Children should be taught to obey the rules unconditionally. How else are they supposed to be conditioned to happily elect a police state in a few years?

The rules are always right, and authority must always be respected and obeyed. You must conform to what your superiors expect of you. Any questioning of authority, no matter how "justified" should be met with swift and extreme punishment. Good Citizenship means obedience.



March! March! March! March! SALUTE!

bighairyguy: Der Poopflinger: "precious little snowflake" is getting old and cliched, try thinking up a new one for a change

Insolent, nose-picking crotch fruit?

Ummm...parent's lost dream time machine?

/Since parents live their dreams through their children......?
//OK, nothing.

stiletto_the_wise:

Oh come on. The teacher was pissed because she was missing 4/20, obviously.

/Did have a professor with the 'my answer is the right answer' mentality.
//He was a douche
///But his answer was arrogant, mega-douche.

She has a little butt on her chin. Other than that she's pretty cute. I'd hit it in five years. Or hit it now and get five years.

mikaloyd: Home schooling is certainly the way forward for your uniquely creative snowflake. No rules except yours can possibly hold her, not if you have your say dad gummit!

Not so much. She is no more uniquely creative than anyone else as far as I can tell. But her right to express herself trumps the opinion of how the school thinks she should look every time. I don't particularly care what the school's opinion is, my daughter has the right to express herself, and the right to a public education. The fact that school officials have assumed incorrectly that it is their duty to dictate my child's hair coloring
choices is none of my concern, it is their job to reconcile the two. My child will be in class, and her hair will be what ever color she decides, and they can deal with it however they decide. Once again, it is hair color. It has no affect on anything, other than the petty little mindset of the school officials. And my child has to live with it 24/7. Who the hell are they to tell her how to wear it?

She is just trying to show solidarity with albino-Americans!

All she has to do is claim that the pink hair is political speech, and the school district will turn tail...

Another brick in the wall...

/The student is hittable, pink hair or otherwise.
//Principle probably got the cold shoulder from her.
///If the principle is a chick too... then Whoooo! Whooo!
////If mom gets in on the action too... Three way girl action... Yayyyyyyy!!!!

I went to a high school in a town of 3000 people in central Nebraska. There was a girl who came to school with smurf blue hair with a rather androgynous haircut. She wasn't suspended. Another girl had bright pink hair. No one cared. There were kids in a grade lower than mine getting tramp stamps (no kidding; I'm not sure who was doing it since tattooing minors was illegal...but I think certain places might do it with parental consent as long as you were 16) as well as basketball players getting tattoos. They weren't suspended (probably because their parents were prominent figures within the city). We were a pretty average school in the middle of nowhere. No one was really affected by any of this.

/methinks her hair is pretty cute; it's not highlighter pink. it could pass off as strawberry blond in the right lighting

ZombiesezCafeeeeeennnn: Hmmm so freedom of expression is fine as long as it is what you view as legitimate self expression?

No, fighting stupid battles that take focus away from real issues is stupid. Thats all I'm saying. By the way, total freedom of expression is not the be all and end all that a lot of people like to believe it is. I see nothing wrong with curtailing that freedom in situations that honestly call for it. Some amount of unity and uniformity are absolutely required in most circumstances. Don't believe me? Well, go back and look at the last two presidential elections and tell me why the democrats did so poorly, as well as the reason I fear they might completely blow this next one, too. Sometimes, it is the things that make us the same that are a lot more important than the things that make us different.

Anyway, this is a pointless waste of the schools time and energy. No real right was infringed, no real injustice occurred. If your problem is, as some say, with the rule in question, that should have been resolved long before this wanna-be Rosa Parks sat in the metaphorical front of the bus.

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: RocketRod: FTFA: "It's a great form of self-expression, not that we were trying to push the envelope or anything," Chavez said.

Hey, lady... if your kid's "self-expression" can be bought at a beauty supply shop... then your kid has got nothing the rest of us really need to hear.

If YOU have kids at all, I'm sure they aren't going to say anything anyone needs to hear ever. And they got that way without even having to go to the beauty supply shop. Genetics gave them stupid for free.

Ah, the young Farker's equivalent of, "Oh, yeah? Well, nyahhhhh! I am too an individual! Cuz! So there!"

It just never gets old.

Just drink the damn water, already!.

/obscure?
//pfft! Yeah, right

Things like that make me cringe with disgust.

