Seriously, y'all need to stop giving me these cases, if only to check my terrible puns. Anyway, the Supreme Court of South Carolina has ruled 3-2 that an attorney striking a juror on account of his dreadlocks constituted an impermissible race-based challenge and is unconstitutional. Courts have been rather resistant to protecting so-called "performative" aspects of one's racial identity, which is a problem, because race-linked cultural tags provide an easy way to circumvent anti-discrimination protections while still claiming to be following the letter of the law.
Even if one is not consciously trying to game the system, in an environment where it is "wrong" to hold negative opinions of people by virtue of the race, those sort of sentiments will be shifted towards "acceptable" prejudices that serve much the same function. "I don't dislike the juror because he's Black, I dislike him because he has dreadlocks" serves as psychological rationale that lets one maintain their status as a good person. If the man didn't wear dreadlocks, it would be something else (baggy clothes, afros, rap music). And for those African-American folks who have nothing tagging themselves as Black to the outside world -- well, sometimes they'll make it through (proof that we're fair after all), and sometimes we'll simply fall back on flimsier abstracts ("he just didn't feel right to me").
There's an extent to which this is all unavoidable. But there's also an extent to which we can clearly say "the law doesn't have to help". If people are going to use proxies to actualize their prejudices, at the very least we can make them be more creative about it.
Showing posts with label hair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hair. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/28/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
A quick note: Now that I'm not doing this for my job, the CRR probably will undergo some changes. First, it'll probably be later. Because if I'm not forced by a paying employer to start working at 9:00 AM, it's highly unlikely I'll do it on my own. Second, it may well be shorter. I don't know. This is a transition. But I do enjoy providing the roundup each morning, so I am going to try to keep the feature going.
So without further delay...
The Boston Globe notes that the changing of the guard in civil rights leadership at the DNC.
In sadder news related to generational shift, Del Martin, one of the earliest leaders in the fight for lesbian and gay equality, died yesterday. She is survived by her wife, Phyllis Lyon, whom she married in California's very first legal gay marriage.
Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) is responding to complaints that his voter reenfranchisement program isn't reaching the people its designed to help. I want to reiterate how impressed I've been with Gov. Crist on this issue.
A panel hosted by my former colleagues at the LCCR discussed conservative efforts to use controversial civil rights issues as a "wedge" to divide voters.
Hattiesburg American: "Obama speech has special meaning for Southern delegates."
The latest company to face an immigration raid had enrolled in the government's "E-Verify" program. Now companies are complaining that if the system is so flawed that they'll still be subjected to ICE attacks, what's the point of registering in the first place?
The gender equity problem in Japan has reached a crisis point, as Japanese women are refusing to marry until Japanese men start upholding their share of the family life. To the government's credit, it is responding mostly not by lecturing women about their need to be mommies, but by trying to reform the work culture that keeps men away from their families.
A federal appeals court invalidated a Wyoming law that would have made it easier for domestic abusers to acquire guns.
A lawsuit protesting a Arkansas district policy prohibiting boys with long hair from competing in school athletics programs was dismissed after the district agreed to amend the policy.
Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman (R) has announced his neutrality in the upcoming battle to ban affirmative action in the state. David Kramer, former state GOP chairman and leader of one of the groups opposing the ban, is holding out hope he can persuade him to intervene in favor of equal opportunity.
The disabled community is not happy with the level of attention it's getting from Presidential contenders.
A quick note: Now that I'm not doing this for my job, the CRR probably will undergo some changes. First, it'll probably be later. Because if I'm not forced by a paying employer to start working at 9:00 AM, it's highly unlikely I'll do it on my own. Second, it may well be shorter. I don't know. This is a transition. But I do enjoy providing the roundup each morning, so I am going to try to keep the feature going.
So without further delay...
The Boston Globe notes that the changing of the guard in civil rights leadership at the DNC.
