Whenever issues centered on our identity as a people are brought to the fore, some of us react with loud protestations, largely because of our association with the school of thought that insists we must obey laws just because they are laws. Those who remain defiant against what they consider an oppressive and discriminatory system are shunned; marginalised. In most instances the laws involved are not only archaic, they also represent centuries of prejudice and defy logic and reason. If we are to embark upon a process of nation-building, such laws must be relegated to the garbage dumps of history.
This came into sharp focus as I read the public commentary about the disbarment of a young Saint Mary’s College student whose groomed hair did not meet the school’s standard. How disappointing that in 2022 our institutions which are responsible for nurturing critical thinking continue to be repressive in their adherence to outdated notions of discipline. It is concerning that we continue to discriminate against one another on the basis of hair while creating invalid linear relationships between the grooming of hair and the ability to garner educational achievements.
The truth is that while the rule in its written form does not discriminate against any particular ethnic group or race, its practice discriminates against only a select set of individuals because of our inherent prejudice against black hair. While these rules seem innocent on their face, in practice they are enforced in a skewed, discriminatory manner. The view is that if black hair is to be accepted in school, it needs to be tamed. On the other hand, the reality is that students of other ethnic groups are allowed to portray the beauty of their hair in its natural state without the wrath of administrators and other members of the newly replenished colonial class.
This is so because of our learned bias concerning what hair constitutes beauty. Moreover, we perpetuate the myth that only a certain type of hair is “nice”; that our own not so nice variety must be made acceptable to particular eyes if we wish to achieve success. We have become so intellectually bankrupt that we believe that instilling discipline for success should be conducted through hair policing. You only have to look at whose hair is always red-flagged and blacklisted to determine the extent to which the rule applies. Now, when these laws are practiced in a discriminatory manner, it discourages us from appreciating what makes us unique. It perpetuates a society nurtured in privilege, prejudice and discrimination—with serious consequences to nation building.
This situation is only the by-product of our perpetuation of a colonial notion that our hair is not to be seen in its natural state. While you think each student is being judged on a one-on-one measure based on hair grooming, we have created a somatic norm image of someone fairer as the golden standard which every black child must emulate. Our multi-ethnic schools have a known history of ignoring the somatic norm image of the Indian and Caucasian boys whose hair is straight, long and in their mind represents beauty. You don’t have to believe this assertion. But the empirical evidence cannot be overlooked. All you need to do is randomly ask boys who fit the earlier-mentioned somatic norm image if they’ve ever been required to cut their hair in a particular fashion, or else!
If we look at the rule in question, it is the principal who is the final arbiter, he who determines what is “properly groomed.” The impending court hearing will decide whether this remains the case at all our schools. My view is not that students should be able to flout the rules that govern our education system, neither to bring the schools into disrepute. Nevertheless, students have a constitutional right to protest rules they consider colonial and counterproductive.
My bet is that our administrators, who seem to believe they are answerable to no one, will not be able to provide an answer different from the doctored and undemocratic press release from the SLTU. It is important that we understand that where wide discretion is permitted, there must also be rules governing such discretion. The school at the center of this hairy issue will have the mammoth task of convincing the court that its rule instils discipline in its young students, and is applied equally across the board. Our student organisations, national youth organisations and all who care about saving the identity of this country and not discriminating against people should rise to the occasion and put this matter on the fore for debate and resolution. It is time for the Ministry of Education to revamp our school codes and jettison discriminatory practices, as well as create forums where students’ voices can be heard. Our Victorian approach to discipline is causing more harm than good. As a mother who fought in the vanguard of this fight many years ago reminded us in an article published in the STAR newspaper, “Pregnant teenage girls were once discriminated against and denied education by school authorities.” Unmarried teachers who got pregnant paid with their jobs—until the law that permitted such discrimination was challenged and removed from our statute books. Bad laws must be fought, in the public interest. And in my opinion, the rule that denies a student his right to education is a bad law that has outlived its existence.
