Four year old Texas boy suspended due to long hair

[Dragon Zero]

I thoght the U.S were "the land of the free", or something like that. Doesn't this undermine that statement just a tad

Texas was one of the Confederate states who wanted to leave the United States... I'm just saying. If they had their way they wouldn't even be part of the USA.

Okay, I get the point you were trying to make and I'm honestly trying to let go of this topic (and all of the reflexive bashing of my home) but as a Texan and a Civil War history nerd, I really need to tell you that, while it is true that Texas did ultimately secede from the Union, and on Lincoln's inauguration day no less, it was not simply all of Texas that wanted out. In fact Texas supplied quite a few resources to both sides of the conflict whether from the government or that of individuals or groups. And really the majority of Texas nowadays likes being a part of America (well, except for that dumbass Perry, I really wish Hutchinson won the primary) and we know that its better to be a part of it than not.

 

[Jagers1994]

Children have no rights, they are not considered 'people' under the law till they are able to legally sign their own name. Sure, they have some protections but protections are not rights... even animals have protection under the law.

So very true.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm not bothered much if it's the dress code for EVERYONE, meaning girls need to have short hair too.

It'd still be stupid, but if it's a sexism thing now then i might have to spend a few moments alone to rage.

There is sexism and then there is practicality.

There is NO POINT trying to dumbly apply the exact same rules for males and females as if they are the same when they are not. Should there be a law requiring tampon machines in both mens and womens toilets? Should a school punish a male for going shirtless as harshly as a teenage girl who flashes? Or should the rules be that both males and females can go topless? Should the rules on placement or urinals and tampon machines be applied equally to mens and womens toilets?

Come ON! Males and females are different, and no one can act like separate changing rooms for men and women is in any way equivalent to racial segregation of pre-1970's. On a fundamental level women are more at risk to some things, it would be idiotic for guys to demand to get the HPV-vaccine as well since it is a virus that is only deadly to women.

And WHY would you be happy if all the girls were forced to cut their hair short?

Why would you be happy of an unjust rule just because it was applied equally to both sexes? Suffering and inconvenience are not relative.

If it is a problem to have your hair cut short, everyone else having their hair cut short shouldn't make it any better.

 

[Mechanix]

Children have no rights, they are not considered 'people' under the law till they are able to legally sign their own name. Sure, they have some protections but protections are not rights... even animals have protection under the law.

That's pretty barbaric.

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

The video no worky. SO for all I know you could be making it up.

Source needed

I thoght the U.S were "the land of the free", or something like that. Doesn't this undermine that statement just a tad

If its against school rules, then its against school rules.

EDIT: [HEADING=2]When you joined the Escapist, you agreed to the terms and conditions to fallow the rules. If a mod bans you for calling him a 'fucking douchebag'. You can't go ahead and pull the Freedom of Speech Card. You agreed to fallow the rules, or be banned.[/HEADING]

except the very rule it self breaks US laws and amendments its not a matter of someone calling someone, or an action being taken, the kid is young has long hair, theoretically they could pull out a ruler and say well your hair is a millimeter too long your suspended.

These types of rules make no sense and need to be abolished a rule should all ways make sense.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Le Snip.

He didn't get suspended for having long hair, he got suspended for breaking the dress code.

The parents agreed to fallow the code. Therefore, they should have known that it is punishable.

 

[Keepitclean]

He is four, what could his long hair possibly be distracting him from!?! Distinguishing a trinagle from a square? Counting to 10? Even when I was four I could do that shit with my eyes closed.

Hey at least when he is older he will be able to shut the kids who like getting suspended up by saying "well I was suspended when I was four, so STFU you wannabe hardcores".

 

[Flames66]

I thoght the U.S were "the land of the free", or something like that. Doesn't this undermine that statement just a tad

This seems to have ninjad the entire argument. School is supposed to teach children how to cope with society. Out in the world there will be all sorts of distractions. You fail at your purpose.

 

[Treblaine]

I thoght the U.S were "the land of the free", or something like that. Doesn't this undermine that statement just a tad

Texas was one of the Confederate states who wanted to leave the United States... I'm just saying. If they had their way they wouldn't even be part of the USA.