In sadder news related to generational shift, Del Martin, one of the earliest leaders in the fight for lesbian and gay equality, died yesterday. She is survived by her wife, Phyllis Lyon, whom she married in California's very first legal gay marriage.
Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) is responding to complaints that his voter reenfranchisement program isn't reaching the people its designed to help. I want to reiterate how impressed I've been with Gov. Crist on this issue.
A panel hosted by my former colleagues at the LCCR discussed conservative efforts to use controversial civil rights issues as a "wedge" to divide voters.
Hattiesburg American: "Obama speech has special meaning for Southern delegates."
The latest company to face an immigration raid had enrolled in the government's "E-Verify" program. Now companies are complaining that if the system is so flawed that they'll still be subjected to ICE attacks, what's the point of registering in the first place?
The gender equity problem in Japan has reached a crisis point, as Japanese women are refusing to marry until Japanese men start upholding their share of the family life. To the government's credit, it is responding mostly not by lecturing women about their need to be mommies, but by trying to reform the work culture that keeps men away from their families.
A federal appeals court invalidated a Wyoming law that would have made it easier for domestic abusers to acquire guns.
A lawsuit protesting a Arkansas district policy prohibiting boys with long hair from competing in school athletics programs was dismissed after the district agreed to amend the policy.
Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman (R) has announced his neutrality in the upcoming battle to ban affirmative action in the state. David Kramer, former state GOP chairman and leader of one of the groups opposing the ban, is holding out hope he can persuade him to intervene in favor of equal opportunity.
The disabled community is not happy with the level of attention it's getting from Presidential contenders.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/25/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
An observant Jewish engineer was vindicated after being hounded by spying accusations, after a probe found he was targeted on basis of religion.
The Washington Post had a nice article up over the weekend on the experiences of other Black "firsts" (first astronaut, first Miss USA, first NBA player, etc.).
Also from the WaPo this weekend, an analysis of how voters perceive the theme of race popping up this cycle (focusing on Akron, Ohio).
The folks who know best whether it actually makes their communities safer -- the police -- are awfully reluctant to start enforcing immigration law on their own accord.
While thrilled at his path breaking candidacy, many Black supporters of Obama are beginning to worry it might take the wind out of the sails of further equal opportunity programs.
Even as New Orleans recovers, some streets still need to be patrolled by the National Guard.
We're still not very good at providing disability-accessible housing.
The New York Times editorializes about the now-scrapped self-deportation program.
Museums that focus on immigration history are trying to connect past to present.
New regulations seek to improve the quality of practicing immigration lawyers.
Affirmative action bans will be on the ballot in Nebraska and Colorado this election.
This year's DNC will be the youngest and most diverse ever.
This is a fascinating case out of Illinois dealing with whether a clause by a Jewish man disinheriting any descendant who married outside the faith is enforceable.
A Texas boy whose long hair (stemming from his Native American heritage) sparked controversy in a rural Texas town will be attending Kindergarten after all.
Feeling neglected in the public school system, more Blacks are electing to home school.
Gay marriage opponents are starting their campaign push to eliminate the institution from California.
The Houston Chronicle: "Chinese engineer shouldn't have died in agony in U.S. custody."
Pro-gun activists in Georgia are trying to repeal a law prohibiting folks from carrying guns in Church. They say the law has a racist past, but local Black leaders are accusing them of appropriating history to pursue a policy agenda deeply opposed by the Black community.
An observant Jewish engineer was vindicated after being hounded by spying accusations, after a probe found he was targeted on basis of religion.
The Washington Post had a nice article up over the weekend on the experiences of other Black "firsts" (first astronaut, first Miss USA, first NBA player, etc.).
Also from the WaPo this weekend, an analysis of how voters perceive the theme of race popping up this cycle (focusing on Akron, Ohio).
The folks who know best whether it actually makes their communities safer -- the police -- are awfully reluctant to start enforcing immigration law on their own accord.
