News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The CROWN act explicitly prohibits school districts from restricting the length of male students' natural hair.
I'm just truly baffled by the petty vindictive vile school officials perpetrating this whole thing. But I guess it wouldn't be the first time racist school officials fight all the way to the supreme court to deny eduction to kids.
they are lauded in their communities for this behavior.
the racists band together, pat each other on the back as they shit all over humanity.
If you're baffled by the petty vindictive vile school officials, you clearly don't have kids, especially in Texas.
I raised my daughter here. It was interesting.
She lives far far away in a civilized state now. I told her not to ever move back here. It's not safe being a young woman in Texas.
Im a straight white male and I don't particularly feel safe living in Texas. This state has become a shitshow.
Newsflash, it always was.
People are just (finally) starting to realize it now.
You're right, I guess I mean, I'm baffled in the sense that I don't understand why another living breathing human being would act like this, but of course have seen many a petty school official before.
Forget it, Jake. It’s Texastown.
from the article. they'll probably try to take this to the supreme court and get it overturned.
Now that's just some serendipitous irony
So a person in a position of authority thinks he can flout the law because in the future, a court may rule his way? Well, then, anyone else can do what they want too. This moron is supposed to be a teacher?
It's been a while since I saw the original text in a thread on this same topic, but I think the issue might hinge on length specifically not being included in the law's text, but only style and such. It's obviously a malicious reading of the law, but it's also an indication of flawed legislation that should have been done correctly instead of leaving wide loopholes for people to exploit. Like, even beyond being malicious, Republicans are also just inept at the process of lawmaking. The school system and the legislature of Texas are failing this kid, but I'm not sure if the justice system is or isn't, without the text in front of me. I'm trying to track that down right now to verify.
Edit: If I'm looking at the right text, I'm not seeing length mentioned at all. Only "hairstyle" and "texture" are mentioned as descriptors really. Again, this is foolish. Is it really too much to ask for lawmakers to be explicit in the laws they create? This is like, the first thing you consider as coming up if you think about it for a few minutes.
Double edit: Also, good chance to find a more sympathetic ruling on appeal. The right judge could absolutely interpret "hairstyle" to include length. I would.
Length is a hairstyle.
See my second edit. I agree, but put yourself in a judge's shoes. They spend a large amount of time focusing on narrow definitions of words. While I disagree with it, I think that a judge interpreting hairstyle to purely mean style and not restrict length is valid. I don't think the judicial system failed here. The legislature should have written a better law with explicit language on length, color, extension, embellishment, etc. "Hairstyle" is vague and can be interpreted in all sorts of ways.
No, there's only one way to interpret hairstyle. Every hairstyle includes a defined length of hair. Name any hairstyle, and length is a component part of the definition. There is no honest interpretation of the word hairstyle that does not include length. Only someone with a prejudicial agenda would argue otherwise.
Every linguist worth their salt completely disagrees with you. Language is a matter of individual experience, it works over our overlaps of personal understandings, and those personal understandings are never perfectly aligned (common understandings of words even drift all the time because of this!). You can call slapping an adjective to a category its own new category, and that's fine, but different people have a different understanding of the concept. There is no "objective" definition or even an "objective" experience of any kind, it just isn't possible, that's not how human brains do things.
A concept like "oxygen" or even "water" might have a significantly more generally overlapping understanding from a large amount of people. Our common education, upbringings, and interactions with other speakers make a lot of English speakers agree on that. But a concept like "hairstyle" is something that requires a lot of nuance, because different people have wildly different interpretations of what's included or counted as its own "hairstyle". Many hairstyles you see as different might be seen to others as one singular hairstyle, or something you see as one hairstyle might be seen to others as different ones. Different people may think very differently at how color, length, texture, shape, accessories, etc. make up hairstyles. Many people even think of head/face shape and bodily features as part of a hairstyle (especially in certain religious contexts). Just because you have a certain understanding of it, and your logic makes sense to you, does not mean it is the "correct" understanding.
The idea of "there's no subjective definition" is extremely prescriptivist and is a spit in the face of modern language/psychology/sociology science. It's unfortunate that this kind of BS is propogated throughout our education system by "English Language Arts" teachers... and is why people genuinely think that AAVE is "bad English" and why people who don't know shit about language constantly have stupid long-winded arguments about how "actually this common/standard usage or pronunciation of a word is wrong", thinking they can enforce certain usages on other people because they can speak a version of the language.
That being said, I think for that exact reason it's absurd that there's even an attempted legal argument about length not being part of hairstyle. What somebody constitutes as a hairstyle is unique to them and the cultures they're a part of, and it's completely unreasonable to dictate that something they and their peers consider a hairstyle isn't a hairstyle, then punish them for it. It is literally their head hair. Same thing with facial hair and body hair. They can do whatever the hell they want with it.
