Dear Editor,

A rather common misunderstanding we have of school is what it really is. Primarily, school is classified as an academic institution for “reading, writing, and arithmetic”.

On consultation and report days, parents bother themselves with percentages, rank, and, eventually, the type of student their child is. That last concern is overshadowed if the prior two are sufficiently pleasing. Conversely, if they aren’t, then it is the behaviour of their child which is blamed as the cause of underperformance.

French philosopher Emile Durkheim posited that school serves two main purposes: academic — how skills are imparted to prepare students for the world of work and social — where solidarity is developed within the student to recognise himself as part of a whole — the society into which he will assimilate post-school.

Whereas the family and religious institutions have traditionally complemented the personal development of children, their influence has waned significantly. With increasingly busy family leadership who may have incoherently or inconsistently enforced value structures as well as growing apathy towards religious instruction, schools remain the immutable distributor of social mores and norms. They impart and enforce rules to guide students during and after their time at the institution.

Rules must apply to all students, and all students are expected to comply — these are the grounds for an orderly society. These rules do not need to mirror society’s laws to be valid but rather mimic the principle of order and consequence of the society children will eventually join.

An academic curriculum does not require students to be on time, properly deported, respectful, mindful of others, compliant, etc. But ask any educator what value a highly intelligent and disruptive student offers to the classroom. Furthermore, ask whether the classroom is designed for the individual student such that social adherence can be discarded once grades suffice. For this reason consequences pursue the disruptive child regardless of academic capacity.

Now be careful not to assume that all disruption is belligerent. Defiance within a society is often manifested through the deviation towards individualism. Though individualism is not inherently bad, the idea of social solidarity erodes quickly when the one is prioritised over the many. Thus, individualism is incorrectly applied as the antidote for perceived oppression — for example, in grooming rules.

Durkheim would counter that such rules are not designed to deter individuality but prepare students for the world of work.

Just as professional institutions require adherence to rules of deportment and manner, schools also carry rules on grooming — a clear precursor. The difference being the degree of freedom of expression, as children are still learning boundaries while adults operate freely within those prescribed by their profession.

Adults who argue that the spirit of the school rule is oppressive must first examine the congruency with the spirit of the guidelines that they themselves must adhere to. What trust do they put in financiers, lawyers, and teachers, who despise the order of their own profession? What preference do they have for taxi men who explore the fringes and beyond of road law in the name and spirit of self?

Further, if one is honest, schools offer students a degree of individualism with their hair, shoes and even stationery. Yet these overlooked liberties are still maligned with the assumption of oppression in an institution designed to instil order.

People of African descent have historically been abused for their hair. This ridiculous yet extant matter often found its way into the rationale of school grooming rules. Ultimately, this disproportionately affects that group as the nation’s largest racial demography.

Therefore, on this matter, consensus must be abundantly clear that no student should be discriminated against because of his/her hair. Institutions which lock out students without proper protocol to officially suspend the child for undermining school rules should be held accountable. That should be plainly illegal and stated by the Ministry of Education.

That said, discrimination based on hair is not equivalent to consequences of usurping rules on grooming.

As previously opined, the assumption that there is no self-expression in hairstyles is myopic at best and dishonest otherwise. Girls and boys choose from a variety of cuts and styles as they see fit. That they cannot wear hair at a certain height/length is not equivalent to oppression, it is an act of defiance — not against colonial vestiges — but against the rules of the school. On these grounds it is reasonable that schools hold students accountable.

Again, in the spirit of Durkheim’s argument, were these students to matriculate to the armed forces, where hair is more tightly regulated, it is certainly not a matter for discussion, neither is it oppressive.

‘Rules are rules’ is a reductive argument and no, there is no direct relation between hair and academics. Schools are designed for the intellectual and social person. Their rules do not attack freedom of expression but create a framework for growth beyond the institution.

A society that despises the orderly development of the generation that will replace it desires chaos upon its old age — a society of fools.

D Richards

d.richardshsf@gmail.com