Eoulapa inquired an online chatbot about possible rebuttals in favour of long hair restrictions. Similarly, he had already tackled all presented arguments. Still, some new rebuttals came to him when examining contrary points. It was already 2 at night, so he decided to organise his thoughts and post an Instagram story:
Some people claim that adherence to rules like long hair restrictions for boys nurtures discipline. For instance, if one is told that one must get a trim this weekend, and obeys, one realises how important discipline is. Perhaps, this reasoning is a bit contrived - and you have every right to feel so. This feels like something a student would fabricate in an argumentative essay, running out of ideas.
I don't believe that our discipline master tells people to keep their hair short before every talk - he tells people to shut up! Also, complying with rules without understanding why does not nurture discipline - it inculcates discipline. These are different things. Nurturing something is through proactive repetition, and it requires willingness and comprehension, like studying how to play the violin. Inculcation, on the other hand, is forceful. It is not done voluntarily but is due to coercion and intimidation. If you don't conform to school rules, you receive detentions, your parents get called, warnings are etched on your handbook... It's horrific and horrid. There is nothing more ludicrous to claim that blind adherence "nurtures" discipline.
A resolution is to initiate open discourse and solicit the opinions of students (speaking of discourse, someone has something to explain! 👀 I guess the wide "network" should get this piece to him. He must clarify in person and elucidate why he is correct.), the receiving end of these rules, and the ones who suffer most should they be inappropriate. If discipline is top priority, we must let them know why it is - that's in case abiding by long hair regulations really nurtures it, which drives us back to the paramount arguments about effectiveness and necessity - or else, this phantom "order" will slip away like grains of sand once students graduate.
Onto uniformity. Long story short, I think it's bullshit. What are the ends of uniformity? To cultivate a sense of unity and belonging, I assume. Now, under this definition, which of course may be wrong, people will feel marginalised because they have long hair, and some others will feel detached because their peers have long hair.
Ok. Picture this: after an exam, people receive their papers and their scores. Some perform well, whereas some others perform not very well. That's not uniform at all, and it supposedly should be a giant disparity - it signifies a discrepancy in academic competence (not intelligence), the improvement in which people go to school for! Then why could those with low scores befriend those with higher scores? That's because scores might not be emphasised by some - we often hear that scores "are not important and do not preordain someone's fate".
Therefore, if uniformity is to be an argument, it is a premise that uniformity in terms of hair is pivotal in the eyes of both staff and students. And it is not, at least not for some. We don't see short-hair fellas alienating long-hair fellas, nor vice versa. You get the point. If hair is not consequential, what the hell are people basing "uniformity" on it for? Uniforms are consequential, as they play a significant role in our memories - every time we look at that uniform after graduation, we remember the times we sat in our classroom, bellowed at by our teacher, who claimed that we were the worst class she had ever taught, while we chuckled. On the contrary, hair does not evoke anything pleasant about school, hence it does not unite students or reinforce our sense of belonging. Hair is not consequential. It is just not.
Those who object to me by saying that uniformity minimises distractions do not understand my argument. My stance that uniformity is an invalid argument here arises from the sheer triviality of hair - it is unnoticeable and not prominent. Why would anyone pay excess heed to something like that?
For the professionalism argument, presumably long hair in boys is deemed unprofessional because they deviate from social norms. That stems from the discipline argument, which I have addressed.
One more thing. Have you ever wondered if lenient policies and inclusiveness would bolster our "sense of belonging" even better? Why I'm so obsessed with long hair restrictions is because of fury and resentment. I abhor how the discipline master reprimanded me. I abhor so much obstinacy and close-mindedness, which I pray is not reality. This is why I do not resonate with what the school does - I don't feel convinced that my concerns are heard. Call me contumacious or short-sighted - I'm not the only one.
Eoulapa felt satisfied.
~Written 19/11/23 23:40 at home.