School Found Guilty of Indirect Racism

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...dge-rules.html
A School's refusal to allow a boy to wear cornrows was 'racial discrimination', the High Court has ruled in a landmark case.

Roman Catholic school St Gregory's College banned an 11-year-old African-Caribbean pupil because of his 'unconventional' hairstyle.

It claimed the style – braided hair, close to the scalp – contravened its strict dress code.

[Jom]

The school was found guilty of "indirect" racial discrimination, so you can't exactly brand the school racist, or do you actually have proof that they only banned the hairstyle because the boy was black?

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

The school was found guilty of "indirect" racial discrimination, so you can't exactly brand the school racist, or do you actually have proof that they only banned the hairstyle because the boy was black?

Im not branding them racist the paper and judge are.And the black kid brought the school to court claiming racial descrimination and that hair style is part of black culture.It is a mandmark case according to the paper and may open up a can of worms in relation to dress code?

[Treize]

that hair style is part of black culture.

What bull. And as if there is such as thing as 'black culture'.

[mongrel]

Im not branding them racist the paper and judge are.And the black kid brought the school to court claiming racial descrimination and that hair style is part of black culture.It is a mandmark case according to the paper and may open up a can of worms in relation to dress code?

A common misunderstanding.

The judge is not saying that the school is racist.

He he saying that the schools ruling is an unnecessary impediment that disproportionately affects this kid and kids like him.

There is no obvious justifiable reason for excluding the the kid for a commonplace hairstyle. Didn't we have this argument with afros, braids and deadlocks? I am surprised that the school put itself in this position and wasted taxpayer's money defending it.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Maybe i should change the title as inderect racism and racism is slightly differant Jom?How do i change it

[Jom]

Im not branding them racist the paper and judge are.And the black kid brought the school to court claiming racial descrimination and that hair style is part of black culture.It is a mandmark case according to the paper and may open up a can of worms in relation to dress code?

Wow the Daily Mail is branding something with a sensationalist and inaccurate label. Stop the ing presses.

The judge didn't say that they were racist either, but said that the ban was indirectly racist, i.e. it wasn't motivated by racial prejudice.

Maybe i should change the title as inderect racism and racism is slightly differant Jom?How do i change it

I'll do it for you.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Yes but if it contradicts their dress code then this is a stupid ruling. There are schools that ban all kinds of hairstyles and items of clothing. A lot even ban trainers.

I could claim gelling my hair up in spikes is an important part of my culture, but if some place I frequent has a rule against it they have every right to ask me to change it or not come back. There is racial discrimination in this case: he's allowed to wear his hair like that simply because he's got black skin. If any other pupil wanted to wear a similar style they wouldn't have been allowed.

Though of course, I don't think any school recieving public money should have a strict dress code like this.

[Principe Alessandro]

Ah ah ah, good to know that hairstyle is a racial feature.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ah ah ah, good to know that hairstyle is a racial feature.

... do you know what cornrows are?

[Last Roman]

... do you know what cornrows are?

Not really a racial feature. A cultural one, sure.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

"Mr Wolfe QC argued the braids ban was in breach of race and sex discrimination laws as girls at the school were allowed to wear cornrows."
Wonder why girls are allowed and not boys hmm?

[Jom]

"Mr Wolfe QC argued the braids ban was in breach of race and sex discrimination laws as girls at the school were allowed to wear cornrows."
Wonder why girls are allowed and not boys hmm?

Because some styles are just inherently feminine or masculine, like I doubt many schools with a fairly strict dress code would allow boys to wear ponytails.

[Vizsla]

On a point of interest:

What’s the difference between accusing someone of being a racist and accusing someone of indirect racism? You’ve tarred them with the same brush.
It’s just a weasel word. The is still going to stick whether you call it ‘indirect’ or ‘institutional’ or any other qualification you care to invent: insipid racism, iambic racism, illimitable racism.
In legalese there might be a difference. In English as she is spoken by people who are not lawyers – it’s all the same thing.

[SonOfOdin]

Because some styles are just inherently feminine or masculine, like I doubt many schools with a fairly strict dress code would allow boys to wear ponytails.

I wasn't allowed to wear a ponytail in secondary school. I was at a church school too.

It's downright absurd though, I mean it's school, not a fashion show. Why can't a person do his hair the way he/she wants? Like it effects the results at the end of the year...

aren't catholic schools allowed to dictate their own dress codes dealing with hair and stuff?

yep

[Valiant Champion]

That this was done to a religious school is more controversial than anything else. It opens the door to all kinds of litigation.

Just to think how much worse it would have been if his hairstyle also had crop circles in it.

[removeduser_487563287433]

lol what? Do you think religious schools are outside the law?

[(s)AINT]

Why the shock? Roman Catholics have a rich history of racism and condoning the slave trade/slavery. It wasn't until 2000 when they finally apologized for it all.


This is a perfect example of racism from a racist organization.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's not racism... at least not intentionally. It's an example of somebody out of their depth tackling a problem they couldn't hope to understand.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's not racism...

Come on guys.