Hills and Mountains

Þiu͓͆ fïŋ͓̱̄ yo̽kȋ͓pā tîaŋ̑fin̄,
påît̑ nö̑yuï͓̯̑ ri͆ fïŋ͓̄ niz̑ ħüṉ̽.
Pėz͆wiîẕ͆, wō “ħė̑kȋ͓ŋïn̽” sū,
an̄di͓̪͆ ŝėt̄sem̱͆, u̽lādö̽.

The sun sets

 Right now I just want to touch the stars
Go to Sai Kung tonight and see?

Birds are chirping
One gliding onto the sprise tree
A plane is flying

People are gossiping
Gathering for a made-up game

There is a rainbow
In the descending water
I wonder when I can see a bigger one

The pulsing rhythm is resonating

And then I say, I want to touch the stars
Relish in darkness
Glittered by light specks

We see the brightest star
Light 8.6 years ago
Before me is instantaneous light
Yet images of age flash in my mind

Rubbish
Rubbish I deem myself
Things I'm not here for
Keep arising

Insignificant.
I see.
The insatiable craving of excellence.
Of greatness.

Paradoxical?
I know I know nothing.
Or do I know I know nothing?
I want to know everything.
But there's always something ahead.

Insignificant.
Triviality and immensity.
I've heard you could stop time at whatever dimension.
To fulfil every wish?

Speciality.
Anticipation.
Expectation.
Disappointment.
Disappointment it is to myself.

People admire?
Admiration.
Discrepancy.
Paranoia.
Disappointment.

Discouragement!
Who is it that I am?
Am I the things I do,
or am I myself?

Musings.
Both it is.
Or neither.
Either.

Patronising?
Aloofness?
Envy.
Paranoia.

What's behind me?
People wish not to get hurt.
But then they want to know.
And then they get hurt.

"I know nothing."
I wished to know what I didn't know.
I did know, actually, but not in proximity.
And revelation!

Getting to the grand
Rising to the top
Hindered by ephemerality
Then where the hell am I?

The shy sun runs behind the hill.

2am

2am. Eoulapa,who still had not showered, inundated his chat with Aufisü with what he deemed "nonsensical":

 

1. Today I unleashed bullshit on the Chinese writing exam

2. I picked the first prompt

3. Spit nonsense

4. And then I was like "I shouldn't feel like this on the podium, I shouldn't have been arrogant, I shouldn't have bantered Yat Sum"

5. And then I blamed the education elitism I was like "everybody goes to tutor class and that stifles the efforts of the less advantaged"

 

6. Suguru Geto is the antagonist of Jujutsu Kaisen

7. He said he would purge humanity because people inept at sorcery were monkeys

8. But fortunately I'm not Geto because I know there are people out there who are way smarter and to my own advantage I must accommodate those "weaker/more stupid" than me

9. However we must coin stupidity

10. Because a low IQ in my eyes does not imply stupidity
11. I think stupidity for me is to ignore
12. Like to blatantly think you're the best, be rigid as fuck, be ignorant, be dogmatic
13. I think it's stupid because it doesn't do you any good to be dogmatic or persistent
14. And it imperils society as well which is a shame because people are somewhat inconsiderate I feel
15. Is inconsiderateness stupidity then?
16. Depends on what the effects are
17. It might contribute to oneself but not necessarily society
18. Like if I neglect racism towards black people as a white man, it helps me to some extent
19. But it doesn't contribute to human society
20. So is that stupid
21. I cannot decide right now
22. So I would stick to for now this [referring to line 12]

 

23. I think the difference between me and the people I despise, is that I know I'm an arrogant prick but they don't
24. But that might be arrogance in itself
25. So I don't know
26. Therefore humility is the best
27. Because I'm not arrogant or proud or condescending or whatever because of my capabilities
28. If I was humble that is
 

29. But I really like to dominate everyone
30. But there is a conflict because I know I cannot dominate everyone

31. Being human is very tough
32. There are many insecurities and paradoxes and things humans can never know
33. Things that are outside our comprehension
34. Which is a lamentable fact
35. Because for me I want to know everything and be the best at my niche
36. But that is not probable is it
37. There is a song
38. Called Deep Indigo
39. There is a line that read 人生はどうにも妥協で出来てる
40. Which means life is made of nothing but compromises
41. If my IQ were 160 I might feel better right now
42. But I wouldn't be studying in this shit school
43. Nor would I be wasting time on this long hair gibberish nonsense piece of crap
44. Maybe my IQ is 100 or 130 or 150 or 140 or 120 or 126 or 135 or 142 or 146 or 152 or 110 or 116
45. I might therefore live a mediocre life or the life of a CEO or a manager or a scientist a professor a medic a doctor a surgeon an assistant at a university
46. However there will also be things I miss
47. Which is a shame because I am who I am and I probably only live once
 

48. AND FUCK DOGMATISM
49. Anyway

50. So 人生はどうにも妥協で出来てる
51. And that is a beautiful despair of human life
52. Listen I wish I could get to the point where I revel in the fact that life is not perfect
53. So I appreciate life and other people's lives
54. But how do I weigh the ramifications of not refining life against making other people live free of dogmatism
55. The truth is there might not be a correct answer
 

56. So is the beauty of life in that it is vague and arbitrary, that it ought to be explored, that new paths can be carved, that lives are unique, and the despairing yet aesthetic truth that one only gets to live once, one can merely treasure one's life, and one is afflicted by the fact that one is not another?