/in soviet america, school hates you
//was suspended for one day for taking a soda out of the cafeteria

lol lol
tfm_copycat that is just great

vgss: School policy is not law.

In the school, yes, yes it is. It is enforceable. It is not THE law, but it is a law. Arguing otherwise is just stupid.

buckler: Apparently, the Supreme Court has yet to hear this issue.

And yet they already have precedent for what constitutes protected speech and what doesn't from unrelated but slightly similar cases. Specifically, Texas v. Johnson, the flag burning case. In the final opinion, Justice Brennan writes, and I quote:

The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of "speech," but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. While we have rejected the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled "speech,"...

In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether an intent to convey a particularized message was present and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.

So, taking those two criterion into account, it becomes patently clear that if the court was to stick to precedent, as it usually does, dying your hair pink, unless it is for breast cancer awareness month or you make it clear that you are doing so to convey a specific message, is not protected by the first amendment. Not even close.

MagFura2: What possible difference can it make to you, aside from you having to take valuable time out of your day, time you no doubt would have used to do amazing novel things that no one had ever done or thought of before and that would have no doubt advanced our society in wondrous ways.

I had hair dyed in various shades and hues all throughout my highschool career. It was spiked, mohawked, shaved, mutilated, set on fire once, and generally greatly distressed. I have no problem with people doing little pointless things to themselves while they can. My problem is that when people blatantly break rules that aren't terribly oppressive, and then have to deal with the consequences, they are immediately lionized as some sort of first amendment heroes. I'm liberal to the bone, and I feel like it not only cheapens everything that I have fought for most of my adult life, but it distracts attention from the real issues of the day. Myanmar is under a ruthless dictatorship, Pakistan is on the verge of one, there is a war going on and another one brewing, something like 60% of children don't have adequate healthcare, the dollar is losing value by the hour, and the farking ice caps are slowly melting, but OMG! a girl got suspended for a dress code violation. Stop the farking presses. Forget that real wages are declining at a ludicrous rate. Screw the fact that the US manufacturing economy is on the verge of collapse. We have a new front page story!!!

I don't have any problem with the girls hair. I have a problem with her spoiled "I didn't get my way so I'm off to whore myself out to the media" routine. Maybe if she wanted to be a real rebel, she should have gotten a job with the local humane society or red cross shelter or goodwill depot. This is not about an individual standing up for truth, justice, and the American way. This is about a self-centered girl who wants her way no matter the cost to everyone involved, and it's exactly the kind of attitude that makes me ashamed to admit to friends and acquaintances that I lean left-ward. As much as I hate to see it, the right was spot-on when they coined the phrase Limousine-Liberal.

They have classes in attention whoring these days?

I'm sure if she had decided to express herself with breast implants it would have been just fine.

Alright folks, I hate to inject a realism here but chances are good that this principal is in fact a caring, dedicated educator who believes it is his responsibility to make the school run efficiently for all kids*. After all, he is part of the system to which we, collectively, have granted authority regarding our children's education.

Now , I happen to disagree with this rule, particularly in such a minor instance like this girl's hair; but the rule does exist, she knew about it, she violated it, and she should suffer the consequences of her actions. If you don't like the rule, then try to change it. Administrators and districts as a whole are willing to amend the rules if they see it is appropriate. I especially like the story by deadboy, although I think the story was intended as an insult against the school rather than a recognition that they can change when appropriate. (Sorry deadboy if I misinterpreted that!)

Now on the other hand, I am sorry to say that I'm less than impressed by the attitude by shipofthesun. Despite the fact that I generally agree with you on this matter, the position that authority figures can just go to hell when you disagree with them is not an especially healthy attitude for kids to learn. As I said, we have collectively given the district and administrators this authority, but by the same token, we can choose to take it away. Through school boards, parent protests, sit-ins, and the like are just a few methods to discuss the situation in a healthy, productive way that may teach the kids a respect for the system while demonstrating positive social and political activism.

Just remember that your child is not the only one at the school, and the district must take into account the rights and needs of all of them to the best of their ability. Occasionally bad rules are made by people with the best of intentions. Our job as parents, taxpayers, and citizens is to oversee these rules and insist on correction if necessary.

If this (in your opinion) fails, you always have the right to find a school or other educational situation that meets you needs more fully.



* Since I don't know him personally, I cannot rule out the possibility that he is simply a petty dictator who thinks he has absolute control over his little fiefdom, but, despite what many posters seem to think, this is the minority of administrators.

