new thread
Hello Everyone,
A Catholic school votes on abolishing a policy forbidding students at a private high school, after a long-haired student writes a note to school direction stating why the rules are unfair, and stating his compromise solution.
Result: The policy requires students to keep hair away from faces, and to tie it back.
Here is the link to the Google Cache (Search terms used: "long hair" boys catholic - first item to show up is the article) - article doesnt show up in Fire Fox, just the ads, that is why I used the cache.
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:eGjBKgNqtvkJ:www.enterprisenewspapers.com/index.cfm%3FAction%3Dstory%26StoryID%3D20053171391743%26ArchYear%3D2005+%22long+hair%22+boys+catholic&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
Have a nice day,
Georges
Hi Georges,
Several of our board members have had negative hair experiences with Catholic High Schools, and it's surprising that there are still some schools that push restrictive "hair rules". It turned out to be a good thing that teachers were allowed to vote on the issue.
According to all I know, there's nothing in Catholic theology that would require such hair rules. However, in disadvantaged or disrespoected minorities, some people used to argue "We're different already by being Catholic (or Atheist, or Protestant, or any other denomination / religion / world view), so, let's refrain from antagonizing the majority over other issues that are not worth it", or (possibly worse): "We're different already, so, in order to be recognized by society, we need to be better and more moral than everybody else." Of course, I don't subscribe to that thinking. We do not have to gain permission for being different, by being "better" or "more morally strict" than the majority.
I have the right to be myself, and that simply happens to include certain religious beliefs and certain hair style preferences, and High School students have that very same right, too.
That one teacher's utterance "I am glad the long hair days are over. From a business viewpoint, [long hair on male applicants] usually means you don't really want the job" is outright idiotic, and fortunately, his view was an exception. Maybe he thinks that companies have the right to own their employees. The mechanism of "building loyalty" he may envision is called "creating cognitive dissonance by inducing counterattitudinal action" as a means to shift attitudes. This would mean that agreeing to unjustifiable hair cuts creates a cognitive dissonance, which would be resolved by saying "This company is soooo great, and I love it sooo much, so that it even justifies me getting haircuts that I hate." It even works when you just OBSERVE a colleague with a great mane being forced to have it cut off.
Thanks for sharing this info from Everett/Washington.
Hans-Uwe
Thanks for the article Georges!
One thing I find troubling about this article is that at a place of education where Christian values are supposed to be taught to the kids--(and believe IN it or not Christianity does have at the very least a correct guideline of how we should treat one another with love and respect)-- it is once again the KIDS who are teaching some of the adults those very priniciples!
Descrimination over such a trivial thing such as hair length not only butts heads with Christian teaching, it is relatively as simple as an "its different so its wrong" mentality (unfortuneatly accurately associated with the "groupthink" of some sects of "Christianity".
The teacher who commented that "I am glad the long hair days are over. From a business viewpoint, [long hair on male applicants] usually means you don't really want the job". This is, indeed idiotic, but oh so common of a mentality. Heres what I mean.
Something at play here is the teacher's cognitive bias, or more specifically a confirmation bias, wherein there's a "tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions." Its an act of UNCONSCIOUSLY ignoring information to the contrary to the opinion you already hold. So any man with long hair the teacher encounters who is a very dedicated employee is not disregarded on purpose, it isn't even noticed.
Also in play is the "availabilty heuristic" which occurs when people estimate the probability of an outcome based on how easy that outcome is to imagine. Due to the teacher's preconceived notions about men with long hair, (that era is dead, "irresponsibility" of the men during that era in this country) it is much easier for the teacher to imagine an irresponsible longhair than a mature responsible one. Thus he sees them as unwanting of serious, responsible jobs.
Basically, although I forget the term, longhairs get a bad reputation. Deadbeats, hippies, dont shower, heh. Since longhairs get the bad reputation when it comes to thinking about them, the most easily accessable memories are those that conincide with society's stereotypes.
This was types in a flash as I left the house. I wrote it more for me than anything else :) I dont know if its even worth the read but hey...
Thanks again for the article! I went to a catholic all boy's high school and its the reason i couldnt start growing earlier :(:(:(
Oh yeah I forgot the point of my message by the end of it!
The reason of explaining the unconscious nature of those mentalities was because I believe we have a responsibility as intelligent people to help people like this teacher learn the falicy in his opinion. If we just get mad because some jackass makes a stupid comment then what good are we?