Stars

Eoulapa: "I have never seen this many stars before."

Aufisü: "Neither have I."

The two lay flat on the football pitch, staring at the sky.

Eoulapa: "Now that the stadium lights are off, the light pollution have finally eased... How many stars are there, like 20? I've only seen at most 3 or 4 before."

Aufisü: "Indeed. The world is beautiful isn't it? An hour after and our hearts will be resonating with the booms of fireworks. New year... I know you've got profound reflections on this stuff, no?"

Eoulapa: "When the world jumps together in jubilation, when people hug and when parents tell their children about fireworks, when friends say 'Happy new year' and when we hold our phones high to film the fireworks, we don't remember who we are. We are, of course, an infinitesimal species on an infinitesimal dust in space, but think about where we've been. The moon, we've sent satellites to Mars, we've left our mark on a spaceship roaming in space... I think that's good enough."

Aufisü: "And how d'you feel here, with us?"

Eoulapa: "Proud, melancholic, confused. Confused mostly. I mean, yes we are small, we're not prodigious scientists, neither are we world-renowned politicians. But we're friends, and we're here. At this exact moment. What are the odds? We're nothing special, but we are very special. How many times do you get to celebrate the earth finishing one orbit around its star? With friends as well... Friends that have expiry dates - friends that one day will leave. Out of the 100 years of life. How ephemeral. But we don't care. Humans live on and celebrate. Isn't that, to an extent, prevailing over the cruelty of life? Doesn't matter if it's out of negligence or ignorance. I guess living is already a profound gift."

The two stayed silent. Eoulapa took photos of the stars with his phone.

~Written 1/1/24 02:22 at home.

2023

《二零二三大事回顧》

上年十一月，我將二三年命名為Cimjün，意為「永續的拂曉」。而家睇返轉頭，是否永續仍然係未知之數，但至少未落山。為咗承接舊年嘅「覺悟」，我今年寫咗數十篇文章，涉獵不同社會同人生領悟問題。社會方面，我試圖運用閱讀所學，增進自己對自由主義、政治宣傳、民主、異議、身份政治、民族主義、民粹主義等嘅理解。雖然只得半桶水，但起碼未到人生嘅中午。人生領悟嘅話，我諗好少人越大越唔成熟嘅。我認為今年嘅成長係僅次於上年，處理問題嘅信心、面對權威嘅態度同膽色都有長足嘅發展。而今年日本文化係我個人成長嘅重要催化劑。

三月十九日，我喺YouTube慕名而搜尋咗「Ado」呢個名。「うっせぇ うっせぇ うっせぇわ」（《Usseewa》）嘅旋律從此喺我腦海迴盪。「1・2・3で 弾け飛んだ 固定観念 バットで打って」（《Readymade》）更加係我今年喺YouTube聽得最多嘅歌，總共367次。Ado唱出嘅反叛並非我嘅反叛——佢純粹係表達對整個社會嘅不滿，我係對部分規則同制度嘅不滿。但點都好，佢生動、感情化嘅表現，係間接地觸發、鼓勵咗一場為自己嘅戰爭。一場鬥腦力、邏輯同理性嘅戰爭，一場情緒只有五條地位嘅戰爭（※ 前期重要，後期將任務交託俾主角）。

八月二日，我再次因慕名，喺YouTube搜尋咗《廻廻奇譚》呢首歌。嗰時我仲未知呢首係《咒術迴戰》嘅主題曲，而呢個發現隨後大幅加強咗我嘅自信。我發現身為一個青少年，我都係常見病「中二病」嘅帶菌者。既然有人可以唯我獨尊，點解我唔得？「無茶苦茶にしてくれないかい？」（《Specialz》），思索後答「可以」或者係自信嘅表現。

嚟緊嘅呢一年，一定要繼續理性地情緒化、情緒化地理性！小心過濾情緒、用不滿嘅情緒鼓勵自己思考。同時要緊記「EGCB（Extol the good, chastise the bad）」同「談往事不談今事，談今事不談往時」嘅原則，呢啲喺處理學校議題時尤其重要。最重要係維持理性、有意義嘅溝通，萬萬不可令有識之士嘅努力白費。因此，新一年取名為Cüngngüsaníet，意為「不偏頗的溝通」。【目標為建造有識之士（我最睇唔起嗰啲不知變通、蠻不講理、淨係識自以為是嘅人，呢啲人已喪失邏輯批判能力，咁考慮佢哋嘅意見做咩？只要識得反省自己嘅人，都可以係有識之士*。）眼中最有邏輯、最符合大眾利益、最唔同流合污、最獨樹一格、最出類拔萃、同時又符合現實嘅校園環境同規則。】最後祝大家五日後開始嘅新年萬事勝意。

最後一樣野，由於「Matthew」太過普遍，我更名為「Matheo」（/maˈθɛ.oʊ/）。

P.S. 你可能覺得，我係晨早流流起身打呢篇文，但實情係，我係朝早六點鐘臨瞓前打㗎。

* 唔知大家有冇聽過鄧小平講過：「如果中國……在世界上稱王稱霸，到處欺負人家、侵略人家、剝削人家，那麼世界人民……就應當揭露它、反對它，並且同中國人民一道打倒它。」同理，假如有人用呢招「有識與否」嘅準則，胡亂禁言其他人，就應當揭露、反對、打倒他。但這明顯需要公眾嘅「有識」同理智。

Sense of belonging

Eoulapa and Aufisü's school football team had got into the final of the inter-school football cup. The school, in response to pleas for watching the match, permitted Eoulapa's class, half of which would play in the match anyway, to go cheer for the team.

