School punishment for Black student's hair is legal in CROWN Act lawsuit, judge rules - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +--- Thread: School punishment for Black student's hair is legal in CROWN Act lawsuit, judge rules (/Thread-School-punishment-for-Black-student-s-hair-is-legal-in-CROWN-Act-lawsuit-judge-rules) |
School punishment for Black student's hair is legal in CROWN Act lawsuit, judge rules - GMDino - 02-23-2024 Activist judge or just upholding school's rights? https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-school-punishment-black-students-hair-legal-crown/story?id=107451979 Quote:[color=var(--headline-description-color)]Darryl George, 18, has been banned from attending regular classes.[/color] RE: School punishment for Black student's hair is legal in CROWN Act lawsuit, judge rules - michaelsean - 02-24-2024 Are we just talking length of hair? Not sure how it would be considered an activist judge either way in this case. RE: School punishment for Black student's hair is legal in CROWN Act lawsuit, judge rules - Mike M (the other one) - 02-24-2024 I really don't get some of this shit, if it's not a distraction to other students (or in T-Shirt cases discrimination) then who the eff cares what kids wear to a public school. I can understand it better that Private schools have dress/groom codes that need to be followed, that's fine, it's no different than places of employment having dress/grooming codes. RE: School punishment for Black student's hair is legal in CROWN Act lawsuit, judge rules - michaelsean - 02-24-2024 (02-24-2024, 11:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I really don't get some of this shit, if it's not a distraction to other students (or in T-Shirt cases discrimination) then who the eff cares what kids wear to a public school. That’s a different argument. RE: School punishment for Black student's hair is legal in CROWN Act lawsuit, judge rules - Mike M (the other one) - 02-24-2024 (02-24-2024, 11:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That’s a different argument. Yes and no, it's the same principle, from the looks of it, his hair style does not appear to be a distraction unless there is something else going on that we are unaware of. What's worse is they actually have a law protecting hair styes in schools. RE: School punishment for Black student's hair is legal in CROWN Act lawsuit, judge rules - michaelsean - 02-25-2024 (02-24-2024, 11:56 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes and no, it's the same principle, from the looks of it, his hair style does not appear to be a distraction unless there is something else going on that we are unaware of. What's worse is they actually have a law protecting hair styes in schools. I thought it was a length thing. Maybe I misread. RE: School punishment for Black student's hair is legal in CROWN Act lawsuit, judge rules - NATI BENGALS - 02-25-2024 I have no problem with a school setting rules on dress code and appearance. I would be on his side if it was his natural hair or something. But it’s not. He choose to do that to his head.. Obey the rules or gtfo. On another note. I wonder if most schools ban yoga pants now? RE: School punishment for Black student's hair is legal in CROWN Act lawsuit, judge rules - pally - 02-25-2024 “Being an American requires conformity”….seriously? I have no words at the shear audacious stupidity of that statement It is a bloody shame this “educator” is more concerned with how a young person looks than he is in making sure he is learning. Teenagers don’t get distracted over someone’s hairstyle. This is an adult problem. But of course in MAGAland Texas this young man will get no justice from that court system. RE: School punishment for Black student's hair is legal in CROWN Act lawsuit, judge rules - GMDino - 02-25-2024 (02-25-2024, 03:31 AM)pally Wrote: “Being an American requires conformity”….seriously? It's been that way for a long time. Girls can't expose their shoulders and skirts must be a certain length...it distracts the boys. Boys can't have long hair...it doesn't look "right". Adults putting their sexual urges/fears on the students. Meanwhile they don't want sex-ed because they think it will encourage students to have sex. The idea that hiding everything and trying to avoid "distractions" will never not be funny to me. I went to catholic school all my life. With dress codes and hair codes and every other kind of code. There were always "distractions" because boys and girls (and girls and girls and boys and boys) all started going through puberty no matter what the code was. Our graduating class of 85 students had one girl who had a child with her bf before graduating. The school chose to "hide it" from the students and would not let her finish the year after birth. They are still married to this day. Every generation thinks the one behind it is "worse" somehow and they try to "help" them. End of rant. Now this situation isn't about any of that I suppose. It's about the hair not being explicitly described in the law. I'd be curious if hair extensions are covered or banned. |