• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should schools have the authority to dictate student's hair styles?

Should schools have the authority to dictate student's hair styles?


  • Total voters
    59
No, they shouldn't be allowed to dictate students' hair styles. I've heard that certain hairstyles are banned because they cause a disruption in the classroom. My response to that is to be a better teacher. Get a better handle on your students. If something as simple as a hairstyle disrupts your classroom, then the problem is you, not the students.

WHo says disruption is only in the classroom? Kids arent in class all the time and they have plenty of time to fight, abuse, taunt, etc each other.

That kind of atmosphere has a negative affect on learning.
 
I think because we knew once highschool was over and we needed to be taken seriously. We cut our hair. I see way to many "35 year old teenagers" out there looking for work looking like they are still wanting to be in highschool.

But the OP has nothing to do with 35 year olds. I agree with that sentiment. I've seen 65 year old women that dress like 20 year olds. They don't have the body for it, and it's disturbing. But it's their business.

The OP is talking about whether teachers should be able to tell students what kind of hairstyles they can have. You wore your hair the way you wanted to - why can't they?

What's good for the goose, and all that.
 
WHo says disruption is only in the classroom? Kids arent in class all the time and they have plenty of time to fight, abuse, taunt, etc each other.

That kind of atmosphere has a negative affect on learning.

Bull****. One of the sweetest, honest, most caring people I've ever met had DayGlo orange hair.

Hair color, styles, etc, does not necessarily equate to disruptive behavior.
 
WHo says disruption is only in the classroom? Kids arent in class all the time and they have plenty of time to fight, abuse, taunt, etc each other.

That kind of atmosphere has a negative affect on learning.

Educating public school students on social mores concerning hairstyles is useful, especially when the public school student is between the ages of 14-21, when they are seeking (or are being encouraged to) join the working world. That being said, that is probably all that it should be concerned with.
 
Last edited:
Bull****. One of the sweetest, honest, most caring people I've ever met had DayGlo orange hair.

Hair color, styles, etc, does not necessarily equate to disruptive behavior.

Wut???

I never said anything about that or like that. Or implied it.
 
Educating public school students on social mores concerning hairstyles is useful, especially when the public school student is between the ages of 14-21, when they are seeking (or are being encouraged to) join the working world. That being said, that is probably all that it should be concerned with.

The ONLY point I was making was in direct context to Superfly criticizing teachers for not controlling kids in the classroom.

I said that 'disruption' happens outside the classroom as well.'

"Reading: it's fundamental."
 
The ONLY point I was making was in direct context to Superfly criticizing teachers for not controlling kids in the classroom.

I said that 'disruption' happens outside the classroom as well.'

"Reading: it's fundamental."

The snarkiness of your reply is noted, however, I think it was a mistake to do so. Superfly was disputing the justification of regulating hairstyles on the basis of classroom distraction.

If reading is "fundamental," perhaps you should not be so quick to either reply to Superfly on the basis of a misunderstanding, or to me on the basis of responding on point.
 
The snarkiness of your reply is noted, however, I think it was a mistake to do so. Superfly was disputing the justification of regulating hairstyles on the basis of classroom distraction.

If reading is "fundamental," perhaps you should not be so quick to either reply to Superfly on the basis of a misunderstanding, or to me on the basis of responding on point.

No, he was replying to a thread about school authority (not specifically in the classroom) and chose to use it as a platform to criticize teachers by narrowing the issue to the classroom and their faults.

Again: context and meaning make a difference when reading. It's very important.
 
I read a story about a 5 yr old Indian kid who had his hair braided (and very nicely, I might add) down to almost his butt. This was on the first day of Kindergarten. May or may not be the same story you're talking about. Anyway, this is the one that prompted me to ask the question, but I have also read of other similar incidents in recent years that made me shake my head, as well.

I was thinking that was what you were referring to. Unless there was already a thread on it, I thought it was a very subtle and clever way to address it.

Of course, in contemporary America, much of the press surrounding the politics of hair centers of African American children (often girls and young women). The context of Native American boarding school education centered on the regulation of hair length, name, faith, and other demonstrations of one's "Nativeness."
 
Schools should be allowed to dictate hair styles ONLY if the style distracts other students from learning.
Given the hormone levels in the later school years, the very presence of another student distracts other students from learning.

"if it distracts" is not an acceptable reason for disallowing something.

Perhaps if you mean "overly distracting"? Even that could be interpreted incorrectly though.
 
No, he was replying to a thread about school authority (not specifically in the classroom) and chose to use it as a platform to criticize teachers by narrowing the issue to the classroom and their faults.

Again: context and meaning make a difference when reading. It's very important.

Let's go through this step-by-step.

Radcen (Post #1):
Should schools have the authority to dictate student's hair styles?
Public Schools.

Superfly (Post#11, her first post, not addressing anything other than the first post):
No, they shouldn't be allowed to dictate students' hair styles. I've heard that certain hairstyles are banned because they cause a disruption in the classroom. My response to that is to be a better teacher. Get a better handle on your students. If something as simple as a hairstyle disrupts your classroom, then the problem is you, not the students.