During the match, Eoulapa, along with cheerleaders, buoyed up the team. Sadly, after trailing by 2 and pulling 1 back, the team lost 1-4. Nonetheless, his espousal of his school team spurred the contemplation about students' sense of belonging.

So, Eoulapa wrote on his Instagram:

I have been in constant conflicts with myself. On one hand, I love my friends and long for their victory. On the other hand, this longing leads to a sense of belonging to the school, which I fear might deter my "Extol the good and chastise the bad" principle.

Therefore, I must dispel my doubts to establish a consummate judging system. First, there is no denying that, for an institution, if the mass deems themselves a part of it, it will be stable and uniform. However, the overextension of this sentiment leads to adamance and over-conformity, as the sense of togetherness often turns into averseness to the unconventional. Thus, at least for someone like me, I must regularly keep my support for the school in check. So what should I do? Too little, and helping the school seems desultory; too much, and reprimanding the school seems desultory. But I genuinely want to refine the school for better education! If demotivation and over-compliance are both undesirable, the only answer lies in the middle. What exactly is that though? How does such a stance manifest?

I guess I should not shout, scream, or even chant for the school as a monolithic entity, but instead for the players and contributers, especially where emotions inundate. That's because the adherence to an institution emerges as prejudices when, for example, someone rightly criticises the school. Unlike this, applauding a person (referred to as "intimate") or team, without associating them with the entire institution, albeit still generates bias, is less adverse to accurate judgement. Still, it creates a bond between one and others within the institution, engendering a force to serve one's intimates by advising the school.

I do not intend to uphold cults of personality. I opt for the individual instead of the whole, as attachment to someone is less potent than that to an institution with a uniform ideology. Above all, anything done will be assessed - no matter by the school or by anybody. Nobody should be followed. Instead, people should be judged and learnt from.

One might claim that, as I propose that one should champion not the school but its members, once these individuals leave, I will leave immediately, as I need not assist intimates by advising the school anymore. That is indeed, at first glance, a valid doubt. Yet, I must emphasise that by those I help, I mean every member in the institution. Why don't I help other people in other communities then? Because there is the idea of priorities. The proximity to and familiarity with one's current institution imply that intimates should be prioritised before people of other institutions, given that this is an effective way for different people to concurrently advise their own institution, for the betterment of their intimates' lives.

Essentially, by conflating the above ideas, I should support and aid my intimates, not just by extolling them and the school but also by chastising them - by offering constructive advice and initiating dialogue. This idea aligns with my predominant philosophy - advising the school to benefit intimates.

~Written 16/12/23 17:49 at home.

原則 | Principles

Eoulapa wrote on his Instagram, after learning that the school is acquiring certain new facilities, about his two prominent principles:

校園增添不同設施，我感到十分高興，亦十分欣賞管治層的規劃。為免有人以為我「轉軚」支持學校，「背叛反對派」，我將重申我的原則和立場。

我對學校、校長，一直貫徹兩個原則。它們就事論事，使我不可被分類為「支持學校派」和「反對學校派」：

 一、好的讚，壞的彈。

 二、談今事不提往事，談往事不提今事。

原則二中，兩事分別都舉足輕重，但切忌因昔忘今，亦不可因今忘昔。除非是評論一人的生平，或判斷一人的可靠度吧。過去的個別事件，豈可用現今的建設把它沖淡？現今的建設，豈可用往昔的個別軼事將它詆毀？我堅信原則二是與時並進、推陳出新的優良方法。只拘泥往事，只會越陷越深，無法專注現況。

同時亦宜溝通。宜偃兵息甲，切勿妄想打破和平，私下「報仇」，免得招致回敬的惡果。往事宜作前車之鑑，避免重蹈覆轍。不宜執迷不悟，斷絕師生間的溝通。宜釋除大眾疑惑，如實解釋事件前因後果。不宜打破溝通的承諾，將「重提往事」的「異己」趕盡殺絕。持相反意見的人亦不宜煽風點火，導致團體不穩。實行這些原則，考慮這些建議，就可締造我一路以來樂見的景象。

不久後，我將完成關於「髮禁」的文章。屆時就只可依靠師生互相溝通，斟酌損益，繼而落下定論了。

~Written 10/12/23 18:23 waiting for the bus.

Red Pile

A thunder from a barrel,

Great torrents from the wound.

Then life was a cathedral,

Now we're athwart the tomb.

I used to know these faces,

I used to know their names.

Daubed by the carmine crisis,

Leaving unnamed remains.

Hair of crimson speckles,

And eyes of 'ternal pain.

Slaughtered akin to cattles,

Their souls from now estranged.

Had you ever envisaged,

Red piles of you and me?

Staying where my hand reaches,

Even after our split?

Our cheeks imbued with laughter,

Our hands joined when awake.

We once were here to gather,

End in the cerise rain.

Tell me your destination,

Lest my soul goes astray.

Vibrating with my pulses,

A molten scene of flames.

But amidst all the rubbles,

Your voice has ceased to be.

The miens of friends decomposed,

The scent fades as blooms wilt.

