September 12th, 2016
In the past week or so, the “Hopefield Prep Affair” has rumbled on – starting (and continuing) in social media and carried over into traditional media reports, current affairs and talk show discussions. Everyone has an opinion on this. The hashtag #unkemptJA has been quite overworked on Twitter in particular, accompanied by defiant “selfies” from young Jamaicans with what is called “natural hair” (albeit not at school age any more).
As we know and has been widely reported, a three year-old boy with “cute” long, curly hair – a bit of a fashion statement – was refused entry to the high-performing, uptown Kingston school, situated on leafy Hillcrest Avenue. It’s my “neck of the woods,” so I know it well. The children are dropped off and picked up by very large SUVs, and just the occasional taxi. The population of just under 200 is very diverse, including the offspring of ex-pats and foreigners as well as Jamaicans. It has a very good academic reputation. And like all Jamaican schools, it has a uniform, and a Book of Rules.
An altercation clearly took place between the boy’s mother and the Vice Principal of the school, with neither willing to budge. But whether there was a personality clash or not is neither here nor there. We don’t know either what the school’s actual rulebook says in so many words, so can only speculate as to whether the teacher was interpreting it loosely, or to the letter. It’s a private school, not a state-owned one, and despite the Education Minister’s promise to work on a policy on “grooming” in the next year, it’s not clear whether any such school would feel obliged to abide by Government guidelines in the future. They set their own rules. The little boy has not been taken to the barber, and thus remains banned.
The social media furore surrounds issues of black identity, old colonial mindsets and so on. This is clear and obvious. Self-expression is seen as a fiercely guarded right in today’s world. Diversity is a praiseworthy concept, and to be encouraged. Just as a little Caucasian (or Asian) girl can grow her hair long, her black classmate should be allowed to grow hers to the same length. There is always, however, this idea of being “neat.” This is very subjective. It can always be applied quite arbitrarily and in a racist or discriminatory manner, as the little boy’s mother has suggested. What constitutes a “neat” hairstyle? If it is not neat, does this suggest that it is “dirty”? The school introduced the issue of possible head lice, but this argument is a spurious one; we know that children with short, “neat” hair can have head lice.
This takes us to a broader issue that I would like to quickly allude to. Outside of the private school environment, there is an obsession with rules relating to how one dresses. Almost any Government office will greet you with a sign bearing a detailed list of “banned clothing,” including (depending on the Government department), spaghetti straps, sleeveless dresses (à la Michelle Obama), merinos, tank tops, shorts, sandals and open-toed footwear, and anything else they can think of that is unacceptable. Umm. This is a tropical country and it is hot. For many of us, this is our daily wardrobe. Also, fashions change. Is there a Government committee that sits somewhere, reviewing the latest styles out of New York and London and deciding on whether these should be allowed into the hallowed halls of Government offices? I wonder!
I also wonder whether a Government worker has the legal right to refuse to serve or do business with a Jamaican citizen/taxpayer, who comes in wearing a top with spaghetti straps. Could the customer sue the Government, if turned away? How does wearing such an outfit interfere with the business at hand – for example, renewing a driver’s license or applying for a Tax Registration Number? I cannot think of any negative impact, except that perhaps the member of the public might decide to tuck the pen she had borrowed from said official into her cleavage…? If a man is wearing “flip flops” – well, the official would not even be able to see his feet. The only negative impact would be if he put his foot up on the counter and wiggled his toes…?
Yes, that sounds ridiculous, but I can only imagine such ludicrous scenarios as examples of how such dress codes might affect Government business.
I remember when I was in my early teens, the mini skirt had become wildly popular in the UK. We had school uniforms, but used to tuck our skirts in at the waist to make them look a little shorter. However, the school decided to crack down, and we were all made to kneel on the floor every morning, while the teacher measured from the floor to our skirt hem. If the gap was too wide, we had to let our hems down immediately (or untuck our skirts). I can only assume that a “new rule” was hastily made up with a limit, to be measured in inches, to our skirt length.
That was in the old days, however. My early teens are a long distant memory. I wonder if my dear old grammar school would bother to impose such restrictions now. I very much doubt it. I am sure they have bigger fish to fry, in terms of social issues.
As do we in Jamaica. Let’s stop “majoring in the minor.”
Tags: children, discrimination, dress code, fashion, hairstyles, Hopefield Preparatory School, human rights, Jamaica, Kingston, London, Michelle Obama, Minister of Education Youth and Information, New York, racism, Ruel Reid, rules, school uniforms, social media
Very much enjoyed this article on line (especially the UK grammer school reference and turning up skirts, as I too was guilty of such an act!!! I wondered who was the author, as this was not attributed?
I’m so glad you enjoyed it, Janet! My name is Emma Lewis. I am a blogger and write my own personal blog (http://petchary.wordpress.com) as well as for globalvoices.org. I am @petchary. I have been writing this weekly blog (Social Impact) for 2 or 3 years now. Please feel free to browse and thank you so much for your comments!