MagusAzod: If you don't like the rule, then try to change it.

Well... what if she, her parents, and the rest of her family tried, and failed, due to bullheaded administration officials?

At what point is civil disobience against an unjust rule/law justified? Must people be thrown into mass graves before we take action against tyranny?

Must the revolution begin with a bang, couldn't it start with pink highlights in a young girl's hair?

RockIsDead: They have classes in attention whoring these days?

No, not yet. That's why she was suspended. School officials didn't want to expand the curriculum.

All Right - Caturday is almost here. Thank God cats don't have to obey these kinds of rules

tfm_copycat: I'd hit i...hey! what are you doing here??

LOL. Nicely played.

I support not merely school dress codes but school uniforms

The schools dress code states "Hair color must be natural".
Dress Code (new window)

From dictionary.com
27. not tinted or colored; undyed.

So wouldn't that mean any student who dyed there hair regardless of the color be breaking the rules.

MonkeyBoy666: MagusAzod: If you don't like the rule, then try to change it.

Well... what if she, her parents, and the rest of her family tried, and failed, due to bullheaded administration officials?

As I mentioned, there are ways of getting this changed, however, since the school is a community resource, the community must ultimately decide the rules. If her family fails individually, they should recruit others in the school. If they cannot get support, then perhaps the cause isn't sufficiently compelling for the community to take action for what one family sees as an injustice. Although I believe in individual rights as a cornerstone of American society, reality sometimes dictates how those rights are expressed. Pink hair does not necessarily qualify as an essential liberty.

At what point is civil disobience against an unjust rule/law justified? Must people be thrown into mass graves before we take action against tyranny?

Part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of your actions to force others to see the injustice. If, despite this, others cannot agree or sympathize with your position, then I again say perhaps your position is not sufficiently compelling for the community.

As to the second part of that statement, comparing hair dye to mass graves is excessive. As is comparing the principal taking the authority we have given him to run the school to tyranny. I don't want to sound insulting because that is not my intent (which is sometimes difficult to convey through text only), but that kind of comment only trivializes true abuses of power.

Must the revolution begin with a bang, couldn't it start with pink highlights in a young girl's hair?

I admit I'm a bit confused by this part of your post. I suggested a grassroots effort (not a bang) to change the rule. Of course, it could start by something very small.

plombage: The schools dress code states "Hair color must be natural".
Dress Code (new window)

From dictionary.com
27. not tinted or colored; undyed.

So wouldn't that mean any student who dyed there hair regardless of the color be breaking the rules.

Technically I think you are correct, although the argument the may be made that they intended the rule to mean "natural" as in "found in nature". Thus, if your hair color is one that is naturally found on human heads, it is fine according to the rule. Of course this too would be subject to interpretation...

j0ndas: If the school policy says x, and the students don't obey school policy, that's their problem. The Constitution says nothing about pink hair being an unalienable right.



Interesting take. Maybe you should read that Constitution again.

The Constitution grants all rights across the board so long as it doesn't interfere with the powers of the Federal government defined in that document. That's right, it grants them all and it guarantees around a dozen more no matter what.

The states can then spell out what rights you're specifically denied out of the infinite amount granted except for the ones guaranteed by the Constitution through the Amendments.

Please, do us all a favor and go study that document closely. Otherwise, you're a farking walking danger to all of our civil rights.

You guys act surprised by this. Someone I knew in high school dyed her hair purple on accident (was trying to dye it black, when the dye was called "Chilled Plum"; FAIL) and was suspended for 3 days, or until she dyed her hair a natural color. A few others were suspended just for having a red streak or red highlights. Schools in Louisiana, surprisingly, have EXTREMELY strict rules. I, who had never been in trouble EVER at school, got suspended for 2 days for a cell phone, which my parents and everyone else thought was completely ridiculous. Schools are just becoming more strict every day.

Nocens: j0ndas: If the school policy says x, and the students don't obey school policy, that's their problem. The Constitution says nothing about pink hair being an unalienable right.

Interesting take. Maybe you should read that Constitution again.

The Constitution grants all rights across the board so long as it doesn't interfere with the powers of the Federal government defined in that document. That's right, it grants them all and it guarantees around a dozen more no matter what.

The states can then spell out what rights you're specifically denied out of the infinite amount granted except for the ones guaranteed by the Constitution through the Amendments.