Long Hair in School: a Temporary Conclusion

LONG HAIR IN SCHOOL: A TEMPORARY CONCLUSION

FIFTH VERSION

 

BY MATTHEW WAN, PROFESSIONAL AMATEUR DEBATER

 

Abstract. As society sheds light on long hair restrictions (on boys) in school, numerous student activists have voiced themselves and confronted the status quo, deeming it discriminatory and antiquated, and accusing policymakers of obstinacy and negligence, it is pivotal for one to understand the complications of such restrictions to formulate one’s own views on this increasingly significant topic. Unfortunately, my submission to Oasis was refuted, sparking this short essay, where I attempt to justify a partial abolition of these restrictions by rebutting counterarguments, considering precedents and the very circumstances of our school. While acknowledging conservation needs, I argue that the ramifications of such restrictions overshadow their merits.

 

I. DEFINITIONS. 2

II. INTRODUCTION.. 3

III. REBUTTALS. 4

a.     Disruption. 4

b.     Gang violence. 5

c.     Delinquency. 5

d.     Unsanitariness. 6

e.     Restrooms. 7

f.      Discipline. 8

g.     Unprofessionalism.. 10

h.     Appeal to tradition. 10

i.      Safety. 10

j.      School reputation. 11

k.     Authority. 11

l.      Summary. 11

IV. WHY THE EASING?. 11

a.     Burden of proof 11

b.     Unnecessary trouble. 12

c.     Perception of oneself 12

d.     Moderately long hair is not adverse. 13

V. WHAT TO DO.. 13

VI. CONCLUSION

 

I. DEFINITIONS

 

Before we delve into the sophistication of long hair restrictions, we must coin several terms to leave no ambiguity behind. In our school, and presumably in various other schools, when one’s hair crosses one’s eyebrows, it is considered “is to be trimmed”, and should one not obey, one will be reprimanded and cautioned. Hair of this kind shall be referred to as moderately long hair. Whereas hair reaching one’s shoulders shall be called highly long hair. Tied hair shall also follow these definitions. Long hair refers to both moderately and highly long hair, which are both prohibited. For succinctness, long hair restrictions, unless otherwise specified, will be called restrictions.

 

There are other definitions of long hair. For instance, hair that “extend[s] below the eyebrows, below the ear lobes, or below the top of a t-shirt collar” on boys breaches the school rules of Barbers Hill High School[1]. Nonetheless, this essay will focus on our school’s long hair standards.

 

The easing means the easing of long hair restrictions. The objectors are objectors to the easing.

 

II. INTRODUCTION

 

June 2022 marked the start of the anti-restrictions movement in Hong Kong as Lam Chak-chun, a student from Wong Fut Nam College, posted a viral video[2] denouncing his school’s restrictions. However, long before that in the sixties, imitating the Beatles’ long hair, American high school students lodged protests and complaints against the restrictions, from which I will cite numerous references. These protests revolved around whether restrictions violated the Constitution, most notably the First, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments[3]. Although the US Constitution does not influence Hong Kong’s judiciary system, American court decisions and measures can be considered and can guide us as valuable precedents.

 

Going back to Hong Kong, Lam, in his video, stated that he had “lodge[d] a complaint to the Equal Opportunities Commission for the school’s violation of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance”. He reported that he had been intimidated that he would be “deprived of the rights to partake in school activities or be suspended should he not trim his hair”. Also an LGBTQ activist[4], Lam has involved the contentious “gender identity” debate in his fight for the easing. However, I desire not to shift the focus – this essay will explore the subject without extensive elaboration on liberty, freedom, or LGBTQ. I instead emphasise the empirical and practical sides of the debate.

 

Judging from Lam’s latest public appearance (on 15 November[5]), his hair can be classified as highly long. How long is “appropriate” will also be discussed in this short essay. As a matter of fact, no student currently has highly long hair, while some have moderately long hair. This essay will differentiate between measures on highly and moderately long hair, aiming for a new set of precise and unequivocal restrictions that befits most stakeholders. To object to me, the school must establish that the restrictions achieve more than they destroy.

 

Note that this essay only involves restrictions on boys.

 

Before we start, let me quote Judge Suttle, who encapsulated my beliefs:

 

“From specific discipline problems, we proceed to the general proposition advanced by virtually all of defendants’ witnesses that a rule such as the one here attacked must be obeyed simply because it is there ... Besides the fact that such an argument would justify any rule, regardless of how unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, the Court finds, from the preponderance of the evidence in the case, that, again, requiring adherence to the hair-cut rule is not reasonably related to the professed goal. Instead of teaching respect for society’s laws or rules, enforcement of an unreasonable rule undermines respect for other rules and laws which are reasonable and deserve adherence. At best, the rule here attacked teaches only conformity and unreasoning submission to authority; at worst, it results in disrespect for all rules and distrust of authority.” (Graham, 2004)

 

III. REBUTTALS

 

a.      Disruption

              The predominant argument for restrictions is that long hair on boys brings disruption to the school. The restrictions apparently “reduce classroom disruption and improve academic performance”[6], and boys behaving in an unconventional way, such as “t[ying] … long hair with a pretty red ribbon in back”, would “cause disruptions” (Graham, 2004). Indeed, strangeness might induce disruption in school in the forms of bullying or banter, but whether the disruption will persist or even begin should also be pondered. Hair grows gradually, so one hardly spots any difference between one’s hair yesterday and today. This notwithstanding, even if a boy tying his hair with a ribbon sparks commotions, why moderately long hair should be restricted has not been explained – hair that overlaps the eyebrows does not require tying – have you ever seen a male classmate regularly tying his hair before getting caught for his long hair?

