Recently
more and more African-American women have begun to embrace their natural hair,
wearing their curls in afros, cornrows, and dreadlocks. However, critics claim
that the natural look is unprofessional in that it is radical and untamed. Because
of policies based on this argument, 7 year old Tiana Parker of Oklahoma was
faced with the decision to either shave off her dreadlocks or transfer schools.
Remnants of racial discrimination developed by race classification linger in
today’s society calling for African-Americans to choose to conform to societal
expectations (that derive from racist opinions dating back to slavery) or rebel
against the norm and embrace their natural roots.
During
the seventeenth and eighteenth century, white slaveholders sought validation
for the institution of slavery. Using the European cultural matrix, those
pioneering the study of race reasoned that the physical differences and
practices of Africans were signs of their inferiority. In Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson argued that “blacks…
are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.” Jefferson,
Kant, Locke and Hume—all major philosophers with input in race classification—had
a powerful influence on white people’s perception of black people. However over
the years, science was able to debunk the unsupported claims derived from race
classification. Although we now know that the only race is the human race, social
and cultural ideas about race still linger.
In
order to better adapt to their geographic location, the human race developed
variations in genetics, skin tone, and hair texture. Although there are
variations in hair amongst those of European descent and amongst those of African
descent, the perceived differences of the two in general is great. Hair that is
long and straight became the ideal hair type of femininity. To meet these
standards African American women use heat and chemicals to alter their hair or
resort to weaves and wigs. Because of lingering ideas from race classification,
the natural hair of African Americans is seen by some as dirty and unkempt. These
ideas were a problem for Tiana Parker who was called to the office of her
elementary school for having dreads. Deborah Brown Community School’s policy
says that they have the “right to contact parents/guardians regarding any
personal hygiene issues.” It is a common
belief that dreadlocks are dirty (although they can be washed like any other
hair style). But the charter school’s policy also says that “afros and other
faddish styles are unacceptable.” Afros are the way that black people’s hair
naturally grows. To ban afros is to insist that the female students conform to
meet social expectations.
The majority of Deborah Brown Community School’s
population is African American students. I do not believe that they made this
policy with racist incentives. They may have had an idea of what was appeared professional
and what did not. But that idea is racist to claim that the natural hair of
black people does not qualify as professional. Do you think that the school was
misguided by social norms with racist origins? What was their motivation behind
the policy?
After reading this article, I am shocked by the insensitivity that the administration of Deborah Brown Community School has displayed toward little Tiana Parker of Oklahoma. The administration bases their prohibition of dreadlocks, afros, and other hairstyles on two fundamental opinions, both of which I consider to be quite ignorant. First, they claim that these hairstyles are an issue of personal hygiene, which "causes a risk to the health, safety, and welfare of the student, his or her classmates, and the faculty or staff." As Jasmine stated in her post, dreadlocks can be washed like any other hairstyle. Secondly, the administration states that "hairstyles such as dreadlocks, afros, and other faddish styles are unacceptable." This is an unjust regulation because it is claiming an afro to be "faddish." Although wearing an afro can be a choice, and wearing it in a certain way or because it is "in style" can be a means of following a certain fad, it is also how hair naturally grows for many people. Therefore, calling an afro "faddish" might be the most offensive aspect of this issue in my opinion, for it is failing to recognize that it is natural, and further expressing a need for students to change their natural appearance.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question posed by Jasmine, perhaps the school was, indeed, misguided by social norms with racist origins. It seems to me that they are trying to fulfill a racially charged expectation of what cleanliness and professionalism should look like. Perhaps this school has great intentions, trying to maintain a professional environment to keep students goal-oriented with high and confident spirits. However, the way the administration is going about this only degrades and demeans the students, diminishing their natural confidence in themselves.
I am not sure how to wrap my head around this shocking article. Coming from a diverse public school in a city outside of Boston where white is the minority, I had never heard of someone telling a student how she can and cannot wear here hair. To me, wearing your hair in dreads, braids or an Afro is embracing ones culture and their natural beauty. For someone to tell a child that they cannot wear their hair a certain way seems a bit racist and guided by social norms as well. Who is to say that the way an African American woman wears her hair is unprofessional? I would rather someone embrace their natural beauty and their culture than conform to the norm. Policies like this can have more negative externalities than positive ones. It can make women feel they are not beautiful naturally, that their culture is inferior to everyone else’s, that they must use wigs and other beauty tools to hide behind, and not let people see the diversity that our society has whether it be in school or in the work place. I understand that some charter schools teach children to be professional in the way they look and act at a young age but I just do not see the point of this policy. Someone can look and act professional in various way, there does not have to be a norm in the way everyone looks.
ReplyDeleteThe term "institutional" or "systematic" racism comes to mind when I read this post. To ban afros is an institutional measure that explicitly targets and excludes a race in the institution of the school. To require that students will have to make certain sacrifices (getting rid of dreads or conforming) is discouraging to the student and will ultimately ensure that anyone without afros or dreads is more welcome and will be more likely to attend the school. The afro ban says something quite significant without being explicit.
