whos wrong?

[Fizzyfefe]

Most schools in the uk have similar rules.

And there is the crux of the issue. If pretty much all schools have the same rules then the parents did not choose to send them into such an environment. They had no choice. Personally I don't think the school have any right to have rules that effect their pupils outside of school hours. It's ok to have a no nail varnish rule as the pupils can still have varnished nails throughout the other 18 hours of the day if they wish. It's not ok to outlaw particular hair dye colours as that means that the school is infringing on how their pupils choose to look in their free time. Not the greatest injustice in the history of injustices but most certainly an infringement on the civil liberties of their pupils.

But, with most jobs, you cannot have artificial hair colors or facial piercings or visible tattoos. how is that any different?

 

[SpringerS]

But, with most jobs, you cannot have artificial hair colors or facial piercings or visible tattoos. how is that any different?

For one almost all kids have to go to school and almost all schools have such rules. They are given no choice whatsoever. On the otherhand adults do have a choice. They decide on a career path and if that career path means not having the pink tipped hair they love they choose which is more important to them. And if they love the hairstyle the most, then they have plenty of options for alternative career paths.

In this instance all that needed to be applied was a modicum of common sense anyway. The girl had pink tipped hair. She and the school could have agreed that while on school ground, or on school trips she would ensure that the parts of her hair that were dyed pink were not on display. A simple bun style would have sufficed, especially if she used a hairigami.

 

[TriChick]

But, with most jobs, you cannot have artificial hair colors or facial piercings or visible tattoos. how is that any different?

For one almost all kids have to go to school and almost all schools have such rules. They are given no choice whatsoever. On the otherhand adults do have a choice. They decide on a career path and if that career path means not having the pink tipped hair they love they choose which is more important to them. And if they love the hairstyle the most, then they have plenty of options for alternative career paths.

In this instance all that needed to be applied was a modicum of common sense anyway. The girl had pink tipped hair. She and the school could have agreed that while on school ground, or on school trips she would ensure that the parts of her hair that were dyed pink were not on display. A simple bun style would have sufficed, especially if she used a hairigami.

I'm guessing that the school would be reluctant to reach a compromise as finding a solution after the fact would undermine their authority. The rule could possibly be there for a good reason, and in my opinion a blatant violation of the rule should not be rewarded with compromise. I personally feel as though common sense was lacking on the part of the student, NOT the school.

If she simply couldn't live without her pink tips, the smart options would have been to either:

1. Conceal it while on school grounds BEFORE it was detected (a little underhanded, BUT an improvement over blatant disregard for the rules), or

2. Organize a petition to potentially reach an agreement with the school to revise the policies, or at least to better explain to the student body WHY such policies exist. She could have chosen to affect change in a positive way, rather than through rebellion.

I think the young girl more than likely learned a very valuable life lesson as a result. Regardless of personal feelings towards authority figures and rules you might not condone, sometimes you just have to suck it up and deal with it. Better she learn now than when employment and a paycheck are on the line.

 

[Eternal]

I disagree many schools have less strict rules and if her hair was so important she old choose home schooling or deal with isolation. She still had choice, the pink is a choice, she could do it in the holidays but seriously it's not like she HAD to ave pink hair. She still had choice.

 

[SpringerS]

I'm guessing that the school would be reluctant to reach a compromise as finding a solution after the fact would undermine their authority. The rule could possibly be there for a good reason, and in my opinion a blatant violation of the rule should not be rewarded with compromise.

And herein lies the problem. The school has no authority over this child outside of a very limited authority during a small portion of her week. They act in loco parentis during school hours, that's it. It's a state funded school that taxpayers fund in order to educate societies young, not to dictate their hairstyles. The hair dye rule is over stepping their bounds massively. They absolutely do not have the right to overrule her mother outside of school hours but that is what they are doing. Their violation of the mother's right to make parenting decisions and the child's right to express herself within her mother's authority is a blatant abuse of what little right to authority they do have. They are claiming rights they do not have.

 

[TriChick]

I'm guessing that the school would be reluctant to reach a compromise as finding a solution after the fact would undermine their authority. The rule could possibly be there for a good reason, and in my opinion a blatant violation of the rule should not be rewarded with compromise.

And herein lies the problem. The school has no authority over this child outside of a very limited authority during a small portion of her week. They act in loco parentis during school hours, that's it. It's a state funded school that taxpayers fund in order to educate societies young, not to dictate their hairstyles. The hair dye rule is over stepping their bounds massively. They absolutely do not have the right to overrule her mother outside of school hours but that is what they are doing. Their violation of the mother's right to make parenting decisions and the child's right to express herself within her mother's authority is a blatant abuse of what little right to authority they do have. They are claiming rights they do not have.

But if their policy regarding her hair color while in school uniform, they have every right to dictate their policies while she is in uniform and on their campus. That's what she was punished for.

