Five yr old suspended for haircut

[TMF]

We're talking about a dress code at an elementary school for crying out loud. The school has to draw the line somewhere. Many public schools have much stricter dress codes to include uniforms. If kids need to use clothing and haircuts as a means to express their personality it shows a lack of creativity and security in their identity, in my opinion.

I'll add that the parent's response regarding why the kid got that haircut "because he wanted it" shows how weak the parent is. If you can't say "no" to your kid you are not going to be a good parent. We are raising adults, not children.

[Guest carter]

I know I won't be able to put my exact thoughts into words but the problem with our society today is the fact that they ARE saying screw the rules, be you're own person, forget about respect and authority, do what you want, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. There's a difference between following the rules out of repsect, even when you might not agree with them and following rules blindly even when you are compromising your integrity or morality. I was asked not to wear flip flops to church one day since I was working in the ministry there and some of the elders thought that wearing sandals was disrespectful. I was tempted to snap back with, "Jesus wore sandals!" but I didn't because I respected them and I didn't wear sandals anymore to church. Was there anything morally wrong with wearing sandals in church? Absolutely not. Was it a distraction and possibly a stumblng block to those men? Apparently and possibly. I could have stormed off yelling things about being free to be my own person and not having to follow stupid rules but I didn't because in this case, it wasn't affecting me morally, physically, or ethically. It would have been different if they had called my spiritual condition into question. Respect for authority is totally different than bowing to authority. But be careful. That stuff might getcha thrown into a furnace! :)

I'd have to see these said flip flops... and feets and toeses

[gnmwilliams]

I'd have to see these said flip flops... and feets and toeses

Oh trust me. You don't want to see my toes. My wife has been trying to get me to stop wearing flip flops forever now. I literally bend the toenail clippers when I try to clip them. I have to nibble away at them instead of one big chunk or somebody'd lose an eye. So in hind sight, maybe they were offended with my feet, not the sandals. Hmmmmm..... 

[JAB]

I'll add that the parent's response regarding why the kid got that haircut "because he wanted it" shows how weak the parent is. If you can't say "no" to your kid you are not going to be a good parent. We are raising adults, not children.

 

Why?  It's his head.  If the parents don't object then why shouldn't he get something so simple as a haircut he wants?  Maybe it wasn't a matter of not being able to say, "No" but more a matter of the parents not seeing anything objectionable about what is, after all, a well groomed and tended haircut and having no reason to say, "No."

 

After all, ultimately why does a kid get a new toy?  A particular video game?  Because he or she wants it, of course, and because the parents decide to indulge that desire.  Nothing wrong with that when the things they want are not harmful - and a haircut could hardly be called harmful.

 

Let me try to explain where I am coming from in another way.

 

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as having said, talking specifically about different viewpoints on religion but also speaking more broadly to the powers of the government to 'make rules' :

 

 

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.
It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

 

This kid's haircut neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.  Neither does it pick the pocket of his teacher nor break the leg of his school administrators.  His haircut is not injurious to others nor was the decision by his parents to allow him to get a mohawk injurious to others.  Therefore, a public school and its officials (which are extensions of 'government') have no legitimate power to regulate his haircut.  Any attempt to do so is an illegitimate use of powers and, honestly, should be broadly ignored.

 

Sure, this is just a silly thing - a 5 year old kid's haircut.  However, it is symptomatic of the fact that we, as a society, have come to the point that if we don't ask, "How high?" simply because someone in a position of authority says, "Jump" then we are declared to be irresponsible, our characters flawed and seen as simply trying to be trouble makers.  To me, that whole point of view is the thing that is flawed.

Edited April 11, 2013 by JAB

[TMF]

Why? It's his head. If the parents don't object then why shouldn't he get something so simple as a haircut he wants? Maybe it wasn't a matter of not being able to say, "No" but more a matter of the parents not seeing anything objectionable about what is, after all, a well groomed and tended haircut and having no reason to say, "No."

Because I got the impression that the haircut was objectionable based on the response of the parent. I could be wrong. Perhaps the parents see no problem with that, and that is their business. However, if the school has rules then they need to follow them and teach their kid to respect the rules. The reason schools have turned in to pre-prison is because parents are doing a poor job of leading by example. If they have no respect for the rules how can they expect their kids to when they get older.

[gnmwilliams]

Why?  It's his head.  If the parents don't object then why shouldn't he get something so simple as a haircut he wants?  Maybe it wasn't a matter of not being able to say, "No" but more a matter of the parents not seeing anything objectionable about what is, after all, a well groomed and tended haircut and having no reason to say, "No."

 

After all, ultimately why does a kid get a new toy?  A particular video game?  Because he or she wants it, of course, and because the parents decide to indulge that desire.  Nothing wrong with that when the things they want are not harmful - and a haircut could hardly be called harmful.

 

Let me try to explain where I am coming from in another way.