Please, do us all a favor and go study that document closely. Otherwise, you're a farking walking danger to all of our civil rights.

As you say, the Constitution spells out certain rights that cannot be infringed upon by any U.S. government entity. Technically, Nocens is correct by that definition: the Constitution does not guarantee the right of hair color (although that this is covered under the first amendment is certainly arguable). By your own argument, states have the power, through the proxy of the school board and administrators, to limit that right (one of the infinite) that is implied in the Constitution.

Also, although I am not a mod nor anyone special beyond an anonymous name on the internet, I ask sincerely that we all try to refrain from personal insults. Disagreement is normal and healthy, but when we stoop to implying (or outright stating) that another poster is an idiot or "farking walking danger to all of our civil rights", we do nothing to promote the discussion and only add to the already tense social/political situation in our country. I realize this is unlike to make much of an impact on anyone, but maybe through baby steps we can grow back into a more civilized society.

PTSSTP: wyltoknow: It's not just about hair color. It's about the attitude. Having children keep natural hair colors, dress in solid-color shirts, unbaggy pants or mandatory belts, all of this encourages a sense of professionalism in the classroom. I don't have any spiffy charts to prove my point, all I have is the anecdotal evidence of having seen this in action. I spent a few years in a high school that had pretty much no dress-code at all, and test scores/grades were abysmal. I spent a few years in a high school with a strict dresscode like the one I mentioned above, and it was one of the highest-performing schools in the county. Now I know this could also be because of several other factors, correlation != causation, yadda yadda. I'm just sayin.

Oh, because of your one case, that proves the point. I go to Glen Ridge High School in some tiny town in Glen Ridge, nobody gives a fark about what you wear or anything. There are kids with friggen blue spiked-up hair, and we have one of the best performing schools in NJ.

Ditto for Moorestown high school. Course, for all I know the kids with the crazy hair and stuff get terrible grades.

So could a student dye their hair gray, silver or white since those colors are naturally found on human heads.

/just wondering

plombage
So could a student dye their hair gray, silver or white since those colors are naturally found on human heads.

/just wondering



My step brother tried to do that in high school, but he could never find the dye.

wyltoknow

I spent a few years in a high school that had pretty much no dress-code at all, and test scores/grades were abysmal.

So did I, the test scores and grades were in the top 5 in the state. Just because you can provide anecdotal evidence of this "professionalism in the classroom" doesn't mean shiat.

Besides, it's only a public school. There's nothing professional about it.

plombage: So could a student dye their hair gray, silver or white since those colors are naturally found on human heads.

/just wondering

Yeah, that's what I meant when I said it was open to interpretation. That may be why they specified "Hair color must be natural" without qualifier. Barring unusual circumstances, teenagers do not have that color naturally either, so that could cover it. (I know that's a weak argument).

It's too bad that we need to spell out all the trivial details for situations like this. Unfortunately, unless we agree to binding arbitration for each and every circumstance, there will always be the possibility for abuse and misinterpretation.

It's kind of funny actually. This girl came to school, was told her hair violated the code, and is now washing it out. That should be the whole story (unless of course they want to get the rule changed). Unfortunately, the school imposed a suspension rather than just saying, "Fix it and don't do it again." Maybe she was defiant during the initial conversation or had a history of this sort of behavior, but I don't get that sense from the article.

The dress code itself states:
"Students who persist in violating the above infractions will be considered willfully disobedient and will be disciplined according to district policy."
That implies a level of freedom to deal with the situation as the administration sees fit. Hmmm, this combined with the fact that the colors were not especially unusual (it's almost red) makes me think that maybe the principal is too inflexible in her discipline. At least she is now letting her back in school even though the color persists. We will never know the whole story behind this one, I suspect.

NB: None of the above statements counters the general principles I have already posted. Do not take this as a retraction of anything I said with the possible exception of my initial comments on the principal.

MagusAzod:
As you say, the Constitution spells out certain rights that cannot be infringed upon by any U.S. government entity. Technically, Nocens is correct by that definition: the Constitution does not guarantee the right of hair color (although that this is covered under the first amendment is certainly arguable). By your own argument, states have the power, through the proxy of the school board and administrators, to limit that right (one of the infinite) that is implied in the Constitution.

Even the school board's power to do this by proxy is arguable. But I said nothing concerning this. I simply pointed out his ignorance concerning the Constitution's nature is inexcusable.


