Michael Abrahams | Time to revisit hair rules in schools

A recent incident at Kingston College, one of Jamaica’s most acclaimed high schools, where some students were denied entry to the compound because their hair was deemed “too high”, has reignited the debate about rules regarding hair in schools.

There are many persons who are tired of schoolchildren being harassed about their hair. Conversely, there are also those who are very vocal about rules pertaining to schoolchildren’s hair being obeyed. To be honest, every school has a right to make its rules, and if they are broken and students are punished, they have no legs to stand on. Children need to learn that there are consequences for breaking rules. That is a sound principle and is essential in instilling discipline.

But how rational are some of these rules? There are reasons why rules are made, but there is also a tendency for successful organisations and societies to periodically review and change their edicts because, with the passage of time, we gain new insights and benefit from our observations, experiences and research findings.

For example, decades ago in the United States of America, it was the law for black people to sit at the back of public transportation buses. However, when this rule was challenged by Rosa Parks in 1955, when she refused to give up her seat to a white man on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, it inspired others, including a young Martin Luther King Jr, to challenge the law, and it was eventually overturned. Looking back, we can see that such a rule was racist and unjust.

During my lifetime, as medical student and as a junior doctor, for a woman to undergo tubal ligation (female sterilisation), her husband had to consent. For a man to have a vasectomy (male sterilisation), consent from his spouse was not necessary. That rule has since been reviewed and discarded. In retrospect, we see that such a rule was sexist and unfair.

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE?

Regarding policing schoolboys’ hair, what is the rationale for insisting that it is below a certain length? Has it been conclusively shown that longer hair is associated with a decreased ability to learn? Does it interfere with the ability of other children to learn? Is there a correlation between longer hair and criminal activity and violent behaviour? These are all pertinent questions, as rules should be rational in their origins.

Many men who have made valuable contributions to their societies have or had hair that would be deemed unacceptably high by the standards of some of our schools. Our National Hero Sir Alexander Bustamante and international icon Nelson Mandela come to mind. There are also countless scientists, physicians, lawyers, educators, lawmakers, clergy and others who have helped to make the world a better place, who have hair that is not short. Recently, British Virgin Islands Premier Andrew Alturo Fahie was arrested on drug-trafficking and money-laundering charges in Miami. There is the popular adage that you are ‘innocent until proven guilty’, but the evidence against him is substantial. His hair is cut very short. The point I wish to make is that length of hair does not correlate with character.

Is there also a reason why girls are allowed to have longer hair than boys? Traditionally, girls have long hair and boys, short hair. But do all traditions have to continue indefinitely? Some girls are more comfortable with their hair being cut short, and some boys prefer theirs to be longer. Is there anything wrong with giving them that latitude?

Recently, since the incident at Kingston College, a prominent KC old boy posted this on Facebook: “At KC our traditions have served us well. If you aren’t happy you are welcome to leave.”

UNFORTUNATE

In my opinion, the post was an unfortunate one. Yes, Kingston College is an awesome institution with an impressive history. Its accomplishments in academics, sports and the arts are the envy of many, and the energy and loyalty among its alumni are phenomenal. But just because its traditions have served the institution well does not mean that some of these traditions should not be challenged. No institution is perfect, and there is always room for improvement.

Interestingly, while researching for this article, I came across the Kingston College yearbook for 1977-78 online. On page one are photographs of the members of its editorial committee. There are 12 young men, and not one of them has hair that is cut very short. The headboy, who was also featured in the yearbook as a scholarship winner, also had a sizeable afro. In fact, in a photograph I found of their Schools’ Challenge team, of which he was a member, he had the hair with the highest altitude, with the boys on the team looking like members of the Jackson 5. Today, he is a prominent and well-respected law professor, and still wears his hair higher than would be acceptable at his alma mater. I looked at the photographs of all the boys in the book and was hard-pressed to find any with hair cut as low as is being demanded today.

So, if the traditions at Kingston College have served the institution well, why are boys with even shorter hair today being subjected to rules that would necessitate them being locked out of the campus?

Please make it make sense.

Michael Abrahams is an obstetrician and gynaecologist, social commentator and human-rights advocate. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and michabe_1999@hotmail.com, or follow him on Twitter @mikeyabrahams.