This nonsense should have been REALLY settled with the Crown Act being signed into law, but here we are....
NEWS: The family of a Black high school student suspended for his hairstyle has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Texas' governor and attorney general.
https://apnews.com/article/hairstyles-dreadlocks-racial-discrimination-crown-act-e79ede512923b672a275abf054e2407b
🇳🇱
@LilHulkQ While I am certainly against dress codes in public schools of any kind, im confused why they claim a policy that is neutrally written (simply doesnt hair past a certain length) somehow is a racial issue itself.
Now i think its fair to be concerned it was **applied** raciall and only use to attack this poor kid and letting whites who violate get a pass.. and that should be illegal and persued in court if that happened.
But reading the court case thats not what they are arguing. They are arguing the policy itself, even if uniformly applied, disproportionately attacks blacks... how does a length restriction on hair disproportionately target blacks on its own? I mean if anything the opposite, since the law is defined by length past ones elbows that would target straight haired people disproportionately while tightly-curled hair would form an afro and would take quite the effort to get an afro "below the elbows"...
So yea... while i dont know if he was discriminated against specifically im really having a hard time seeing where this rule, when applied evenly, would be racist. I would love to hear thoughts that might explain this.
@freemo in May of 2020 in the same school district a federal judge ruled the district’s hair policy was discriminatory. I'll let this play in court. I sense some willful ignorance from your post. Could be wrong but anyway...Take care...
I mean i am specifically making a post asking for clarification... Meaning i identified my possibility of ignorance and asking for someone to clarify it.
How is a request for someone to correct my ignorance somehow the opposite, willful ignorance? That seems odd.
> in May of 2020 in the same school district a federal judge ruled the district’s hair policy was discriminatory
Thank you for attempted to answer this, but that wasnt my question. I asked for what the logic or reasoning behind it being discriminatory. Knowing some judge ruled it to be discriminatory doesn't really answer that does it?
@JoBlakely @freemo Spot on Jo.
Especially when pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity, and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.
I dunno, the ruling seems like a good one since, as I stated, it absolutely makes cultural assumptions and violates freedom of expression.
But i do agree its kinda small compared to the real sorts of racism out there and the kinds of rulings that mean something that we should be seeing and dont.
@freemo @LilHulkQ I was meaning that the ruling of the school that suspended the child regardless of the Crown Act was wrong. You want to understand "why it disproportionately affects Blacks, when it should not." It's because there are NO good reasons outside of racism and having rules that can and will be arbitrarilarly & disproportionately enforced by racists at will. It's because of racism.
Have you even met racism?
> Have you even met racism?
Did you really just ask a Native American, a race that has almost been completely eliminated due to genocide, if I ever met racism.... seriously!?
> I was meaning that the ruling of the school that suspended the child regardless of the Crown Act was wrong.
Completely agree fromt he get go, the rule itself was wrong, and the choice of the school to enforce it also wrong. This would be true regardless of any racial component but doubly so if there was some racial bias at play as well (which is likely).
> You want to understand "why it disproportionately affects Blacks, when it should not." It's because there are NO good reasons outside of racism and having rules that can and will be arbitrarilarly & disproportionately enforced by racists at will. It's because of racism
That is perfectly fair, and I said exactly this early on and agree with you. The problem is by this logic **all** rules of any kind and of any nature are wrong because racists will ultimately be the ones applying it... My point is that if the rule itself isnt racist (and im not even convinced of that mind you) then fine, lets just admit that and focus on the problem of racists applying rules, which would seem to be the real problem... however if it is racist in **addition** to racists also applying it then we (and specifically me) should better understand why it is racist so we can better see and identify other rules that are racist.
This is supposed to be about learning and attacking people and calling them sealions when someone makes a sincere attempt to understand another POV and consider it as one they may want to adopt... that hurts everyone on the side of good here, everyone.
I agree with you, as I stated in my original reply as well they are wrong, biased, etc... that was never in question. What I am trying to understand better isnt how it is biased, or unfair.. but rather what elements about it are explicit to race... I got that answer from another person who instead of attacking me and calling me a sealion actually bothered to make a sincere attempt at answering that, and they had a good answer: because it assumes a white cultural norm (long hair being unprofessional) that does not exist in other cultures. And thus is written to specifically enforce the rules of a white culture... it was a good answer... just a shame people like you were derailing an honest productive conversation.
@freemo
You are asking why in a virulent racist country known for violent prevention of cultural and personal expression of BIPOC, the pointless enforcement of bs standards with no purpose other than to control is being disproportionately used to control BIPOC?
Is that what you are wondering about?
Really wondering what part you don't get.
> You are asking why in a virulent racist country known for violent prevention of cultural and personal expression of BIPOC, the pointless enforcement of bs standards with no purpose other than to control is being disproportionately used to control BIPOC?
> Is that what you are wondering about?
Nope, and im really confused that despite my original comment saying nothing that remotely resembles what you said, and I have corrected you now several times, and even quoted myself to make it quite clear nothing resembling what you said was said.... yet you keep trying to repeat it like somehow your wrong assumptions are going to become reality if you repeat it enough.
> Really wondering what part you don't get.
There is nothing left I dont get. A person who was respectful to people and minorities actually responded and cleared up my earlier confusion and gave a good answer.
At this point we are mostly discussing how you were a toxic to a person who was kind and looking to understand something a bit better... nothing more is left since thankfully someone who wasnt toxic helped.
Yes that is a true statement... completely useless at answering my question, but true...
Its a bit like answering "what is 1 + 1" with "It is one added to one"... like yea, it might be true, but you literally said nothing to address the ask.
Aldso great way to defelect from your harassment of marginalized minorities which you have only doubled down on in this conversation in a desperate bid to justify it.
@freemo
You ask "what elements are explicit to race?
The only real answer there is, is: "The racism part."
It's the racism. That's the only answer to your question.