▲ 578 ▼ Darryl George: Texas judge rules school district can restrict the length of male students’ natural hair (www.cnn.com) submitted 2 years ago by Ranvier@sopuli.xyz to c/news@lemmy.world 192 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one 27 points 2 years ago (2 children) This is very clearly outlined in the CROWN Act. Can the student's family appeal this to a higher court? permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago Yes, "[a spokesman for the family] said that [the student] will continue to serve in-school suspension and that his attorneys plan to file for an injunction in an upcoming federal civil rights lawsuit." permalink fedilink source parent [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) This may be the case, but the CROWN Act has only passed in the House. It is not federal law yet, so it wouldn't provide grounds for an appeal in Texas. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] murderisbad@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is a state law in Texas and many other states. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Huh, so there is. I'm surprised this happened in Texas - I didn't bother looking for it because I assumed they wouldn't be one of the states that had passed it. This does seem like grounds for an appeal: Sec. 25.902. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN DISCRIMINATION IN STUDENT DRESS OR GROOMING POLICY. (a) In this section, "protective hairstyle" includes braids, locks, and twists. (b) Any student dress or grooming policy adopted by a school district, including a student dress or grooming policy for any extracurricular activity, may not discriminate against a hair texture or protective hairstyle commonly or historically associated with race. It's insane that we even need laws prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyles. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago Yes, "[a spokesman for the family] said that [the student] will continue to serve in-school suspension and that his attorneys plan to file for an injunction in an upcoming federal civil rights lawsuit." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) This may be the case, but the CROWN Act has only passed in the House. It is not federal law yet, so it wouldn't provide grounds for an appeal in Texas. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] murderisbad@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is a state law in Texas and many other states. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Huh, so there is. I'm surprised this happened in Texas - I didn't bother looking for it because I assumed they wouldn't be one of the states that had passed it. This does seem like grounds for an appeal: Sec. 25.902. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN DISCRIMINATION IN STUDENT DRESS OR GROOMING POLICY. (a) In this section, "protective hairstyle" includes braids, locks, and twists. (b) Any student dress or grooming policy adopted by a school district, including a student dress or grooming policy for any extracurricular activity, may not discriminate against a hair texture or protective hairstyle commonly or historically associated with race. It's insane that we even need laws prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyles. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] murderisbad@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is a state law in Texas and many other states. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Huh, so there is. I'm surprised this happened in Texas - I didn't bother looking for it because I assumed they wouldn't be one of the states that had passed it. This does seem like grounds for an appeal: Sec. 25.902. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN DISCRIMINATION IN STUDENT DRESS OR GROOMING POLICY. (a) In this section, "protective hairstyle" includes braids, locks, and twists. (b) Any student dress or grooming policy adopted by a school district, including a student dress or grooming policy for any extracurricular activity, may not discriminate against a hair texture or protective hairstyle commonly or historically associated with race. It's insane that we even need laws prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyles. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Huh, so there is. I'm surprised this happened in Texas - I didn't bother looking for it because I assumed they wouldn't be one of the states that had passed it. This does seem like grounds for an appeal: Sec. 25.902. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN DISCRIMINATION IN STUDENT DRESS OR GROOMING POLICY. (a) In this section, "protective hairstyle" includes braids, locks, and twists. (b) Any student dress or grooming policy adopted by a school district, including a student dress or grooming policy for any extracurricular activity, may not discriminate against a hair texture or protective hairstyle commonly or historically associated with race. It's insane that we even need laws prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyles. permalink fedilink source parent