‘So boys don’t have lice?’ judge asks - Gov’t attorney defends school’s no-locked hair policy
Published:Friday | September 27, 2019 | 12:17 AMNickoy Wilson/Gleaner Writer -
A government attorney yesterday asserted that the no-locked hair policy at the Kensingston Primary School was put in place to reduce the recurrence of a lice and fungi infestation.
In an affidavit, acting principal of the St Catherine-based school, Christine Hamilton, said: “In 2009, hygiene challenges in relation to the poor grooming of the hair of female students reached a very serious stage when there was an outbreak of lice and fungi infestation.”
According to the affidavit, this is what led to the development of the hair policy, which prohibits the wearing of braids and locking of the hair by students.
But Justice Evan Brown, one of three judges who heard the constitutional claim in relation to a then five-year-old girl who was last year barred from entering the school, questioned this line of argument.
“So boys don’t get lice? You’re presenting to us that the lice at your school discriminate?” the Supreme Court judge asked.
Attorney-at-law Carla Thomas from the Attorney General’s Chambers, however, maintained that the policy was born out of a particular experience at the school and put in place to avoid such a situation from taking place again.
The attorney also sought to convince the court that the child would have been allowed to attend school with the locks even without the presence of an injunction.
The Supreme Court last August granted an injunction preventing the board of management of the school from blocking the young student from entering the school because of her dreadlocked hairstyle.
Justice Nicole Simmons, who is also on the panel, did not seem to agree with the attorney’s case.
An audio recording, purportedly of an executive member of the parent-teacher association (PTA) siding with the then principal, was played in court on Wednesday.
Commenting on the recording, Simmons said the conversation did not sound pleasant.
She said that there was a real dispute between the school and parents of the young student, pointing out that the injunction came after.
Justice Sonia Bertram-Linton is the other Supreme Court judge who heard the case.
The court yesterday reserved its judgement until January 17, 2020, bringing the four-day hearing to a close.