political hacks willing to give the government more power over the people. Of course if the right party is in power at the time....
Sorry, got into a bit of a political rant there but what the supreme court did under Governor Bush was disgusting... including over turning a election to anoint the damn guy into a position he didn't actually achieve. Many of the rulings from that era will haunt us for a long time to come, the biggest I feel being that electronic voting machines can not be legally audited or studded to prove their accuracy.
Wow, in my school the only suspension I know of was for someone dealing drugs, he got suspended for a few weeks, moved to the other side of the year and given litter picking for a month.
You make a good point, and it is very well researched, I will give you that. However, as you will note from my above posts, just because something is a law or a rule, that doesn't mean that it is right. In fact, in many cases, it is just the opposite, such as this one.Jinx_Dragon said:
Children have no real protections under the constitution or otherwise, you are correct. Despite the fact that this system is ineffective, and if changed would probably do a world of good, it is here right now. That child's parents, on the other hand, have those protections and rights. They also have the right to decide what is best for their child, even if this means they want their son to be able to choose his own hairstyle. The school system has no right to deny the first amendment, as that is classified as "Symbolic Speech".
There is a previous court case in the Supreme Court (which I can't remember the name of right now) that deemed schools the ability to bypass the constitution of the United States, in the name of providing a "suitible learning environment". Who defines what a "suitible learning environment" is? If the schools are left to decide, then it more or less gives them totally free reign over what children are allowed to look like.
Most people wouldn't worry about that. But if you give these people an inch, they will take a couple hundred miles. First it will be how they dress and look, like they are doing now. But if clothing and outward appearance is distracting, then personalities outside the "normal" sheeplike kind is TWICE as distracting. Once it gets to the stage where they are isolating and even expelling children who don't think like everyone else, then it is really too late to do anything about it. That's the point where those rules are already so set in stone, that even a full scale national court battle would only amount in the smallest of dents.
Can you really sit there and tell me, tell us, that you'd rather have that? That you'd rather have our children turned into mindless drones? And to those who say "you just forget that stuff when you get out of school anyway", that is utterly wrong, especially if its started when they're young. They will end up staying as mindless drones, and they can't just "unlearn" everything they taught them. That stuff sticks for life, and considering how early they start kids in school, it is even more so.
I won't and can't argue with your points here either as the rule of law is often unjust. I've argued a great deal about that very fact, wanting the laws stripped back to just crimes that hurt other people and leaving the rest as personal freedoms (which long hair in school clearly is). The law is bulky, complex to the point it becomes imposable for a common person to understand and no one can live a single day without breaching it in some manor or another.ionpulse2 said:
I also have to say the argument you made, that a parents right to freedom of speech and expression is violated when you target their children, could very well hold water. Even in the current court system where a child is just an object, this is the rights of legal entities being discussed. I can't say, I am not more then a layman and I distrust the SC to do the right thing given it's history, but that argument very well might win a legal case.
Regardless, I agree with you that too much power is laying in the hands of the school board. I don't know what it is about the higher epsilons but the more power you give a person the more they want to control you. School boards are no different, if anything they are filled with political hacks who are jaded to the point they will take it out on the children every chance they can get.
Sorry, bad run in with school boards and stuff in the past too....
Also as for directing an argument against my person?
I like debating a bit and such a stance is quite weak in debates. I will take a stance to debate regardless of my personal feelings on such things. In this case I took the legal stand point mostly to raise understanding that minors have no legal rights. I use the word minors too because we are not just talking about kids here, but teenagers as well have no legal rights either.
Once most people realise that they ask for themselves: just why not?
If anything I can easily agree with you, school systems these days are designed to create service industry drones, twice so in the US which has a higher amount of service jobs then manufacturing or academic positions these days. A minimal understanding of maths and English is all they are really looking to teach these days, and of course the inability to question or seek something better for oneself.
Schools are moving more and more the way we both fear.
Because girls have long boys have short. Anything else is communism.Hawgh said:
They are likely gutless parents.ssj4raditz said:
If it were me I would stand against it because of the love of my own hair!
...I agree with you but...I like wearing ties...Furburt said:
OT: This is quite interesting, either these parents are just doing it for attention or they want the best for their child and the best is really strict. Personally I would have cut his hair the instant I saw that rule or taken him out of the school.
Hehe reminds me of when my Dad kept trying to get me to cut my hair in 8th grade, looking back on it I looked dumb but hey, I liked my hair. I actually cut it during the summer when people stopped telling me to cut it. But when I looked at pictures of my Dad at my age his was about 1.5x as long as mine.
that's texas for you. better adhere to strict gender roles and appearances, or face segregation. go figure.
Hmmm
If its a rule, and they agreed to the rules before sending their child to said school, then its the Parents fault.
If its a public school, then while it is rather ridiculous, it still is a rule and needs to be followed.
Regardless, the school was incredibly heavy handed when it came to dealing with this matter. This is not, however, an infringement on the First Amendment.
If its a rule, and they agreed to the rules before sending their child to said school, then its the Parents fault.
If its a public school, then while it is rather ridiculous, it still is a rule and needs to be followed.
Regardless, the school was incredibly heavy handed when it came to dealing with this matter. This is not, however, an infringement on the First Amendment.