While thrilled at his path breaking candidacy, many Black supporters of Obama are beginning to worry it might take the wind out of the sails of further equal opportunity programs.
Even as New Orleans recovers, some streets still need to be patrolled by the National Guard.
We're still not very good at providing disability-accessible housing.
The New York Times editorializes about the now-scrapped self-deportation program.
Museums that focus on immigration history are trying to connect past to present.
New regulations seek to improve the quality of practicing immigration lawyers.
Affirmative action bans will be on the ballot in Nebraska and Colorado this election.
This year's DNC will be the youngest and most diverse ever.
This is a fascinating case out of Illinois dealing with whether a clause by a Jewish man disinheriting any descendant who married outside the faith is enforceable.
A Texas boy whose long hair (stemming from his Native American heritage) sparked controversy in a rural Texas town will be attending Kindergarten after all.
Feeling neglected in the public school system, more Blacks are electing to home school.
Gay marriage opponents are starting their campaign push to eliminate the institution from California.
The Houston Chronicle: "Chinese engineer shouldn't have died in agony in U.S. custody."
Pro-gun activists in Georgia are trying to repeal a law prohibiting folks from carrying guns in Church. They say the law has a racist past, but local Black leaders are accusing them of appropriating history to pursue a policy agenda deeply opposed by the Black community.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
More Hairy Situations
A controversy in rural Texas is brewing over a Native American child who, in accordance with his religious beliefs, wishes to wear his hair long. The local school district refuses to allow males to wear their hair below the collar, and is refusing an exemption. The family is digging in its heels as well:
As I've expressed in other posts, the application of these rules strikes me as simply mean-spirited, and I think a renewed focus on what a just policy would like, rather than arrogant assertions of what a school board has a "right" to do, would improve things all around.
Amazingly, this will be my third post on hair as an element of discrimination law and minority rights. But the incongruity of it, I suspect, stems from the fact that hair just isn't that important to the identity of White Christians -- or perhaps, that to the extent we do care about our hair, any regulations that are passed comfortably encompass the type of stylings White people care about (which helps explain why the hair length restriction applies only to boys, not girls).
Meanwhile, Betenbaugh said she is ready to fight the Needville rule and has not considered moving to another school district with a less stringent hair code.
"It would just teach our son that it is easier to roll over and do what you're told and not stand up for your rights," she said.
As I've expressed in other posts, the application of these rules strikes me as simply mean-spirited, and I think a renewed focus on what a just policy would like, rather than arrogant assertions of what a school board has a "right" to do, would improve things all around.
Amazingly, this will be my third post on hair as an element of discrimination law and minority rights. But the incongruity of it, I suspect, stems from the fact that hair just isn't that important to the identity of White Christians -- or perhaps, that to the extent we do care about our hair, any regulations that are passed comfortably encompass the type of stylings White people care about (which helps explain why the hair length restriction applies only to boys, not girls).
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Color-Conscious Adoption
CNN has a neat article up on the request by several major adoption-advocacy groups for the US to adopt more "color-conscious" policies regarding adoption. The current "color-blind" approach, which prohibits race play any consideration in deciding who the ultimate adoptive parents are, and also prohibits any special training for parents who are undergoing a trans-racial adoption, was designed to help reduce the inequality by which Black children languished in foster care for far longer than their White peers. The agencies want at least some consideration to be made encouraging same-race adoption (not a rule, just a preference), and, more importantly in my view, want to enact special training for parents adopting a child of another race.
