Private school’s rejection of boy with locs was wrong
How can an educator deny a child access to a classroom based solely on that child’s hairstyle? How can an educator claim that a child’s hairstyle impairs their ability to learn? It’s shocking that we are still asking these questions in 2018. In August, Clinton Stanley Jr. (C.J.), a 6-year old black boy with locs, experienced that very treatment. The ACLU and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a complaint arguing that C.J.’s former school engaged in unlawful race discrimination when it barred him from attending school just because of his locs.
What happened to C.J. should never have happened.
On the first day of first grade, C.J.’s education was derailed when administrators at A Book’s Christian Academy rejected him because in their eyes, he did not look the part — the part of a child eager to learn, full of potential, and legally entitled to an education under the Florida Constitution. A Book’s Christian Academy refused C.J.’s entry because of a policy that expressly bans “dreads” for boys. Because locs are a hairstyle predominantly worn by black people, the school’s policy directly targets black students and irrationally denies them an opportunity to learn simply because of their hairstyle.
It is common knowledge that locs are associated with black culture, are predominantly worn by black people, and are a style resulting from the natural texture of black hair. The framing of black features, such as C.J.’s hair, as inferior has deep roots. In the 1940s, social psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Phipps Clark conducted an experiment to determine whether AfricanAmerican children were psychologically damaged by attending segregated schools. They provided black children with white dolls and black dolls and asked them to identify the doll that they like to play with. Most children rejected the black doll. Then, when they were asked which doll is “the most like you,” some became extremely upset at having to identify with the doll they had rejected.
The experiment helped lead the Supreme Court to its seminal decision in
to outlaw segregated schools. Decades after the famous “doll test” exposed how deeply negative images of black people impact the minds, self-esteem, and aspirations of black children, our kids are still regularly exposed to images that reinforce the false notion that whites are smarter, prettier, and more deserving of better treatment than any other racial or ethnic group.
Our government is tasked with protecting a child’s fundamental right to learn and thrive in a safe environment. Florida law requires private schools such as A Book’s Christian Academy that participate in state school choice scholarship programs to comply with the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law that prohibits race discrimination in schools. Moreover, U.S. Department of Education guidance provides that schools violate Title VI when they adopt policies with the “intent to target students of a particular race for invidious reasons,” even when those policies don’t explicitly distinguish between students of different races.
It also states that unlawful race discrimination occurs “when a school elects to overlook a violation of a policy committed by a student who is a member of one racial group, while strictly enforcing the policy against a student who is a member of another racial group.” These provisions are especially pertinent to C.J.’s situation because, while blocking him access because of his hair, the school’s promotional materials feature a white boy with hair past his ears. If A Book’s Christian Academy was sincerely concerned about its grooming policy —which also imposes a hair length limit on boys above the ears — it would have never used a white boy with hair past his ears as its poster child.
By strictly enforcing the hair policy against C.J. while encouraging white male students with long hair to apply just as they are, A Book’s Christian Academy is selectively enforcing its school policies in violation of Title VI and state law, and hindering the academic and social progress of certain children like C.J.
Fortunately, students like C.J. are pushing back by rejecting cultural assimilation and its imposing notions of beauty. The national “Black is Beautiful” movement has inspired adults and children, like C.J., to proudly wear their hair in a natural style.
We must teach our kids to be proud of who they are and what they look like. C.J.’s parents clearly taught him those lessons– shamefully, teachers and administrators at A Book’s Christian Academy have not learned that lesson.