Lursa (Post #51, directly replying to the quote above):
WHo says disruption is only in the classroom? Kids arent in class all the time and they have plenty of time to fight, abuse, taunt, etc each other.

That kind of atmosphere has a negative affect on learning.

1) If your point was to suggest that youth misbehavior occurs outside of the school, you would be correct, albeit irrelevant.

2) If your point was to suggest that youth misbehavior occurs outside the school and somehow hairstyle influences it, and thus you support hairstyle regulation, then both of us would disagree.

Now I had presumed that it was potentially meaning #2, but you respond as if both of us are in error.
 
Let's go through this step-by-step.

Radcen (Post #1):

Superfly (Post#11, her first post, not addressing anything other than the first post):


Lursa (Post #51, directly replying to the quote above):

1) If your point was to suggest that youth misbehavior occurs outside of the school, you would be correct, albeit irrelevant.

2) If your point was to suggest that youth misbehavior occurs outside the school and somehow hairstyle influences it, and thus you support hairstyle regulation, then both of us would disagree.

Now I had presumed that it was potentially meaning #2, but you respond as if both of us are in error.

So you are claiming that schools are made up of only classrooms? And that's where ALL student time is spent? :doh

I think we need to back even further than "Reading: it's fundamental".

And your entire post supports what I said, thanks for putting it together for me.
 
So you are claiming that schools are made up of only classrooms? And that's where ALL student time is spent? :doh

I think we need to back even further than "Reading: it's fundamental".

And your entire post supports what I said, thanks for putting it together for me.

You are then taking the approach that because unique hairstyles elicit social commentary, we should thus regulate them. I would still disagree.

That being said, there is an argument about it being unwieldy for the instructor to deal with, which is rather weak.

Our rather reasonable interpretations of your posts are hardly our fault.
 
Last edited:
Should schools have the authority to dictate student's hair styles?

Public schools.



No. My son's hair is his business, and possibly mine. Not theirs.
 
You are then taking the approach that because unique hairstyles elicit social commentary, we should thus regulate them. I would still disagree.

That being said, there is an argument about it being unwieldy for the instructor to deal with, which is rather weak.

Our rather reasonable interpretations of your posts are hardly our fault.

I made zero comment about hair. NONE. I made it about focusing on teacher responsibility.

You are really embarrassing yourself here. Seriously.

"Reading: it's fundamental." Try it again.
 
I made zero comment about hair. NONE. I made it about focusing on teacher responsibility.

You are really embarrassing yourself here. Seriously.

"Reading: it's fundamental." Try it again.

That's a rather strange stance to take in a thread that is directly about hair, and a post responding to a quote offering a readily-known justifier of sporadic public school hair regulations (that it is a classroom distraction), don't you think?
 
That's a rather strange stance to take in a thread that is directly about hair, and a post responding to a quote offering a readily-known justifier of sporadic public school hair regulations (that it is a classroom distraction), don't you think?

Dont remember even asking you to get involved, but hey, it's a public discussion. It would have been nice if you'd replied with something remotely relevant to that conversation.

Superfly said:
No, they shouldn't be allowed to dictate students' hair styles. I've heard that certain hairstyles are banned because they cause a disruption in the classroom. My response to that is to be a better teacher. Get a better handle on your students. If something as simple as a hairstyle disrupts your classroom, then the problem is you, not the students.

Lursa said:
WHo says disruption is only in the classroom?Kids arent in class all the time and they have plenty of time to fight, abuse, taunt, etc each other.

That kind of atmosphere has a negative affect on learning.

Again, I was referring to it not being just about teachers controlling what happens in the classroom...that kids interact with each other constantly in school *not just in the classroom* Topic title: "Should schools have the authority to dictate student's hair styles?"

And if it needs to be explained at an even lower level, I'm done....wasted enough time already.
 
It would have been nice if you'd replied with something remotely relevant to that conversation.

You're right, I wasn't "invited." I don't need to be. Your ideas (however poorly elaborated they may have been) were for public consumption. Being snotty about it doesn't improve the quality of your ideas or your response to reasonable interpretations or reactions toward your posts.

I did respond something relevant to that conversation, actually. It apparently wasn't what you were wanting to discuss, however.

Again, I was referring to it not being just about teachers controlling what happens in the classroom...that kids interact with each other constantly in school *not just in the classroom* Topic title: "Should schools have the authority to dictate student's hair styles?"

And she was rightly referring to what schools often do to justify hair regulation: classroom distraction. This is part of classroom management, and no, it is not a hefty expectation that an instructor be able to keep the student body (or the student in question) in relative control when a student is sporting a unique hairstyle. That comes with the job.

Pointing out that there are other areas as to when a student's hairstyle can become a "distraction" or a source of harm to that particular student is perhaps worthy of discussion (again, we both disagree with that individual justifier of regulation), nevertheless, on her point, an adequate instructor's classroom management is not harmed through hairstyle. On that basis, it does not merit regulation.