 

[Eternal]

I'm guessing that the school would be reluctant to reach a compromise as finding a solution after the fact would undermine their authority. The rule could possibly be there for a good reason, and in my opinion a blatant violation of the rule should not be rewarded with compromise.

And herein lies the problem. The school has no authority over this child outside of a very limited authority during a small portion of her week. They act in loco parentis during school hours, that's it. It's a state funded school that taxpayers fund in order to educate societies young, not to dictate their hairstyles. The hair dye rule is over stepping their bounds massively. They absolutely do not have the right to overrule her mother outside of school hours but that is what they are doing. Their violation of the mother's right to make parenting decisions and the child's right to express herself within her mother's authority is a blatant abuse of what little right to authority they do have. They are claiming rights they do not have.

But the whole of society has rules and if you are with them or not there are consequences. The problem with compromise is once to made for one a president is started, so if you have rules it needs to be the same for everyone.

 

[omfgski]

...

 

[TriChick]

To be honest, after extensively reviewing the website I wish we had a public school like that HERE!

 

[Lina]

No braids either? how is this unnatural, certainly not like colouring as for some people hair is easier to manage like that.

The girl and mother both look silly, why would you put a dye in that takes 8 weeks to wash out, knowing full well that no school holiday lasts that long. She sounds like she was looking for confrontation in her "statement" making.

 

[TriChick]

No braids either? how is this unnatural, certainly not like colouring as for some people hair is easier to manage like that.

The girl and mother both look silly, why would you put a dye in that takes 8 weeks to wash out, knowing full well that no school holiday lasts that long. She sounds like she was looking for confrontation in her "statement" making.

It seems the mother used the "8-weeks" as an excuse, until she realized they weren't going to budge and then corrected the hair color that night. Based on the picture, I would venture to say they both know their way around a bleach bottle and knew full well they didn't have to wait the 8 weeks

 

[Lina]

No braids either? how is this unnatural, certainly not like colouring as for some people hair is easier to manage like that.

The girl and mother both look silly, why would you put a dye in that takes 8 weeks to wash out, knowing full well that no school holiday lasts that long. She sounds like she was looking for confrontation in her "statement" making.

It seems the mother used the "8-weeks" as an excuse, until she realized they weren't going to budge and then corrected the hair color that night. Based on the picture, I would venture to say they both know their way around a bleach bottle and knew full well they didn't have to wait the 8 weeks

Just goes to show the effectiveness of the schools disciplinary proceedings. The mother needs to ask herself which of the two she deems more important, her daughters education or a bottle of manic panic. I know if it'd been my daughter, I would sooner cut the offending bits of rather than cause a fuss. It's hard enough dealing with defiant students without the egging on of a supposed parent.

 

[Baby France]

I think that they should be aware of rules etc and follow them.

In my place of work, at 30 I can't have pink/blue hair. I'm not allowed my hair below my shoulder (up/down) and I'd be put through the discliplinary procedure if I did. Not even allowed nail varnish.

 

[SpringerS]

Aye, and Rosa Parks should never have sat at the front of that bus. The rules were that she could only sit at the back. If she didn't like it she didn't need to take the bus, she should have just walked or bought a bike. Rules are rules and all.

Now I'm not suggesting for even one minute that pink hair tips are on a par with racial discrimination but the fact is that we should never, ever, ever teach our children that rules are rules and we should just obey them. Unfair rules should be broken, as often it's only by breaking rules that change can be affected. If my son's school had a rule which prevented him from living in a way which he wanted and I was okay with (say boys were expected to have short hair) I would support him all of the way on that. I wouldn't be so silly to take it to the press, that's not going to work in this type of scenario and would expose him to potentially damaging public scrutiny. I know the legal situation and the school is certainly acting outside it's remit with those rules.

 

[omfgski]

...

 

[Fizzyfefe]

Aye, and Rosa Parks should never have sat at the front of that bus. The rules were that she could only sit at the back. If she didn't like it she didn't need to take the bus, she should have just walked or bought a bike. Rules are rules and all.

Now I'm not suggesting for even one minute that pink hair tips are on a par with racial discrimination but the fact is that we should never, ever, ever teach our children that rules are rules and we should just obey them. Unfair rules should be broken, as often it's only by breaking rules that change can be affected. If my son's school had a rule which prevented him from living in a way which he wanted and I was okay with (say boys were expected to have short hair) I would support him all of the way on that. I wouldn't be so silly to take it to the press, that's not going to work in this type of scenario and would expose him to potentially damaging public scrutiny. I know the legal situation and the school is certainly acting outside it's remit with those rules.

Firstly, having a rule about pink hair dye cannot even come close to being compared to Black people not being allowed to sit at the front of the bus or use the same facilities as White people.