We should realize that most of these uninformed, incorrect opinions based on stereotypes and biases are sometimes things that are not the person's "fault". Only they have the power to change those opinions, but we should be the teachers who help them realize.
If we don't, NO ONE else will, because no one else is really on our side. :)
Hi Rome,
thanks for taking the time to comment. I agree, we should take a minute here and there in order to help others to become more open-minded so that they can overcome their fallacies.
Before we can do this, we have to feel secure in our own identity and attitudes, so that we can be sufficiently self-assertive. Thus, one part of the business is to affirm e.g. insecure fellow-longhairs so that they can stand up for themselves and others, wherever needed.
Maybe, the whole thing is about what the early Christian philosopher St. Augustine of Hippo (North Africa) said: "Hate the error, but love those who are erring." By sensing that they are respected as persons, they get the chance to change. And, in the Middle Ages (cf St. Thomas Aquinas), educating the ignorant was counted among the acts of charity. - To put it in a slightly flippant way: "The only good idiot is an ex-idiot."
All the best!
Hans-Uwe
What is a 'child' and when did a 'child' come into being. In many cultures in the past and now all over the world there is no such thing. We are all people. In some cultures young people help their families survive by working alongside their parents and siblings. The concept of a 'child' is a fairly recent western ideology brought about by the industrial revolutions of the 1800's.
And what rights should and does this 'child' have? Should it have the right to be protected, emotionally and physically? Should it have the right to be heard and listened to? Should it have the right to be supported until adulthood? Should racism and/or sexism be in place when caring for the 'child'?
In other words, if catholic girls can have long hair, why cant catholic boys? If anyone says the sexes are different then there is sexism at play. And none of us like that, do we?
Hi Asdis,
thanks for your comment. I'd just like to add that Alice Miller (a German-speaking psychoanalyst; the name sounds Anglo-Saxon, though) has written several books about what our societies have been doing to children - precisely because they had no rights. Her titles include "For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence" (1983), and "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware: Society's Betrayal of the Child" (1984).
It's interesting and sad how so many men who had buzzcuts forced upon them during childhood, continue to abuse themselves and others that way and believe in pushing short-hair styles on others. Certain contributors to the "infamous" buzzboard are a point in case in that context.
As far as the two genders and sexism are concerned, I'd like to say, "different in nature, but equal in rights".
Best wishes,
Hans-Uwe
Yes!!! I thought this would be the 21st Century thinking from the 1970's Womens Liberation Movement, which said that "both sexes are equal" and there is "no differences between the sexes". But American doesn't like to change.
thanks for that
"different in nature, but equal in rights"
absolutely!
I applaud this student for taking the route he took and convincing the school of the fraility of their previous decision.
One thing to remember for those here in the US; teens under the age of 18 do not have the same rights as adults according to the courts. Some things are rather obvious; no right to drive at a younger age, no right to drink alcohol, etc. There have been several decisions where the teens rights have been found secondary to the rights of the parents, with some notable exceptions (pregnancy, HIV, other health issues).
The rights of parents to set rules for their household has been upheld in the past. This may include setting curfews, dress restrictions, hair length, etc. In the past, it has been found that since the parents have financial responsibility for the minor, they are allowed to set restrictions that would not be allowed if the minor had the same rights as an adult.
How this transcends to other areas (such as school) is still a cloudy issue. Some believe that the dress code in school covers hair issues, and is appropriate to have differing lengths for different sexes, just as there are different clothing standards (not many schools allow boys to wear dresses/skirts to school, although recent decisions are leaning in that direction).
The overriding question then is: do teens have the same rights as adults to make these decisions for themselves, or are they 1) required to follow the parental restrictions that have been set forth, and 2) are they required to meet the standards of the school they are in?
Different parts of the US have answered these questions differently, which confuses the issue. Battles are being fought right now over these heated issues (such as why can I set curfews for my daughter, and hold me responsible for her actions, yet she can have an abortion without my knowledge or consent?).
My point is not to raise controvery or start discussion about abortion or dress codes, but only to show that the issue here in the US is not as clearcut as some seem to think. That is why it is both important for students to stand up for what they believe is right and present it in a reasonable fasion, and impressive that this teen did so and was successful. I hope many others follow his example.
Big George