Okay, I get the point you were trying to make and I'm honestly trying to let go of this topic (and all of the reflexive bashing of my home) but as a Texan and a Civil War history nerd, I really need to tell you that, while it is true that Texas did ultimately secede from the Union, and on Lincoln's inauguration day no less, it was not simply all of Texas that wanted out. In fact Texas supplied quite a few resources to both sides of the conflict whether from the government or that of individuals or groups. And really the majority of Texas nowadays likes being a part of America (well, except for that dumbass Perry, I really wish Hutchinson won the primary) and we know that its better to be a part of it than not.

Sorry, I don't even know why I said that, I'll admit it was a low blow. I mean Texas was hardly the biggest player in the CSA, it just seemed to go with the flow.

I mean of all the southern states, Texas seems to be the one with the least neo-confederacy and I've never heard any of that "Lost Cause" bullshit from a Texan (though I haven't known all that many). Far more likely to find a Texan flag flying than a confederate flag.

I actually admire Texas a lot for it's uncompromising libertarianism and as a centre of technological innovation and entrepreneurship (now I'm just kissing ass).

 

[Treblaine]

I thoght the U.S were "the land of the free", or something like that. Doesn't this undermine that statement just a tad

This seems to have ninjad the entire argument. School is supposed to teach children how to cope with society. Out in the world there will be all sorts of distractions. You fail at your purpose.

But... some jobs you may get fired or not hired for having long hair?

Is that what you were trying to say?

 

[Con Carne]

I have to admit, having to cut the kids hair does suck.
But a rule is a rule, and if that rule were made clear to the parents when they enrolled their child, then it's their fault. They should cut the boys hair.

A rule is a rule. But what is the purpose of a rule, if only to be a rule? Does it hurt anyone that this childs hair is longer than the social norm? Or is this rule in effect because principle (or higher) believes a boy/man should have short hair?

Unfairly? Really? I've had long hair for years, and I've been refused job positions because of them. I completely understood why. Because those are the rules of the place I applied at.
Do I think it's a stupid rule? Absolutely. But whatever the reason may be, the rule is there.
I'm assuming the parents more than likely knew the rule of their child's school before or upon enrollment. It's kinda like when Willy Wonka told the fat kid "Please don't eat the chocolate from the chocolate river." The little fatty german kid didn't listen and he got his big ass pumped up into the big tube.
It's a rule. Plain and simple. If the parents didn't like said rule, they shouldn't have let their kid go to that school.

Ask yourself why rules and laws exist. Look for the reasons. Then ask if they're so nessessary as to need to be obeyed. In this case, I would say no. A rule is a rule only because someone says so, and has the authority to make it so. But the rule is unjust, and utilizes its authority on this family unfairly.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

That's pretty barbaric.

Not barbaric, just true. Numerous cases have come before the Supreme Court where a school has done something violating the constitution involving a minor and been sued for it. In these cases, the courts ruled in favour of the government over the idea of rights for children. Had these cases involved an adult then these rulings would go the other way and be against the government. I say this because other law cases can be pointed to where very similar situations have exist where the government has been told it has no say over what a person can and can not wear.

The difference, one group wasn't yet legal adults yet and the other group was. Hence: Kids have no rights.

I am not talking about young kids either, people as old as sixteen and seventeen have had cases thrown out or ruled against them over stuff like this. People clearly old enough, and well enough grounded if they could file law suits, to have a rational ability to choose what they wear or how they make up their hair. All being told they haven't a legal leg to stand, being told the government does have the ability to tell them how they are expected to appear.

Nothing new, as throughout the history of the USA other groups have also existed that had this happen to them. Minorities and Woman come to mind, whom had to struggle just to get basic human rights. This trend clearly can't just be brushed under the rug just because it is distasteful, the fact people have to struggle to get their rights is still going to this day within the USA. Sadly, it is a trend that is going to continue for as long as humanity exists. We will find new and likely even more stupid reasons to discriminate against each other.

This flaw lies with the Supreme Court, the organisation that deals with 'interpreting' the constitution, having so much power to re-write or ignore laws they don't like. Sometimes they do this for good reasons but as the Supreme Courts political changes so do which laws are enforced strongly and which are interoperated away as 'footnotes' or 'exceptions exist.' What the judges on this court say becomes law! These judges are still humans, and likely to fuck up more times then not because... face it, humanity is stupid.

Barbaric?