Secondly, there is a better and more mature way to go about changing rules than simply by breaking or ignoring them. (Who decides what rules are fair and what rules are unfair, anyway? What if someone thought that it was unfair to not have money, so they thought it would be okay to rob a bank? Or what if someone thinks it's not fair to be able to take a gun to school, so they bring one?) If a student or parent thinks that the school rules are wrong for some reason, they they should write a proposal letter, or give a presentation, to the administrators/school board and go about trying to change the rules in the proper way. Or, they should just attend another school where hair color is not an issue.

 

[SpringerS]

Firstly, having a rule about pink hair dye cannot even come close to being compared to Black people not being allowed to sit at the front of the bus or use the same facilities as White people.

Secondly, there is a better and more mature way to go about changing rules than simply by breaking or ignoring them. (Who decides what rules are fair and what rules are unfair, anyway? What if someone thought that it was unfair to not have money, so they thought it would be okay to rob a bank? Or what if someone thinks it's not fair to be able to take a gun to school, so they bring one?) If a student or parent thinks that the school rules are wrong for some reason, they they should write a proposal letter, or give a presentation, to the administrators/school board and go about trying to change the rules in the proper way. Or, they should just attend another school where hair color is not an issue.

Did you really just criticise me for comparing this girl's situation to racial discrimination (which I did say were incomparable) and then go on to compare dyed hair to bringing a gun to school? Really?

I don't think that this girl and her mother approached the situation correctly. The right thing to do would have been for the mother to approach the school first and put forward the compromise of ensuring that her daughter's tips were not on display. If that didn't work she should have followed up with a solicitors letter outlining their position. The flippant 'she should just find another school' argument isn't how it works. The child has a legal entitlement to an education if the mother wants her to have it. If the school doesn't want her there it is they who have to find her a place in another school, not the other way around.

 

[Fizzyfefe]

Did you really just criticise me for comparing this girl's situation to racial discrimination (which I did say were incomparable) and then go on to compare dyed hair to bringing a gun to school? Really?

I don't think that this girl and her mother approached the situation correctly. The right thing to do would have been for the mother to approach the school first and put forward the compromise of ensuring that her daughter's tips were not on display. If that didn't work she should have followed up with a solicitors letter outlining their position. The flippant 'she should just find another school' argument isn't how it works. The child has a legal entitlement to an education if the mother wants her to have it. If the school doesn't want her there it is they who have to find her a place in another school, not the other way around.

No, I did not compare dyed hair to bringing a gun to school. You said that unfair rules should be broken, so I asked who decides what rules are fair and unfair, and then I asked about random scenarios in which certain people believe that those rules are unfair.

And, maybe it's different from where you are, but my "flippant argument" about changing schools is actually a very plausible idea here.

 

[Foogirl]

I don't think Rosa Parks did the right thing either and nor do I think her actions are the reason for anti discrimination laws. Her action was symbolic and of the right time.

You cannot have a society who decide which rules they want to obey and which they don't. Children need to learn a respect for rules they don't agree with and a respect for the authority which imposes them. They can be taught how to challenge those rules and have them changed. Breaking them achieves nothing.

I'd also disagree that changing the school is a flippant issue. The girl is entitled to an education in the most suitable place for her. If the mother decides she doesn't like that place, the education authority does not have to move her. They will try and accommodate her elsewhere if it is requested but they don't have to do it.

 

[TriChick]

Firstly, having a rule about pink hair dye cannot even come close to being compared to Black people not being allowed to sit at the front of the bus or use the same facilities as White people.

Secondly, there is a better and more mature way to go about changing rules than simply by breaking or ignoring them. (Who decides what rules are fair and what rules are unfair, anyway? What if someone thought that it was unfair to not have money, so they thought it would be okay to rob a bank? Or what if someone thinks it's not fair to be able to take a gun to school, so they bring one?) If a student or parent thinks that the school rules are wrong for some reason, they they should write a proposal letter, or give a presentation, to the administrators/school board and go about trying to change the rules in the proper way. Or, they should just attend another school where hair color is not an issue.

Did you really just criticise me for comparing this girl's situation to racial discrimination (which I did say were incomparable) and then go on to compare dyed hair to bringing a gun to school? Really?

I don't think that this girl and her mother approached the situation correctly. The right thing to do would have been for the mother to approach the school first and put forward the compromise of ensuring that her daughter's tips were not on display. If that didn't work she should have followed up with a solicitors letter outlining their position. The flippant 'she should just find another school' argument isn't how it works. The child has a legal entitlement to an education if the mother wants her to have it. If the school doesn't want her there it is they who have to find her a place in another school, not the other way around.

I don't think the school ever suggested not wanting her there. It's HER choice if she wishes to comply with the rule or disobey. If she is uncomfortable with the rules, it is not the school's responsibility to relocate her. She was simply disciplined for breaking a rule that all students are expected to adhere to. One could argue that the school has a legal entitlement to put into practice policies that they see as beneficial to their environment.

To be honest, I'm very surprised that a girl being put in detention over hair color made ANY sort of news. REAL injustices happen everyday.