Human rights and the MOEY’s dress and grooming policy

T he Dress and Grooming Policy Guidelines for the Ministry of Education sounds good. It has some of the best and most appropriately sounding words as may be expected from a context blessed with highly educated minds. However, when read through human rights lenses, it is fraught with weaknesses.

The glossary which introduces the document defines “inappropriate dress” as “the state of a student’s attire and/or presentation which does not meet the standards of the public educational institution he or she attends as stipulated in the institution’s Student Dress Code”.

At the outset, the guidelines are vague, leaving students and staff at the mercy of public educational institutions, or the leadership thereof, to determine what is an acceptable standard . The MOEYI Student Dress and Grooming Policy Guidelines, 2018, notes that among the concerns of students are, “increased participation of students in the rule-making process and school governance generally”; and “rules should be fair and not arbitrarily determined or dependent on the inclination of the principal.” A most telling section which speaks to current concerns is that which states: “Additionally, students were concerned that rules should be non-discriminatory”, adding that grooming standards should not be more permissive for students based on ethnic origins: “Students are often told to be proud of their African heritage; however, this becomes difficult when this same heritage is used as a pretext for discrimination” and further “…we recommend a clear definition be created for ‘neatly groomed’. This should prevent schools from shifting the line in the sand at their own discretion.”

The document, in reference to articles by Jaevion Nelson, observes, “Rules that dictate how students are required to wear their hair raise complex legal, culturally sensitive and deeply emotive issues due to a number of reasons.” However, we are still having this conversation because it is not sufficient for the MOEY to only make these valuable observations. There are school administrators who lack the capacity to think beyond their academic qualifications and religious views! That is why it is so important for the creation of a standard that is consistent with human rights principles, and those around universality and indivisibility in particular.

There are deans of discipline and school principals who are satisfied with quoting 1 Corinthians 11:14, “Doth not even nature itself teach you that, if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him?”

Something is wrong when this is used to justify addressing an afro-Jamaican boy whose hair has reached two inches. Sometimes the abuse is completed with, “A Rasta yu a tun now?” The principle of universality is breached when it is okay for a girl to wear a six-inch Afro to school; but a shame for a boy to wear a two-inch Afro. The only universal hair rule in schools is that regarding artificial colour and beads. The elephant in the room is African hair.

Students should not have to present religious arguments to protect their natural African hairstyle. The guideline aptly notes, “the manner in which hair is worn is one of the most visible means of self-expression, providing an avenue for the outward manifestation of a person’s self-identity and image … many religions have faith-based observances relating to hair; as do the cultural practices and traditions of people from different regions or ethnic groups. For some persons, therefore, a deep and abiding association or spiritual connection exists between the way in which they wear their hair and their conception of self, their very personhood, that goes far beyond popular culture or mere fashion trends.” The MOEY is at risk of producing a word salad where these words are plain and simply put, not being digested by the powers that be in many schools.

The document actually reflects wisdom in stating, “Finally, it is important to note that restrictions on hair imposed by a dress code can impact the individual beyond the organization’s setting into the individual’s private life. For example, hair that is cut to comply with school rules will not grow back to an appreciable length during school breaks and vacations. The requirement for short hair for male students will therefore affect a student until he leaves formal schooling or transfers to another institution with more permissive standards.” It is a long overdue call on the MOEY to affirm natural African hairstyles; to move beyond guidelines to clearly stating that students and staff are at liberty to wear Nubian/Bantu knots (Chiney bumps), dreadlocks, braids, kinky twists, and so on.

The policy guidelines beautifully affirm rights and the matter of inclusion on the part of the child as a rights stakeholder. What mechanisms are, however, in place to ensure that this actually happens in schools? Is the ministry aware of how many schools have complied with the preferred best practices re compiling such guidelines? Is the ministry privy to the information contained therein?

These are issues that Parent/Teachers’ Associations, church, and other stakeholders ought to become involved with. It is time to stop waiting for the next hair quarrel in the news, followed by the usual anger and calls for justice. The MOEY must lead and facilitate rules and guidelines, informed by the principles of human rights.

In a country where we have often traditionally revered long-haired images of Jesus Christ, the Nazarite, and Bob Marley, the Rasta, it is a matter of urgency that we move beyond racist, classist, and white supremacist value systems which continue to protect and promote European aesthetics. Let us empower our children to think, to express, to be themselves, to love their identity, and to resist anti-African systems of oppression.

Fr. Sean Major-Campbell is an Anglican priest and advocate for human rights. Please send feedback to columns @gleanerjm.com and seanmajorcampbell@yahoo.com