ReplyDeleteI do think that this policy was born of a racist idea. To carefully select the language "afros or other faddish styles" seems intentional, I'm sure that "funky colored dyed hair" would be considered unprofessional, too. And isn't it interesting that the dreads on Tiana Parker's head were considered one of the banned "faddish styles?" The school was able to use their policy to support putting Tiana in an uncomfortable situation in which she had to decide to continue being herself and be removed from school, or accept that at 7 years old, she was being unprofessional. I am finding it difficult to take the school's claim of unprofessionalism at age 7 seriously.
Although I am not African American, I also do not have the kind of hair ("long and straight") that is considered ideal by our society's standards. It is wild, untamable, and usually a big mess. It is easily the kind of hair that Deborah Brown Community School would view as “faddish” and “unacceptable” – if I were African American. While I read this article, I questioned whether the school would have banned me from wearing my hair in its natural state as they did Tiana. In other words, was this truly an issue about hair? Or just another example of racism in our supposed “post-racial” society? First of all, it's absolutely ridiculous that the school tried to play if off as concern for personal hygiene. That doesn't make any logical sense considering, as you pointed out above, that dreadlocks can be washed like any other hairstyle. And it is equally ridiculous to regard certain hairstyles as "faddish" when they occur that way naturally. If I were approached as Tiana was and told to change my hairstyle, I would be deeply offended. But that's the thing – because of my skin color, it is much less likely that I would have to be subjected to that. Tiana, as an African American child, has had to deal with far more discrimination in her seven years than I have my entire life, and that’s extremely unfair. I don't believe this was truly an issue of “professionalism” but instead the refusal to accept and embrace racial diversity. This is just another example of how our contemporary society isn’t actually post-racial at all, and that’s sad.
ReplyDeleteThis blog post reminded me of something I read in "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" not too long ago. When Malcolm X was around the age of seventeen, it was cool for African Americans during that time period to get a "conk". A conk is a type of hairstyle that made African American hair look like Caucasian hair. From what is written in his autobiography, getting a conk was no walk in the park. It hurt. Badly. Malcolm described the feeling as if acid was being poured directly onto his scalp (Yes, Malcolm X did it himself). Not only did it hurt, but also your conk would have to be redone every couple of months or so (maybe even more often). Why get this hairstyle if you had to go through all of this torture and trouble for it? Most people said that it looked “cool” and “hip”. What really was happening was that the idea that African American’s natural hair wasn’t “acceptable”, or in this case “professional” and that these African American’s wanted hair that looked like Caucasian hair. It seemed as if they were in denial, believing that they were getting it because it was “cool”. It’s like in the case of Brown v. The Board of Education when the African American child chose the white doll over the black doll because it was being taught by segregation that one was superior to the other. Just because someone's hair grows differently than another's doesn't mean that one of the two is superior. The matter boils down to what does “professional” even mean in this case?
ReplyDeleteThis practicing of straightening your hair is still done amongst black people today. Instead of "conk" it called a relaxer (and it still burns). Now in days the idea that having straight hair is what's socially acceptable is so engrained in us that we straighten the hair of our children at an early age. I remember my grandmother pressing my hair with a hot comb when I was still in daycare and getting my first relaxer in the kindergarten. Its almost as if getting a relaxer was a right of passage. The desire to have straight hair comes primarily from the media. Up until a few years ago, the majority of black women portrayed by the media had long, straight hair. But now that more black women are embracing their natural hair, television and magazines are beginning to show more and more women of color with tight curls and afros.
DeleteWhile I was writing my comment I was wondering if getting a "conk" was still a thing except under a different name. I had no idea. It sounds excruciating. Thanks.
DeleteAlthough I am surprised that a child would be treated such a way about her hair, I am well aware of the possibility that this would happen. Throughout my life I have witnessed this treatment within the black community and thus I am not really surprised that this discrimination takes place amid the greater society. For almost 20 years, I had wore my hair in a relaxed state because that choice was made by my role models. I never considered wearing my hair differently. With time I began to realize how much of my self worth that I, along with many others, had placed in my hair.
ReplyDeleteAn old friend of mine was even forced by her mother to relaxed her hair because it was believed that she would never find a job, or assimilate into society well with her natural hair texture. We were high school sophomores then. I am just starting to consider myself somewhat professional now. I ponder the meaning of professionalism just as Paul did above. What aspects are truly essential for professionalism? At what period of life should one prepare to be a professional?
It is very disheartening how institutional racism still is, but of course this display is reflective of cultural ideals. Both affect each other.
I believe that a hairstyle or a certain look does not mean that a person is more or less professional. In the time that we live in, a person should be judged on their work ethic and personal morals. Whether an individual has no hair or a wild untamed mop, if their work is effective and they accept the general morals of society than they can wear their hair anyway they want. In business today, there are many stigmas that define what a person can or cannot wear. Many law firms or business practices make their employees wear suits or very formal outfits. However in my opinion, a person should not have to wear a certain thing or act a certain way to be accepted in society. A person’s character defines who they are. The cliché don't judge a book by its cover is a perfect example of this article. Tiana was just an individual who wanted to support a certain style and she was condemned for that activity. In my opinion, we live in a society where these social norms have evolved to the point where it is no longer important what the exterior looks like as long as we judge a person by their internal acts.
ReplyDelete