Boy suspended for wearing his hair too long

[cheermom1]

Again, this has nothing to do with this situation because this boy does not have long hair because of his religon. All public schools have exceptions for religious customs, I'm sure this one is no different. This child is not wearing his hair long because his religion dictates it, he's wearing it long because his parent does. It is this parent's choice to send him there being that pre-school is not mandatory. When a parent makes a choice to send their child to school, they make the choice to abide by the rules set by the school.

I understand exceptions however you can't say ok this boy can have long hair and this boy can't...it just doesn't work that way...

 

[luvmy3]

I understand exceptions however you can't say ok this boy can have long hair and this boy can't...it just doesn't work that way...

Yes, it does.

 

[cheermom1]

Yes, it does.

Why b/c you say it does??? NO it doesn't which is why this is an issue...

 

[auntie]

Huh? Same thing. Deal with the issue separately from the child. File an appeal or whatever the district has in place for a problem, but do not use your child to make your point.

Most schools do have a way to deal with religious issues, btw.

However, if you make an exception based on religion..are you not then discriminating against this boy because he isn't wearing his hair long based on religion but preference. What makes for one exception being a better excuse than the other..and who is to decide that? This is why I feel that should these parents decide to persue this legally..they probably have a leg to stand on. It's a slippery slope..and where do you draw the lines? This is based on what's social acceptable in this particular area. This would never be an issue where we live as there are cultures where the hair is worn long.
Are we gonna then implement a policy by where all the blue eyed, blonde haired children.. they have to have short hair..BUT... all the Sihk children "it's okay for you to have long hair". Come on. Really..? I tell you right now that if they made exceptions for religious reasons where we live, you can bet that those who have NO religion would be up in arms that they were not granted those same exceptions.
I really think the district has to rethink it's policy. I'd be willing to bet the district wished they had just looked the other way. I have no doubt in my mind that this little boy would have whined and told mommy he wanted a haircut once he realized he didn't look like all his friends anyway.
It's such a non-issue really, and to make a big stink over the length of a child's hair..at AGE 4..is just dopey.

 

[luvmy3]

Why b/c you say it does??? NO it doesn't which is why this is an issue...

Uumm no, its just how it is. There are a number of exceptions in the name of religion, especially in the public schools system.

This is an issue because some snowflake's mother thinks her child should be able to break the rules of a school she chose to enroll him in, because she wants him to wear his hair long, period.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

Why b/c you say it does??? NO it doesn't which is why this is an issue...

Have you heard of immunization exceptions for religious reasons?

Yes it does.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

However, if you make an exception based on religion..are you not then discriminating against this boy because he isn't wearing his hair long based on religion but preference. What makes for one exception being a better excuse than the other..and who is to decide that? This is why I feel that should these parents decide to persue this legally..they probably have a leg to stand on. It's a slippery slope..and where do you draw the lines? This is based on what's social acceptable in this particular area. This would never be an issue where we live as there are cultures where the hair is worn long.
Are we gonna then implement a policy by where all the blue eyed, blonde haired children.. they have to have short hair..BUT... all the Sihk children "it's okay for you to have long hair". Come on. Really..? I tell you right now that if they made exceptions for religious reasons where we live, you can bet that those who have NO religion would be up in arms that they were not granted those same exceptions.
I really think the district has to rethink it's policy. I'd be willing to bet the district wished they had just looked the other way. I have no doubt in my mind that this little boy would have whined and told mommy he wanted a haircut once he realized he didn't look like all his friends anyway.
It's such a non-issue really, and to make a big stink over the length of a child's hair..at AGE 4..is just dopey.

see above post. Also, in our area, only Jewish children are excused for Jewish holidays.

 

[luvmy3]

However, if you make an exception based on religion..are you not then discriminating against this boy because he isn't wearing his hair long based on religion but preference. What makes for one exception being a better excuse than the other..and who is to decide that? This is why I feel that should these parents decide to persue this legally..they probably have a leg to stand on. It's a slippery slope..and where do you draw the lines? This is based on what's social acceptable in this particular area. This would never be an issue where we live as there are cultures where the hair is worn long.
Are we gonna then implement a policy by where all the blue eyed, blonde haired children.. they have to have short hair..BUT... all the Sihk children "it's okay for you to have long hair". Come on. Really..? I tell you right now that if they made exceptions for religious reasons where we live, you can bet that those who have NO religion would be up in arms that they were not granted those same exceptions.
I really think the district has to rethink it's policy. I'd be willing to bet the district wished they had just looked the other way. I have no doubt in my mind that this little boy would have whined and told mommy he wanted a haircut once he realized he didn't look like all his friends anyway.
It's such a non-issue really, and to make a big stink over the length of a child's hair..at AGE 4..is just dopey.

I"ll use this case as an example.
If all religions required boys of a certain age to wear their hair long, or in ringlets or whatever and the school did not make an exception for a Catholic boy then the bolded would be an issue.
Just a question, are vaccines required in your school? You are aware that there is a religious exemption is allowed for certian religions right? The reason is because being vaccinated does not go against the beliefs held by all religions. Just like having short hair does not go against the beliefs of all.