Totally agreed on all points, and this is really what I was trying to get across. I cannot stress enough that I despise dress codes and think they have been used to suppress cultural expression for their history.
We're just talking about law here, which means linguistic analysis and the ability to distinguish between agreeable viewpoints and valid ones is critical if we want to have our positions enshrined and defended. There is a disagreeable, but valid, interpretation of the word hairstyle that distinguishes length as a separate factor. This judge didn't try to interpret the word "protected" as "yellow", because that's absurdly invalid. Judges are our society's foremost experts at taking disagreeable, but valid, interpretations and blowing them wide open.
Lawmakers have to be prepared for malicious judicial review. It is certain to happen at some level, particularly when the Supreme Court makeup is as it stands. Don't leave an obvious gap in the verbiage for a shitty justice to exploit, and then this kid would have been in school for the last year instead of dealing with this nightmare.
Not sure I totally agree. For instance, a mullet is a style, but there are many lengths a "mullet" can be. So, the argument is that the law is forbidding the restriction of mullets, but not the length of said mullet.
For what it's worth, I agree with your interpretation. I have no qualifications to be a judge, but I would also include length in the definition of hairstyle. But, this is a system of laws and playing devil's advocate, the legislature left a loophole that can be exploited. Regardless, your OP is incorrect in saying that length is explicitly protected. It's implicitly protected, but that is subject to judicial interpretation of definitions. They should amend the law to be more clear rather than relying on a favorable judicial reading.
Bullshit. A mullet has short hair in the front and long hair in the back. There's no version of a mullet hairstyle that does not define the length of the hair. There are variations of mullets, but each hairstyle variation defines a length.
The judge is a racist piece of shit who has no business on the bench.
Right, but you can have a short mullet or a long mullet. Short dreads or longer dreads. There is a factor of length separate from style. As much as you want it not to be, interpretation is complex. This judge could absolutely be a racist piece of shit, and likely is, given that he's a republican judge. But the fault here lies at the feet of the legislature who wrote an inadequate law.
I actually have a person in the same room as me right now who is a hairdresser, and they do see both arguments. I'm not asking for you to agree with the judge (and I have to stress again that I do not and would include length in style) but there is a valid view of that word here. But honestly, I'm not that keen to argue about it. If you still think it's not a matter up for debate, let's just agree to disagree and move forward aligned with the idea that this kid should be able to wear his hair however tf he wants.
Right, your hairstyle can be short dreads or long dreads, or a short mullet or a long mullet. That's four different hairstyles. This judge is absolutely a racist piece of shit. The legislators who wrote the law testified in court that of course hairstyle includes length, because that's obviously what a hairstyle is. There is no ambiguity or rokm for interpretation. These are all objective facts.
Alright cool, let me rebut with the following: yes it can, and yes it did. You're looking at it, right now. Racist piece of shit or no, he's got power and he just used it to take advantage of an ambiguity to get this result. So argue all you want, that's an objective fact. The lawmakers can be pissed off all they want, but this is on them. They should have done what has always been asked and required of good law, which is being explicit and clear.
And frankly, it's really fucking stupid to argue that definitions of words, especially in a legal context, are objective anyway. Words and definitions are exceptionally subjective, which is why we even have a judicial system to interpret the law. Yall can be pissed at me all you like, but the fact of the matter is, here we are talking about this because it was taken advantage of on a technicality, that should have been considered in advance and covered.
There's no ambiguity. There is no subjective definition. No hairstyles exist that do not include a length. The length of your hair is part of the hairstyle. It is stupid to argue, on that we agree.
You cannot have a mullet with long hair in the front and shorter hair in the back, because that's not the hair lengths of a mullet. You cannot have a mohawk with long hair on the sides and shorter on top. You cannot have a long, curly crew cut. You cannot have pigtails with a completely shaved head.
Hairstyles always, inexorably require hair length definitions. Anything else is a disingenuous argument, an attempt at semantic skulduggery. It is a lie to say that hairstyles don't include length.
There is no technicality, there is no advantage, there is only racism and injustice. This judge is a fraud, the school superintendent is a fascist bigot, and this ruling is a crime against humanity.