Attempting to suggest that you would have to "dumb it down" for me does not in any way make your ideas clearer to an educated reader, nor does it make your response or ideas seem reasonable.
 
Last edited:
You're right, I wasn't "invited." I don't need to be. Your ideas (however poorly elaborated they may have been) were for public consumption. Being snotty about it doesn't improve the quality of your ideas or your response to reasonable interpretations or reactions toward your posts.

I did respond something relevant to that conversation, actually. It apparently wasn't what you were wanting to discuss, however.



And she was rightly referring to what schools often do to justify hair regulation: classroom distraction. This is part of classroom management, and no, it is not a hefty expectation that an instructor be able to keep the student body (or the student in question) in relative control when a student is sporting a unique hairstyle. That comes with the job.

Pointing out that there are other areas as to when a student's hairstyle can become a "distraction" or a source of harm to that particular student is perhaps worthy of discussion (again, we both disagree with that individual justifier of regulation), nevertheless, on her point, an adequate instructor's classroom management is not harmed through hairstyle. On that basis, it does not merit regulation.

Attempting to suggest that you would have to "dumb it down" for me does not in any way make your ideas clearer to an educated reader, nor does it make your response or ideas seem reasonable.


NONE of that had to do with my reply to her. It's nice that you feel you can tell me what I should have responded to, and how, but that's not how the Internet works.

The 'school' encompasses alot more than classrooms and a brief but pithy tirade about teachers controlling their classrooms was something I chose to call out and explore further. (That didnt happen since you sidetracked it and at least Superfly had the sense to retreat if not interested)

And it had to be wriiten out several times for you so I'm pretty sure my efforts to dumb it down...altho still wasted...WERE necessary. You provided all the proof needed of that. Mostly by not just gracefully retiring by admitting you didnt read it properly the first time, instead of unsuccessfully trying to justify it.
 
Last edited:
The 'school' encompasses alot more than classrooms and a brief but pithy tirade about teachers controlling their classrooms was something I chose to call out and explore further. (That didnt happen since you sidetracked it and at least Superfly had the sense to retreat if not interested)

Of course the school has more than classrooms in it. Nevertheless, a common framing of hair regulation and punishment in the public schools is in regard to classroom management issues. If you think that classroom management is not justification for regulating hairstyles, say so. If you think the justifier lays somewhere else (say, in the commons area, a student with a unique hairstyle either harassing or being harassed), that's fine. Nevertheless, her point was quite accurate and you will still get people disagreeing with you about other motivations for regulating hairstyles (in those other areas).

And it had to be wriiten out several times for you so I'm pretty sure my efforts to dumb it down...altho still wasted...WERE necessary. You provided all the proof needed of that. Mostly by not just graciously retiring by admitting you didnt read it properly the first time, instead of unsuccessfully trying to justify it.

I read it properly many times. You either did a poor job of explaining yourself or you are completely confused.
 
Of course the school has more than classrooms in it. Nevertheless, a common framing of hair regulation and punishment in the public schools is in regard to classroom management issues. If you think that classroom management is not justification for regulating hairstyles, say so. If you think the justifier lays somewhere else (say, in the commons area, a student with a unique hairstyle either harassing or being harassed), that's fine. Nevertheless, her point was quite accurate and you will still get people disagreeing with you about other motivations for regulating hairstyles (in those other areas).

:lamo I gave no opinion at all on anything you just wrote ^^, nada, zero, zippo. You have ZERO idea of what my opinion is on any of that. My comment was regarding teachers only. Again....you are just embarrassing yourself. It's not even reading comprehension...you are inventing stuff.



I read it properly many times. You either did a poor job of explaining yourself or you are completely confused.

I was very clear and you continue to prove you have your own agenda and are inventing stuff to try and justify the fact that I posted nothing about hair and it's impact in schools.I posted specifically about teachers and their control over students. You just proved it again in black and white.

Carry on!
 
:lamo I gave no opinion at all on anything you just wrote ^^, nada, zero, zippo. You have ZERO idea of what my opinion is on any of that. My comment was regarding teachers only. Again....you are just embarrassing yourself. It's not even reading comprehension...you are inventing stuff.

If you gave no opinion on any of that, what on earth was the point of your post? That students cause or are impacted by disruption elsewhere? I already said that was granted, but utterly irrelevant.
 
The ONLY point I was making was in direct context to Superfly criticizing teachers for not controlling kids in the classroom.

I said that 'disruption' happens outside the classroom as well.'

"Reading: it's fundamental."

The entire premise of this thread is about controlling kids in a classroom situation. Not "outside the classroom." My comment was based on your idea that people with ostentatious hairstyles are disruptive, inside the classroom and out.

Once you are an adult, no one has the authority to tell you how you can wear your hair. However - again - we are talking about inside a classroom setting, or inside a school setting.
 
Back
Top Bottom