 

Moreover, once peers adapt to the so-called “strangeness”, they acknowledge the need for respect and inclusiveness. That is, of course, if the student with tied hair has not been bullied prior to so. But one might contemplate whether bullying is prevalent enough to necessitate such restrictions.

 

One should also contemplate the mental impact of receiving a bad trim. Is the immediate ridicule, no matter however innocent, more likely to affect the previously long-haired student? If so, it is unquestionably immoral to coerce a boy into trimming his hair just for that. Furthermore, in Bishop v. Colaw (1971), it was held that “adherence to the hair regulations on the basis that they reduce classroom disruption and improve academic performance does not meet the school's burden” (Wilson, 1998), reinforcing the belief that restrictions do not effectively prevent so-called “disruption”, partially because it wrongly assumes that long hair must incur them.

 

Leveraging the “Tinker Test”[7], whether a student’s behaviour disrupts can be evaluated. According to the test, “the speech or expression of the student [must] materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” or “reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities”. Yet, whether the school can conclude that “substantial disruption” will be derived from unconventional behaviour is uncertain. To add, a mere ribbon or hair tie does not interfere with school activities. Therefore, the disruption counterargument against the easing might be false.

 

In the Harvard Law Review: “What is disturbing is the inescapable feeling that long hair is simply not a source of significant distraction and that school officials are often acting on the basis of personal distaste amplified by an overzealous belief in the need for regulations.” (Willess, 1972)

 

b.     Gang violence

In the US, another point raised by objectors is that long hair symbolises gang activity and thus attracts unsolicited trouble[8]. An assistant principal, Clay Cox, “asserted that Irvin High School ‘had been the target of visitations’ by outsiders” (Graham, 2004). Conspicuously, this does not apply to our school, and I doubt if it does for most Hong Kong schools. Still, the association of long hair with gang activities brings us to the delinquency argument.

 

c.      Delinquency

Objectors typically argue that students with long hair will be perceived as contumacious gangsters, truants, or decadents because of their long hair. They believe that long hair symbolises rebelliousness and incivility, linking the slovenliness of certain long-hair persons with long hair itself. In my articles, I attempted to dismantle these claims[9]. I proclaimed that the objectors fixate on extreme cases and overgeneralise long hair individuals. I then proceeded to exemplify with young Lionel Messi, Japanese singer Eve, Michael Jackson, Keanu Reeves, and Johnny Depp, who have or had hair ranging from moderately to highly long. If these are or were delinquents, then they must be depraved people who relish corrupting the youth, given how young people, i.e., students, venerate and imitate them.

 

That visibly is not the case, thus invalidating the overgeneralising delinquency argument. This also highlights the arbitrariness of public opinion, which the school should be vigilant about when following. It is a shame that rather than combating fallacious conceptions, some condone and even embrace them, going with the flow and imperilling the interests of certain students.

 

One may claim that the more delinquent a person is, the more dishevelled they will be, and hence their hair will be long. This depicts a logical fallacy. The fact that delinquency might lead to slovenliness, and slovenliness leads to untrimmed hair, merely suggests that delinquency might lead to long hair, from which “long hair leads to delinquency” cannot be solely derived. It requires independent reasoning to prove.

 

Objectors might fear that, although long hair does not imply delinquency, it might incite it, given that the former might symbolise the latter. Assume this is true. Undeniably, teenagers worship idols. But resonating with the above, they might also revere positive personalities like Messi and Keanu Reeves, both prodigious and representative in their fields. What this means is that long hair can harvest positive fruits for imitating teenagers. Besides, in this Information Age, one can follow and idolise world-renowned celebrities with ease, just with a search on Instagram, for example. Hence, the probability of one impersonating long-haired delinquents is lower than that of one emulating long-haired dignitaries (who are accentuated and promoted), therefore long hair is more likely to lead to positivity than negativity.

 

Personally, certain classmates of mine have or had moderately long hair, yet they are compassionate and attentive individuals, and they are all but rascals. Is there empirical evidence in favour of the delinquency counterargument in our school?

 

d.     Unsanitariness

Speaking of decadents, unsanitariness is often matched up with long hair and used against the easing: “Wilson, who taught history as well as coaching football, testified that students sometimes changed seats because the long-haired boys stank. Sellers asserted that unlike boys, girls were accustomed to keeping their hair clean.” (Graham, 2004) Whether that is truly the case, I am not sure. Admittedly, boys do sweat more than girls. Research shows that men sweat twice as much as women[10], while some other research shows a difference of four times[11]. I agree that physical and psychological differences must be considered before appealing to gender equality. Even if so, whether the restrictions can avoid ramifications while alleviating troubles brought by these unique physical factors is controversial.

 

A predominant hair hygiene problem is hair lice, and it is indeed a valid concern that long hair might induce. Nevertheless, as Graham’s piece pertains to a case in the seventies, it is probable that hygiene awareness, especially since COVID, has risen since then due to higher living standards and conditions. An example is that living conditions relate negatively to hair lice prevalence[12], as it can be discovered in the data that the problem of hair lice afflicts less-developed countries more, especially rural schoolchildren and street children. Therefore, with progressing sanitary awareness, hygiene, albeit a point of concern, risks less exacerbation.

