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
II. INTRODUCTION
III. REBUTTALS
a. Disruption
b. Gang violence
c. Delinquency
d. Unsanitariness
e. Restrooms
f. Discipline
g. Unprofessionalism
h. Appeal to tradition
i. Safety
j. School reputation
k. Authority
l. Summary
IV. WHY THE EASING?
a. Burden of proof
b. Unnecessary trouble
c. Perception of oneself
d. Moderately long hair is not adverse
V. WHAT TO DO
VI. CONCLUSION
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.
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)
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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”.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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, 5th 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)
[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)