(UK) School's refusal to let boy wear cornrow braids is ruled racial discrimination

[alp227]

A school's anti-gang ban on unconventional hairstyles has resulted in "unlawful, indirect racial discrimination which is not justified", the high court has ruled.

The test case decision is a victory for the family of African-Caribbean teenager "G", who wears his hair in cornrow braids as part of a family tradition.

G, who cannot be named, and his mother challenged a refusal by St Gregory's Catholic Science College in Kenton, Harrow, north London, to let G through the school gates with his braids in September 2009, when he was 11.

Mr Justice Collins, sitting in London, ruled that the hair policy was not unlawful in itself, "but if it is applied without any possibility of exception, such as G, then it is unlawful".

Full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/17/school-ban-cornrow-braids-discrimination

Do you agree with this court decision? Is this hairstyle a legitimate cultural element or only a gang hairstyle? On the other hand, this school appears to be a private religious one that can establish a uniform dress/grooming code, and does the school's right to create such rules override a student's individual right?

[digitaln3rd]

1. Sorry, that's not racism and the court should be ashamed.

No one is stopping him from having that hairstyle outside of school.

[SheilaT]

2. Cornrows are not exactly a hairstyle

that's done in ten minutes. So to say he can wear them outside of school is nonsensical.

But if cornrows are a common indicator of gang membership, there is a larger problem here. At what point does something indicating gang membership (such as hairstyle or clothing colors) become something to be regulated in schools? I don't feel as if I know the answer, and I think the answer may very well be "it depends" on the exact circumstances, or the actual force of the meaning of the hair style or clothing color or whatever.

I am reminded of school rules against wearing hats. Makes sense, except that both of my sons have (and have had from young ages) alopecia areata, an auto-immune disorder which causes hair loss. I always went along with the rule, which I now regret. When younger son was in 8th grade and taking a year-end final in a very chilly auditorium, he'd put a hat on to keep warmer. One of the teachers made him take it off, and when he got home that day he told me he was so cold he couldn't really concentrate on taking the final. I was outraged, and spoke to the teacher who gave me a song and dance about how he might have written test answers on the bill of his cap. I pointed out that all she had to do was look at the cap to see if anything was written on it. My son was not voluntarily bald. And he did get cold faster than kids with a normal head of hair did.

The other reason I wound up regretting that I went along with the rule, was that if a student in the school were bald from cancer and chemotherapy, there's no doubt in my mind that they'd have let that child wear hats and scarves. Indeed, there were Muslim students who were permitted to wear head scarves. Again, my son did not choose baldness -- he wasn't shaving his head. Allowing him (and his brother) to wear a hat when they were chilly would have been a reasonable accommodation.