 

Apart from that, in the words of Graham again: “[O]thers have found the symbolism of hair more nuanced and specific to the era and society under scrutiny.” Similarly, the sanitation of long hair might have changed over time. Lam and his comrades have successfully maintained their hair for months, for example. Essentially, moderately long hair risks less being unhygienic than highly long hair. The persistence in defending the banned hair threshold is inconducive to both open discourse and change, and a change will be suggested in the fifth section.

 

e.      Restrooms

Objectors also put forth practical arguments against the easing, one of which is the restroom argument. At first glance, it is a valid concern that boys with long hair might resemble girls so much that they can intrude into the female restroom unrestrained. As Graham articulated: “Others argued that long hair on boys made it difficult for adults to tell the difference between male and female students, which might create confusion over appropriate dressing rooms and restroom facilities’ or prompt ‘unruly, ill-mannered, or malicious-minded’ long-haired boys to sneak into girls’ restrooms.” However, one can expose the untenability of this argument by assessing its probability. Recent months saw men purporting to be women trespass on girls’ schools and restrooms, such as when a 30-year-old man surreptitiously took creepshots in Good Hope School. In this and a Buddhist Tai Hung College case, both men did not wear long hair. Instead, they both had wigs. This fact attests to the low possibility of lascivious males choosing to grow their hair long instead of simply wearing wigs.

 

Some may ask if one’s long hair tempts one to sneak into girls’ restrooms. With reference to the school circumstances, that teachers recognise students and students recognise peers, it is unlikely. If teachers spot a “familiar face” of a long-haired boy, or if students spot a “familiar face” of a friend, inside a female’s restroom, they can immediately apprehend the suspect. In contrast, outsiders wear wigs when trespassing because wigs are parts of their costumes – once taken off, they are short-haired, obstructing identification as a result. Despite this convenience, however, no student has been reproached for sneaking into girls’ restrooms wearing a wig.

 

If a student grows his hair long, it is a part of him. There will hence be no escape from discovery if a witness spots the suspect. Is it reasonable to refute the easing with this restroom argument? I am sceptical. It is more rational to wear wigs than to retain one’s hair, as the latter is time-consuming and fosters investigation.

 

f.      Discipline

“An assistant principal stated bluntly: ‘Any good army has discipline.’” (Graham, 2004) Discipline is certainly a primary argument against the easing. Recalling Judge Suttle’s magnificent compendium in the second section of this essay[13], schools should “teach respect for society’s laws or rules”, instead of “enforc[ing] … an unreasonable rule”, which “undermines respect for other rules and laws which are reasonable and deserve adherence”. It therefore is not valid to defend the restrictions with regard to discipline, as, in order to justify this counterargument, the school must show that hair is a prominent component of a student’s body because, supposedly, uniformity in appearance (for example uniforms) bolsters discipline[14]. I will now show that it is not.

 

Wearing uniforms cultivates discipline because they encourage a sense of unity and belonging[15]. For our school, students revel in the annual dance on Christmas Party Day in their PE uniforms (not this year though). The Athletics’ Meet and Swimming Gala attain the same results because of the uniforms. It is thus reasonable to say that different types of hair do not contribute much to students’ sense of belonging, as hair is not deemed an essential feature of a member of a school. Something also to consider is that moderately long does not veer too much from short hair.

 

One may try to invalidate me by citing hair restrictions in North Korea. One may claim that North Korea consolidates its people’s uniformity and thus discipline, proving that hair is a body part conspicuous enough to encourage uniformity. Yet, I contend that such regulations are best described as “individuality stiflers” instead of “uniformity catalysts”. When one observes a North Korean classroom, for example, one realises not the need to conform, but fears the need to be the same. There is a difference. One understands that one has to give up one’s oneness, a means by which one expresses oneself. In other words, hair restrictions in North Korea propose to repress individuality, not to uphold conformity. 

 

In the eyes of a North Korean withal, which one would you feel proud of: that your comrades all believe in the supreme leader, or that your comrades all have the same hairstyle? Togetherness in beliefs prevails much over that in an inconsequential body part.

 

The mere adherence to a rule does not nurture discipline. In my fifth article, I explained that it inculcates discipline. Inculcation is secondary to nurturing because for the latter, the recipient is willing to accept discipline, as they understand why discipline is crucial. For the former, the recipient is intimidated into accepting “discipline”, which is not discipline at all because one will opt for long hair in the future anyway after graduation.

 

Further exploring discipline helps us understand why inculcation is less feeble than nurturing. The key question is “What is discipline?”. I define discipline as the uniform adherence to a set of principles or regulations or a routine. A manifestation of discipline is working out regularly. Why people have the willpower to exercise consistently is that they understand its value – that it rejuvenates their bodies, or that it helps maintain good health. Conversely, desultoriness renders exercise futile to one’s mind and discourages one from exercising. There, the significance of understanding the discipline’s goals is highlighted.

 

An example of nurturing vs inculcation will be a school telling why murder is immoral, as opposed to a school confiscating students’ knives, scissors, and sharp objects in general. The former eradicates the root cause. The latter founders in the long run as once students obtain such objects again, not acknowledging the danger and consequences, they will just kill.

 

It can thus be observed that discipline, if reluctantly inculcated into students, is pernicious in the long run. Not only does coercion not teach discipline, but it also provokes disrespect for other rules.

 

There is a Chinese saying “用心良苦”. It is often used in writing prompts that require the before-and-after comparison between when you did not understand and when you finally do. You go from frustration to realisation and a hint of melancholy. Likewise, when you cannot comprehend a rule but still have it imposed on you, you feel irked. In this case, you inevitably mistrust authority, thereby, in the words of Judge Suttle again, “result[ing] in disrespect for all rules and distrust of authority”.