Also, although I am not a mod nor anyone special beyond an anonymous name on the internet, I ask sincerely that we all try to refrain from personal insults. Disagreement is normal and healthy, but when we stoop to implying (or outright stating) that another poster is an idiot or "farking walking danger to all of our civil rights", we do nothing to promote the discussion and only add to the already tense social/political situation in our country. I realize this is unlike to make much of an impact on anyone, but maybe through baby steps we can grow back into a more civilized society.


No, I'm pretty much going to flame anyone who says something like this because it spreads ignorance... dangerous ignorance.

Rick Santorum, as a Senator mind you, stood up in the Senate and said something similar... the right to privacy "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution." And, it went virtually unchallenged as to why that really was such an idiotic thing to say about the Constitution.

Nah man, we have far too many people running around in both the government and the streets without a clue as to what the Constitution really says and means. I'm going to shame them at every opportunity until they get tired of feeling like idiots, they educate themselves, and they start shaming others into doing the same.

Otherwise, we just maintain the status quo and the sheep will keep shuffling along letting their Congressmen, their courts, and lawyers roll right over them. This "ignorance" has been rampant for over 150 years now. It's time to do something else about it.

I died my pubic hairs pink and nobody said a damn word at work...

//my life sucks

Nocens:
No, I'm pretty much going to flame anyone who says something like this because it spreads ignorance... dangerous ignorance.

Fortunately, normal ignorance can be cured. It's the deliberate ignorance that worries me.


Nah man, we have far too many people running around in both the government and the streets without a clue as to what the Constitution really says and means.

I'll buy that...

I'm going to shame them at every opportunity until they get tired of feeling like idiots, they educate themselves, and they start shaming others into doing the same.

...but here's where I disagree. In my personal experience, I found that shaming a person leads to a more entrenched position than helping them find their own way to better understanding. When you try to shame them, they don't feel like idiots: rather they feel like they are under attack and try to defend themselves. True, guiding people to better understanding doesn't always work (and I have certainly found myself stepping beyond the bounds I try to set for myself), but I find it both more satisfying and more successful in the long run. Besides, I find myself learning new things right along with the person I'm speaking with.

Btw, thank you for not attacking me for expressing my opinion on that matter. As we all know, here on the internet, that comment could have been taken as a challenge. You never know who you're talking to...


(After rereading my post it sounds a little condescending. It's not meant to. As I said before, text-only is a difficult medium to express intent.)

ccunningham22: I died my pubic hairs pink and nobody said a damn word at work...


have you considered a different line of work?

MagusAzod:
...but here's where I disagree. In my personal experience, I found that shaming a person leads to a more entrenched position than helping them find their own way to better understanding.


Yea, when one person is telling them they're an idiot, you're right. When everybody around them is telling them they're an idiot because they're not aware of what's become common knowledge they tend to go back and rethink their positions.

Why is this news?
Let me get this straight.

Little girl dyes her hair pink. She goes to school and the staff tells her she has to change it to a "natural" color. She goes back home and her mom is pissed.

Wow.


/And I thought getting detention for flipping the bird at another student was unfair
//Yes this was back in the late 90s

In the past, people distinguished themselves by doing significant, remarkable things that no one had ever done before.

Today, people distinguish themselves by dying their hair pink or designing their own tatoos.

Thank god for progress...

Nocens: MagusAzod:
...but here's where I disagree. In my personal experience, I found that shaming a person leads to a more entrenched position than helping them find their own way to better understanding.


Yea, when one person is telling them they're an idiot, you're right. When everybody around them is telling them they're an idiot because they're not aware of what's become common knowledge they tend to go back and rethink their positions.

Well, I wish you luck on your efforts. Although we may not see eye-to-eye on the method, I commend your goal. Who knows, perhaps the "good cop/ bad cop" routine still has its place, even on the internet.

Well, I tried civil reproaches and the insulting reproaches. I've gotten more mileage out of the insulting ones so far, so going to stick with them.

The audience here is much more likely to support the position that someone else is an idiot. Civil discourse here on Fark tends to get ignored and your target usually reads that as a lack of support.

hair must be a natural color? Well depending on how it's worded there may be a loophole. If it simply says natural color, just argue pink is a color found in nature, thus a natural color. If it's says a natural haircolor, then you just have to go the old it's a dumb rule route. Which is fine, because it is a dumb rule.