 

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as having said, talking specifically about different viewpoints on religion but also speaking more broadly to the powers of the government to 'make rules' :

 

 

 

This kid's haircut neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.  Neither does it pick the pocket of his teacher nor break the leg of his school administrators.  His haircut is not injurious to others nor was the decision by his parents to allow him to get a mohawk injurious to others.  Therefore, a public school and its officials (which are extensions of 'government') have no legitimate power to regulate his haircut.  Any attempt to do so is an illegitimate use of powers and, honestly, should be broadly ignored.

But what kind of lesson does it teach a child when a parent, who by letting their child attend the school is agreeing to abide by their rules, like them or not, tells them they don't have to follow those rules because they think they're stupid? My father and I had strong disagreements on music and movie theaters as I was growing up. He felt that movie theaters were dens of evil basically back then and forbade me to go. I sat down with him one day and told him I didn't believe that they were evil and that I didn't believe in my heart that it was wrong to go. I asked him not to forbid me anymore because if I did go, it would be doing wrong on my part. Not doing wrong because I went to the movies, but wrong because I would be disobeying him because he, as my father, had forbade me to go in the first place. Yeah I know i know get to the point. What Im saying is that by allowing their child to go against the rules, right or wrong as they may be, is essentially teaching him that it is okay to ignore authority just because you don't agree with it. Sure, challenging authority is built into us as Americans, as well it should be. Challenge and question all you want but do it the right way. I'd have liked to see the parents use this as an opportunity to teach their child about respecting the rules, even when they're wrong or silly, and seeking ways to resolve the conflict or get the rules changed in stead of just ignoring them. Our founding fathers didn't just jump into war with England in a day. They questioned and challenged the unfair and oppresive laws that were laid upon their shoulders and only when they had exhausted all their options did they make the decision to take up arms against their oppressors. Taxation without representation is a far cry from being sent home for your haircut. My father technically had no legal power to forbid me to go to the movies but I still chose not to go. Why? Because he was my father and I respected him enough to obey his authority, even if I dissagreed with him.

[Guest carter]

Oh trust me. You don't want to see my toes. My wife has been trying to get me to stop wearing flip flops forever now. I literally bend the toenail clippers when I try to clip them. I have to nibble away at them instead of one big chunk or somebody'd lose an eye. So in hind sight, maybe they were offended with my feet, not the sandals. Hmmmmm..... 

maybe... plus sandals and flipflopers are totally different... 

Edited April 11, 2013 by carter

[Guest carter]

But what kind of lesson does it teach a child when a parent, who by letting their child attend the school is agreeing to abide by their rules, like them or not, tells them they don't have to follow those rules because they think they're stupid? My father and I had strong disagreements on music and movie theaters as I was growing up. He felt that movie theaters were dens of evil basically back then and forbade me to go. I sat down with him one day and told him I didn't believe that they were evil and that I didn't believe in my heart that it was wrong to go. I asked him not to forbid me anymore because if I did go, it would be doing wrong on my part. Not doing wrong because I went to the movies, but wrong because I would be disobeying him because he, as my father, had forbade me to go in the first place. Yeah I know i know get to the point. What Im saying is that by allowing their child to go against the rules, right or wrong as they may be, is essentially teaching him that it is okay to ignore authority just because you don't agree with it. Sure, challenging authority is built into us as Americans, as well it should be. Challenge and question all you want but do it the right way. I'd have liked to see the parents use this as an opportunity to teach their child about respecting the rules, even when they're wrong or silly, and seeking ways to resolve the conflict or get the rules changed in stead of just ignoring them. Our founding fathers didn't just jump into war with England in a day. They questioned and challenged the unfair and oppresive laws that were laid upon their shoulders and only when they had exhausted all their options did they make the decision to take up arms against their oppressors. Taxation without representation is a far cry from being sent home for your haircut. My father technically had no legal power to forbid me to go to the movies but I still chose not to go. Why? Because he was my father and I respected him enough to obey his authority, even if I dissagreed with him.

I would love to see other kids in the school though... compare that child to everyone else there that has not been reprimanded...  

[gnmwilliams]

I would love to see other kids in the school though... compare that child to everyone else there that has not been reprimanded...

Oh I totally agree with you. I'm sure there are waaaaaay more important things our schools should be addressing. However, I've also never been able to get out of a speeding ticket by complaining about all the other speeders that were in front of me. :) And it doesn't make me any less guilty. Edited April 12, 2013 by gnmwilliams

[DaveS]

If I read this thing right, his hair fell within the guidelines of the school. His teacher then said it was disruptive. That was the "teacher's" opinion. Just because the parent cut his hair like he wanted it doesn't make them bad parents. I mean come on now. How many of us got a "buzz job" and went to school and had other kids rubbing all over our head "wishing they had a watermelon". Maybe we all should have been kicked out of school too!

Our schools let kids walk around all day with their pants half way to their knees, but kick a kid out of school for having a "mohawk" haircut. This country is getting weaker every day!

 

Dave S