Forgot to add that this doesn't apply to those with no religious beliefs because they have no belief system that they are expected and required to follow because of religion.

 

[shrubber]

Here is a link to video of said child

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCVbuNg1s2M

The kids hair is long, it does not strike me as distracting, but I'm not the ones enforcing the rules.

Of a most interesting note, check out the proud father, standing up for his sons (rights?).
Tattoos on his face and neck, And I think at least 5 facial piercings.
This apparently is not all about indifference, this is about parents who want to be different, to shock, to be outside of societies norms. And now they brought their kid into the mix. Sweet really.

 

[cheermom1]

Uumm no, its just how it is. There are a number of exceptions in the name of religion, especially in the public schools system.

This is an issue because some snowflake's mother thinks her child should be able to break the rules of a school she chose to enroll him in, because she wants him to wear his hair long, period.

That's your opinion and my opinion is that this is a stupid rule and needs to be changed...as far as the way the mother is going about it is in question however I respect her right to handle the way she feel she should...as I would ANY other parent who feels they are doing the best for their kids...and that my dear is the difference ...

 

[luvmy3]

That's your opinion and my opinion is that this is a stupid rule and needs to be changed...as far as the way the mother is going about it is in question however I respect her right to handle the way she feel she should...as I would ANY other parent who feels they are doing the best for their kids...and that my dear is the difference ...

I never said that it doesn't, I just disagree with the way this mother is going about that change. I don't respect anyone who doesn't think the rules apply to them and uses their 4 year to be a scapegoat for all who have long hair and all others who don't agree with the rule. I don't agree that is doing the best for your child. I believe in teaching them to stand up for what is right by doing whats right.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

That's your opinion and my opinion is that this is a stupid rule and needs to be changed...as far as the way the mother is going about it is in question however I respect her right to handle the way she feel she should...as I would ANY other parent who feels they are doing the best for their kids...and that my dear is the difference ...

i never said it wasn't a stupid rule. And you may support a parent's rights, but I support a child's rights. He is the paying the penalty. ANd that, my friend is the difference between us.

 

[shrubber]

Remember, when life hands you lemons, whine and cry and pout about it until life can't handle it anymore and gives you cookies just to shut you up.

 

[cheermom1]

I never said that it doesn't, I just disagree with the way this mother is going about that change. I don't respect anyone who doesn't think the rules apply to them and uses their 4 year to be a scapegoat for all who have long hair and all others who don't agree with the rule. I don't agree that is doing the best for your child. I believe in teaching them to stand up for what is right by doing whats right.

I get that and I respect the way you want to do things ..Like I said I wouldn't be doing the way she is but at the same time we can not change the way she is doing it..plus we agree that this rule needs to be changed ..So why have a discussion on the way the mom is handling this when we can't change it...I guess I don't understand...

fact: rule is stupid
fact: rule needs to be changed
fact: this mother is the only one doing anything about it.
fact: she is doing it HER way b/c she is the only one trying to change it.

unless anyone here wants to go up against this school their way than why are we commending this poor mother for doing what SHE thinks is best...I'm not saying that everyone has to agree with her...if you don't want to go there and change the rule than what gives you the right to sit on the side lines and say these things about her?? all the while wanting this rule changed..this doesn't make since...

 

[NHdisneylover]

Also, a friend (well, acquaintance really) once told me that she really did not like long hair on little boys. She often mistook them for girls and had a recurring dream about this one little boy in particular being abducted from school. The teacher who witnessed the abduction from afar didn't know the boy and kept describing the child as a little girl, so the police were out looking for a girl and lost untold time. Yes, I know it was only a dream, but it really bothered her. She had no problem with longer hair on older boys, btw. It was really all about being about to identify them just by looks. I should also add that in her school it was not uncommon for little girls to wear their big brother's hand me downs.

.

I forgot to respond to this part of your post this morning so sorry for quoting it again.
I find your friends' fears interesting. Isn't it equally likely that a little girl with a pixie cut, wearing her older brother's hand me downs would be mistakenly reported as a missing boy from a distance? Unless you are going to mandate that all girls must have long hair and all boys short hair her safety concern is not really going to work (yes, I do understand it is just a nightmare she has and not anything she rationally believes, but this illustrates that there is no true identification safety issue justifying boys and only boys to have a specific hair length).

In the above two examples, there is an unabashed singling out of a race/religion. They were using the stars, the bus seats, the water fountains, etc. to show everyone else that they were less in the eyes of the government.

A school not allowing boys to wear their hair long is not a rule put in place to demonstrate that boys are less than girls.



This mother has legal channels she can wade through, that the colonists never even dreamed of.

No, but it is trying to make boys fit a preconceived idea of who and what they must be that girls are not made to fit. I find it almost as repulsive as when girls were told they had to take home economics and not science classes. I also actually think at times (with some people--no one here) this issue runs deeper: specifically prohibitting boys from doing something preceived as femine as a backlash against the gay community (I think this because I have often heard men comment that long hair on their sons is not okay because it is "too gay" or "girlie" Odd thoguht process given that I know very few gay men with long hair). What I am saying is that this type of thing could also be a bigger civil rights issue than it seems on the surface (not that I think this specific family is fighting for any such rights, I agree they seem pretty much interested in getting attention, but you never know).