Some hairstyles have a range of lengths as a factor, but others do not. A crew cut cannot be long, but even your other examples have obvious counter arguments. Pigtails cannot be shaved length, but can be very short or long enough to drag on the floor. Dreads can be very short, or as long as down to your hips if you get really carried away with it. Now for me, I'm all for it, you do you. But it's a valid argument that this law is forbidding restrictions to whether pigtails are allowed, but not to the range of lengths of said pigtails. Now just replace "pigtails" with "locs" and here we are. Now, if the school forbid all male hairstyles longer than X inches and your cultural hairstyle of choice has a minimum length of X inches as an inbuilt requirement to achieve said style, that would be a different case and likely to succeed on the CROWN Act alone.
End of the day though, we've just been arguing semantics over the word "hairstyle" all day. I'm happy to just agree to disagree on this. I think we're even aligned on the principle that students should be free to choose their own hairstyle.
I think the "focusing on narrow definitions of words" is the part that makes this bullshit. Any judge can interpret as widely or as narrowly as they want. They do it all the time. They just pander to one side of the divide when that's the ruling they want to get to.
Of course it is. That's their entire job. It's why the judiciary exists in the first place, to interpret laws. Any law, no matter how matter how inconsequential or major, is going to be submitted to hostile judicial review where every word is going to be abused to its maximum. Have you read the CROWN Act? It's insanely short, basically a sentence or two surrounded by a bunch of legal boilerplate. That sentence is not very explicit and the authors of this law did not do their due diligence in writing it, in my opinion.
That's all beside the other important topics like the "conformity is required" superintendent, or the judge. This judge is a republican, and it is highly likely they read this maliciously. It's Texas, which means his presence can't be helped, or it would just be some similar asshole who would read it the same way.
So, how could this have been prevented? Simple. Add the word "length" to the text of the CROWN Act. Even better, spend some time doing research and have conversations with communities that have been adversely affected by discriminatory dress codes and use that information to build a comprehensive, explicit set of criteria listed in the law. That's just effective lawmaking and the less flashy part of what we should demand from our elected reps in addition to their policy positions.
I see absolutely no reason to give that fascist piece of shit judge any devil's advocacy, benefit of the doubt, or similar rhetorical leniency.
Fascists take liberals' and leftists' inclinations towards fairness and weaponize it against us. We need to quit giving them the opportunity.
I'm a white girl. My hairstyle is "long". It's my entire personality.
What they are doing to this young man is grotesque, but I'm not at all surprised the superintendent is being so petty. He's nothing more than an overgrown racist high school bully.
I am also a white woman with long hair, and I agree that the superintendent is practically a comic villain. Those are just beside the point when it comes to the judicial review of the wording of a law. My hairstyle is also "long", but deciding whether that is a descriptor or label is a complex subject! So, we just have to be super clear when we write laws so evil people like this superintendent can't use technicalities to get around the protections we put in place.
Sure, I read your back and forth earlier this morning with that other person, and I agree that if there is even a little room for semantic loopholes, assholes will use it, so it's better to just be annoyingly specific. At this point in our country's lifetime, lawmakers should know this, and the crown act should have been so beurocratically definitive of all aspects of hair. But also school officials should be worried about teaching all kids, not this dumb bullshit. :(
xx hope your day is nice and you're having a good hair day
Ugh, totally agreed. We are failing our kids. :( We'll just have to keep demanding better of our elected (and appointed) officials. Better lawmaking benefits us all! And of course, we have to keep working to get Republicans out of office, so we can have judges making more sane interpretations of our laws. But even then, I hope our judiciary holds our legislators accountable and makes them be explicit where it matters.
Thank you!! Same to you!
Your hair is "your entire personality"?!? Just want to make sure I read that correct...
"Long hair" is a style, isn't it?
So you agree with the law at the core, but it needs to be written better? Conservatives have a self-congratulatory joke they looove to trot out on things they think is a waste of government time, effort, and funds:
Imma say it really clearly. Laws around kids hair, is a waste of government time. Even at the school administrative level it’s a dumb move, because they’ll have to defend it in court. There is no good play here, aside from consent of the governed to not challenge the rules, because the rules are reasonable.
I do agree with the law at the core. I do think dress codes should have reasonable limits to avoid them being used to put children in uncomfortable positions or to suppress their culture or self-expression, with reasonable limits for truly disruptive choices. Without these limits, we have seen schools use dress codes to force conformity and I don't think that's particularly healthy.
But yes, the law should be written better. The legislature writes the laws and the laws should be clear and explicit in intent. The law should be written to stand up to strict judiciary review. They know unfriendly judges are going to look at this. That's my point.
But protection of cultural, religious, or expression isn’t what the laws here are being challenged over. The challenge is against a gender determinate dress code, being used as law fare in a wider culture war.
The reason this parent is pursuing all legal options is because the law is onerous, and discriminatory. We’ve seen school administrators successfully sued for forcing hairstyle conformity on minorities, this too is in shaky precedence.