 

g.     Unprofessionalism

There is also a fear that long-haired boys will be seen as unprofessional. Veraciously, I believe that this is absurd. Objectors claim that because long-haired boys deviate from social norms, they are unprofessional. The social norms argument brings us back to uniformity, which further relates to complying with societal expectations, i.e., discipline. The entire professionality argument hence stems from the discipline argument, which is disputable itself. To reiterate, objectors must prove that uniformity of hair is consequential enough to impinge on discipline.

 

h.     Appeal to tradition

I have a natural animosity towards pure appeals to tradition[16]. In conversations regarding the restrictions, I often hear that the restrictions are so incremental that any effort to change them is redundant. This is the epitome of apathy. Principal Chen has elaborated that we should hold no grudges and conduct open discourse, and if apathy lingers, the establishment cannot effectively converse with the public. Opinions should be solicited and considered, not rejected simply out of lethargy or subjectivity, let alone out of machinations.

 

The school has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the restrictions achieve professed goals. This counterargument evades this burden. It is therefore ABSOLUTELY illogical to argue against the easing with it. This perspective is backed by Wilson, 1998: “The other three circuits found that school administrators must justify such regulations by demonstrating their necessity.” And also by Willess, 1972[17]: “In formulating regulations, including those pertaining to the discipline of school children, school officials have a wide latitude of discretion. But the school is always bound by the requirement that the rules and regulations must be reasonable.”

 

i.       Safety

The school is full of laboratories with Bunsen Burners and flammable gas, so some objectors claim that long-haired boys unnecessarily jeopardise their own safety. Again, by dividing long hair into moderately and highly long hair, it is observed that this is a sweeping generalisation. Moderately long hair does not sway uncontrollably. On the contrary, indeed, highly long hair poses dangers when untied. Although long-haired boys tying their hair might be idiosyncratic, which relates to the disruption argument, as aforementioned, whether the disruption persists is arguable.

 

j.       School reputation

It is argued that due to the flamboyance and exoticness of long-haired boys, more conservative communities might condemn the easing, though this is false because long hair does not equal flamboyance, and exoticness varies for each.

 

k.      Authority

The last argument I will dispel is the authority argument, which asserts that due to the easing of one policy, more and more other policies will be challenged, effectively disempowering school authorities. As authority and management play integral roles in communities, the restrictions, even despite its deleteriousness, should not be loosened.

 

This argument founders on that it fallaciously assumes that rules being disputed equates to authorities being questioned. Subtly, these are distinct. If one writes a proposal of over 5000 words, one trusts the authority to refine the specified rules. One does not directly confront the authority but seeks cooperation with it. That would be the case if one bypasses the authority and revamp rules of one’s own accord. It is limpid which one I am, I suppose?

 

l.     Summary

I believe that readers can differentiate between a reasonable attempt to consolidate the restrictions and an unreasonable act to hang on. Here is a caveat from me: Personal incredulity and perspective based on all but reason is the culprit behind many societal obstacles. Should this argument be resorted to, a for-easing side victory is automatically warranted, for any reasonable debater argues with logic and empirical evidence, and for any intransigentist turns to illogicality and subjectivity.

 

This relevant quote is often attributed to Bernand Barton, English poet: “Obstinacy and vehemency in opinion are the surest proofs of stupidity.”

 

IV. WHY THE EASING?

 

a.      Burden of proof

As stated, the school has the burden of proof. They must depict how the restrictions effectively reach their ends while outweighing their adverse effects.

 

My nine rebuttals have suggested possible counterclaims against these proofs and that the restrictions are unpreferable. In this following section, I will briefly introduce why the easing is superior.

 

b.     Unnecessary trouble

I have a personal anecdote to share. On 2 November, I was chastened by the discipline master for my “long hair”. According to the definitions, my hair was moderately long. Since then, I have written five short articles and several Chinese passages, chastising the restrictions. Akin to the heated debate in America in the 70s and the accusation of sexual discrimination by Lam in June, my articles were imbued with resentment and fury, although mine and theirs stemmed from different origins (namely practical illogicality and inequality respectively).

 

Students grumbling about the restrictions can also be heard, both online and offline. Online, forums and Lam’s viral video accumulated mass support and the collective denunciation of the restrictions, advocating for change. Whereas discontent offline was known by interviewing multiple previously long-haired classmates. The remedy to this dissatisfaction is the easing. It would minimise the fomenting of discontent and ease the burden of both students and the discipline team.

 

c.      Perception of oneself

Many men refrain from talking about their retreating hairlines. That owes to the cherishing of one’s hair and the defence of one’s dignity – of defending oneself against banter and a sense of inferiority. Hair is a critical contributor to one’s self-esteem, not just for women, but also for men.

 

Some might argue that I am contradicting myself. Earlier, I asserted that hair is not prominent enough to nurture discipline. However, the perceptions of oneself and an entire community are different. Personally, I am extremely critical of my appearance, but I do not take into account others’ appearances in social situations. Assumably as a result, one might be obsessed with one’s own hair (which is a part of one’s appearance) but not that of one’s community.

 

Other teenagers also resonate with my argument. To exemplify, this is an excerpt from a Young Post article by a 17-year-old student from TWGHs Li Ka Shing College[18] [19]: “Being allowed to choose your hairstyle enables students to build confidence and learn more about themselves, so schools should take a step back and stop trying to exert authority over their students’ hair.”