Huh? Same thing. Deal with the issue separately from the child. File an appeal or whatever the district has in place for a problem, but do not use your child to make your point.

Most schools do have a way to deal with religious issues, btw.

So what is the parent supposed to do with the child while the appeal goes through (it could take a year or more, or you may never win). If your beliefs prevent you from cutting the hair, how do you NOT involve the child? Serious question here. Not trying to give you a hard time, I just don't see HOW to avoid involving the kid.

One final thought (and again, I DO get the vibe that this family is out looking for a fight and not really worried about their child and his feelings), everyone keeps feeling sorry for the boy having to stay in the library with an aid and not playing in class with his friends. I agree most kids would rather be in the classroom--but am I the only person on here whoe kid would have LOVED being out of the crowd and having one on one attention at that age (DD would still love that at 13; she hates "big" groups). Not every kid loves school and many preschoolers love one on one time with any adult.
Also, of course, the school COULD allow him into the classroom during the appeals process if they wanted to. He is not endangering anyone. I feel it is as much the school as the parents keeping this kid from the classroom.

 

[cheermom1]

i never said it wasn't a stupid rule. And you may support a parent's rights, but I support a child's rights. He is the paying the penalty. ANd that, my friend is the difference between us.

I never said that I don't feel for the child..like I said I wouldn't be handling it the way she is but at the same time this mother is only doing what SHE thinks is best for her child...as any mother would do..I don;t see this as something this child will not be able to get over ..plus we never know if he will grow up and think back "I got such and such rule changed and I'm proud to part of that" my point is that we don't know either way...just like that one child that got the rule changed for girls to wear pants in school ..she has said that she is glad she part of that...so again I don't understand why people have to be so harsh on the mother for this...

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

So what is the parent supposed to do with the child while the appeal goes through (it could take a year or more, or you may never win

He is four years old. He is not required to be in school. She can take care of her child. If it takes a year then it takes a year. You want the child sitting in time out for all of that time?

 

[FireDancer]

Oh,

I guess I just truly don't understand this fight. I mean this kid is in pre-K, and there are going to be a lot of battles down the road. When my kids were in public school, I kept my mouth shut about a lot of the little things I disagreed with or didn't like. That way when I needed to challenge something that I felt was important I could do so without being seen as a trouble maker. (For example, one year I was able to get my dd's class assignment changed, and another woman I know wasn't. I feel it was because this was the first time I had ever asked for anything from the school. The other woman challenged them and made a stink several times a year about different things.) Perhaps these parents do feel this is an important enough issue, but I openly admit that I don't get it. I understand where they're coming from and do think the rule should change, but I wouldn't be willing to become "one of those parents" for the sake of my kid's hair.

I agree, pick you battles. There are many rules that are unnecessary not only in schools but in life and even in the law. It is counter productive to fight every one of them. I don't see this battle as one worth wasting time one. The same goes for the shirt tucking for boys only. I think most of the gender specific rules are outdated and just a waste of effort to enforce. If this family really does feel this is one of those battles they just have to fight for whatever reason then they should fight it but it should be done through the proper channels.

Just because this can be analogous to Rosa Parks and slavery doesn't mean it carries the same importance. I would file those things on the battle worth fighting pile personally. I realize everyone puts different things on the important file but often times we lose sight of the practical while fighting for the ideal. There are much more important battles to fight in the school systems. I think this one should wait until after issues like proper funding, future leaning curriculum, and issues like them that are much more important are taken care of.

Just my opinion and I recognize it isn't the only one.

 

[NHdisneylover]

i never said it wasn't a stupid rule. And you may support a parent's rights, but I support a child's rights. He is the paying the penalty. ANd that, my friend is the difference between us.

Isn't at least possible that the child does not want to cut his hair, mom agrees it is a stupid rule ans she feels she is supporting her son and his (the child's rights) by fighting the rule and not making him cut the hair
I think you could look at cuting the child's hair and putting him back into the classroom, OR not cutting it and fighting the rule without changing his hairstyle as both valid ways to support the child's rights. It is all a perspective thing at that point.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

I never said that I don't feel for the child..like I said I wouldn't be handling it the way she is but at the same time this mother is only doing what SHE thinks is best for her child...as any mother would do..I don;t see this as something this child will not be able to get over ..plus we never know if he will grow up and think back "I got such and such rule changed and I'm proud to part of that" my point is that we don't know either way...just like that one child that got the rule changed for girls to wear pants in school ..she has said that she is glad she part of that...so again I don't understand why people have to be so harsh on the mother for this...

Because the PARENTS have chosen to subject their child to daily time out. They are not paying the penalty. A poor little boy with NO control over his circumstance is paying the price.

Mommy and Daddy just appear to be attention <blanks>, imo. THis is their 15 minutes of fame.