Well no, it is still rule of law by a constitutional system. Even if you and I might have problems with the idea a few old people in robes are able to wave away the right of a whole group of people that doesn't change. Sucks of course, but doesn't change the fact this is constitutional law. While I am sure the Barbary states had laws, doubt they are as refined as the US constitution. So no, not barbaric.

Given the Supreme Court rulings it is clear these gods of law have said children have no rights.

 

[Shru1kan]

Le Snip.

He didn't get suspended for having long hair, he got suspended for breaking the dress code.

The parents agreed to fallow the code. Therefore, they should have known that it is punishable.

This.

I'm sorry guys, but you can't just pick a fight here. You can enroll in a different district, follow the rules, or get penalized by the law for not going to school if you're under 16.

 

[oppp7]

I agree with Pimpeter on this one. They may have over reacted, but the kid should know better.

 

[halfeclipse]

3rd option no one seems to considering. The kid wants his hair long and the parents don't want to physically have to tie him down so it can get cut.


Freedom of expression includes symbolic speech, and long hair could be deemed symbolic speech. Also in this case its not a rule its a law (By proxy anyways.) Most school districts say what school you can go to based on where you live, so chances are this one is the only option. If not not already, in a few years the boy will legally be required to attend at that school(Home schooling, private school and the parents moving aside.). So this is more along the lines of "Cut your hair or we may kick you out of school forcing your parents to move to another school district least they face legal action from the state".

 

[Freedomario]

What the heck Texas That is NOT Distracting, Someone in my English class has a MOHAWK and its ALLOWED BY THE SCHOOL SYSTEM. Plus he's FOUR YEARS OLD! Geez. Dummkopfs.

/rage

It's not every Texas school is strict about that. I have that, oh what's that called... ducktail, is that what they call it? Whatever, it goes past the collar, which is against school policy and I've never been consulted about it let alone suspended. And why cut it? Obviously the kid was trying to sport a mullet. Do you have any idea how hard that is to grow? Let alone how long? What is wrong with the system nowadays.

I know, I know, it just makes me mad that I LIVE In Texas The one that's seemingly getting overrun by idiots 'bout now.

/moar rage

 

[Davrel]

Really? THIS is news-worthy? What is the world coming to?

Cut the kids hair, if he doesn't like it, tough. He's four, he'll get over it; being allowed into school > hairstyle of choice for minors.

Don't break the school rules unless they violate human/constitutional rights etc.

 

[Pimppeter2]

3rd option no one seems to considering. The kid wants his hair long and the parents don't want to physically have to tie him down so it can get cut.


Freedom of expression includes symbolic speech, and long hair could be deemed symbolic speech. Also in this case its not a rule its a law (By proxy anyways.) Most school districts say what school you can go to based on where you live, so chances are this one is the only option. If not not already, in a few years the boy will legally be required to attend at that school(Home schooling, private school and the parents moving aside.). So this is more along the lines of "Cut your hair or we may kick you out of school forcing your parents to move to another school district least they face legal action from the state".

Let me ask you this

Is "Teachers are a bunch of cunts" protected by Free speech?

Yes it is.

Is it punishable in school? Yes it is.

Because it breaks school rules. The hair breaks the dress code, but like going to school in short shorts and a bra would.

The parents have no claim. It violates school rules.

Yes, I agree that the school is being petty because its a 4 year old. But I mean the parents are being even pettier by fighting something that could be solved easily. They are the assholes for putting a child through this.

 

[Jumplion]

Snip

Okay then

...because his long locks violate the district dress code

So yeah, the suspension is completely and totally just. Its in the dress code, which is made public to everyone who joined

Plus, we're talkin elementary school people. Its not like he's not going to be able to go to college because of this.

Oh pish posh, school dress codes never get enforced nowadays (at least as early as middle school, my elementary school didn't care either). I see a group of guys with their pants literally down to their knees and nobody says a word.

Pull up yah damn pants ya' lil' bastards!

*mumblemumbledarnwippersnappersmumblemumble*

School rules or not, you have to admit they are really overreacting. I mean, seriously, threatening expulsion for not cutting your hair? That's like not getting hired because your hair is too short. (I'm aware that this is a while ago, just sayin')

And as for the "it's distracting" argument; they're 4 god damn years old! If they're not running around screaming, their either crying, sleeping for 3 minutes, or eating glue (har har, stereotypes).