 

d.     Moderately long hair is not adverse

This article has sufficiently shown that moderately long hair poses no substantial or evident danger to both the running of the school and the safety of pupils. 

 

V. WHAT TO DO

 

As long hair is classified into two types: moderately long and highly long hair, the refinement of long hair restrictions can be divided into the alteration of restrictions about these two types.

 

For moderately long hair, again, it does not imperil discipline, nor does it disrupt school administration. The risk of catching diseases is lower than that for highly long hair, and it does not endanger the hair wearer himself or others. It is therefore recommended that moderately long hair be allowed.

 

As for highly long hair, the multifaceted nature of possible ramifications warrants more in-depth discussions. Nonetheless, discourse participants must beware of obstinacy, stereotypes, false premises, and lethargy, as these obstruct change most. Of course, overly time-consuming hair that deters students’ school attendance should also be prohibited.

 

VI. CONCLUSION

 

This essay, as the title suggests, is merely a temporary conclusion that might, and will, change as a result of open discourse and debate. The contentious subject of long hair restrictions on boys in schools is a philosophical, logical, practical, and mental issue. An imperative solution will not emerge unless the great minds of teachers, students, and other stakeholders join. Consequently, various perspectives must be weighed, opinions solicited, and voices heard. It will be regrettably inconducive should machinations be planned, animus held, and displeasure extended.

 

Finally, to everybody: “Stubbornness does have its helpful features. You always know what you are going to be thinking tomorrow.” - Glen Beaman

 

Thank you for reading and have fun thinking!

---

[1] Barbers Hill Independent School District Educational Planning Guide 2017/18, 82, 5^th bullet point under “Hair”. (Accessed on 29 November 2023)

[2] Video on Instagram. (Accessed on 29 November 2023)

[3] Graham, G. (2004). Flaunting the Freak Flag: Karr v. Schmidt and the Great Hair Debate in American High Schools, 1965–1975, 9 and 18. (Accessed on 29 November 2023)

[4] Refer to his Instagram account, @leunzz. (Accessed on 29 November 2023)

[5] News on inmedianet.hk. (Accessed on 29 November 2023)

[6] Wilson, A. M. (1998). Public School Dress Codes: The Constitutional Debate, 13-14. (Accessed on 29 November 2023)

[7] Check out more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_disruption. (Accessed on 29 November 2023)

[8] Also in (Wilson, 1998). “Gang related violence and crime in the public schools continues to grow and challenge school administrators and students ... This proliferation of violence in our schools has created a sense of emergency for school districts ... As a reaction to this threat of violence, many school boards are currently enforcing mandatory dress codes. These codes prohibit students from wearing clothing that is identifiable as gang clothing, ...” (Accessed on 29 November 2023)

[9] They can be found here: https://rianeopa.blogspot.com/search/label/Long%20Hair%20in%20School. (Accessed on 1 December 2023)

[10] https://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/men/sweating-odor/men-sweat-more-than-women.htm. (Accessed on 1 December 2023)

[11] https://socialcitizen.shop/blogs/sweat-university/who-sweats-more-male-or-female. (Accessed on 1 December 2023)

[12] Data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2603110/bin/08-0368_Techapp-s1.pdf. (Accessed on 5 December 2023)

[13] The concerned part here is: “Instead of teaching respect for society’s laws or rules, enforcement of an unreasonable rule undermines respect for other rules and laws which are reasonable and deserve adherence. At best, the rule here attacked teaches only conformity and unreasoning submission to authority; at worst, it results in disrespect for all rules and distrust of authority.” (Accessed on 1 December 2023)

[14] I agree with this premise. See Yeung R. (2009). Are School Uniforms a Good Fit?: Results From the ECLS-K and the NELS, 17..

[15] Han, S. (2010). A mandatory uniform policy in urban schools: Findings from the school survey on crime and safety: 2003-04, 3. (Accessed on 1 December 2023)

[16] I wrote: “One who defends by solely an appeal to tradition, that is, an argument of ‘it has always been this way, so it ought to be accepted’, must be disqualified from the discussion. One’s participation would have added to the solicitation of notions, had one treasured the opportunity. One’s disqualification does not merit the removal of one’s right to speak; it instead, for one’s impediment to the discussion, should merit the oblivion of one’s speech.”

[17] Willess, T. N. (1972). Regulation Governing the Length of Hair Is One That Is Not Cognizable in the Federal Courts, Nor Is Such Right to be Found Cognizable in the Federal Courts, Nor Is Such Right to be Found within the Plain Meaning of the Federal Constitution. within the Plain Meaning of the Federal Constitution, 5. (Accessed on 1 December 2023)

[18] https://www.scmp.com/yp/discover/your-voice/article/3187464/face-should-schools-have-authority-over-students-hairstyles. Some arguments from the “For” side has been addressed in this essay, the remaining ones shall be addressed here: the author claims that hair lice affect 6 to 12 million people worldwide each year. However, I doubt that the author got the source wrong. “[H]owever, an estimated 6 million to 12 million infestations occur each year in the United States among children 3 to 11 years of age” is what is written in the supposed source from the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Furthermore, the source mentions that “girls get head lice more often than boys”, yet hair lice have not been a source of trouble in our school for girls at all. (Accessed on 1 December 2023)

[19] The concerned source: https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lice/head/epi.html. (Accessed on 1 December 2023)