A few years ago, I was at a meeting at the Black Student Union at Carleton where this precise issue was discussed. In fact, one of the students' parents worked at an adoption organization that specifically grappled with the issues of trans-racial adoption, and was very clear that it poses special problems under which parents might need a helping hand. One illustrative example, precisely because it is so mundane, has to do with hair-washing. The student mentioned that Black hair doesn't need to be washed everyday -- in fact, to do so is bad for the hair. Most people in the room (who were Black) nodded knowingly, but I was surprised -- it simply never occurred to me that hair-washing regimes would differ for straight versus kinky hair. And then he continued, as if he was talking about some exotic people, "apparently, White people need to wash there hair everyday," and now it was the Black students who looked surprised. It's no knock on any of us -- when's the last time you've thought to ask someone about how often they wash their hair? -- but it does illustrate the fact that there are things even well-meaning, engaged parents might need to be told with regards to trans-racial adoption.
The bigger problem particularly for White parents adopting Black children is getting them prepared to handle their child facing racism. Most Whites underestimate the amount of racism in the world, but having a Black child offers a rude awakening on that score. Knowing how to respond and give support to the child is absolutely essential, and is not something that necessarily comes naturally to White folks who do not experience racism daily.
All that being said, I recognize that there are dangers in raising screening requirements and onerous training burdens, and these shouldn't be overlooked. I merely want to raise the fact that these topics aren't as simple as we'd like, and problematize this lovely, idealistic notion that color-blind policy solves all ills.
A few years ago, I was at a meeting at the Black Student Union at Carleton where this precise issue was discussed. In fact, one of the students' parents worked at an adoption organization that specifically grappled with the issues of trans-racial adoption, and was very clear that it poses special problems under which parents might need a helping hand. One illustrative example, precisely because it is so mundane, has to do with hair-washing. The student mentioned that Black hair doesn't need to be washed everyday -- in fact, to do so is bad for the hair. Most people in the room (who were Black) nodded knowingly, but I was surprised -- it simply never occurred to me that hair-washing regimes would differ for straight versus kinky hair. And then he continued, as if he was talking about some exotic people, "apparently, White people need to wash there hair everyday," and now it was the Black students who looked surprised. It's no knock on any of us -- when's the last time you've thought to ask someone about how often they wash their hair? -- but it does illustrate the fact that there are things even well-meaning, engaged parents might need to be told with regards to trans-racial adoption.
The bigger problem particularly for White parents adopting Black children is getting them prepared to handle their child facing racism. Most Whites underestimate the amount of racism in the world, but having a Black child offers a rude awakening on that score. Knowing how to respond and give support to the child is absolutely essential, and is not something that necessarily comes naturally to White folks who do not experience racism daily.
All that being said, I recognize that there are dangers in raising screening requirements and onerous training burdens, and these shouldn't be overlooked. I merely want to raise the fact that these topics aren't as simple as we'd like, and problematize this lovely, idealistic notion that color-blind policy solves all ills.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Dreading Southern Maryland
A private school in Waldorf, Maryland (Charles County -- southeast of D.C.) has suspended a three-year old boy for wearing dreadlocks. The family is suing, alleging racial discrimination. Hairstyles are a surprisingly robust area of anti-discrimination studies, but I'm not really interested in the legal aspects of the case right now. While I think that the law should presumptively cover expressive elements of one's racial identity (a presumption that can be overruled, obviously), my understanding is that the current precedent isn't there yet. Unfortunate, but so it goes.
Rather, what I want to focus on is the school's dress regulation which the boy was cited as violating. It prohibits boys from wearing "extreme faddish hairstyles, including the use of rubber bands or the 'twisting' of hair." This is rather puzzling -- not because it's an unreasonable rule, but because I do not know how dreadlocks can accurately be labeled either "extreme" or "faddish." Dreadlocks have a long and distinguished history as a hairstyle -- it being particularly amenable to the type of kinky hair Black men and women tend to possess. They are neither new, nor strange, nor exotic, nor fleeting. They might, however, seem that way to a White schoolmaster, unaccustomed to how Black people's hair actually behaves (let alone the history of Black hairstyling). Like most other hair regimes, I've seen dreadlocks look very stylish and professional, and I've seen them look ugly and sloppy. But there is nothing intrinsic to them that makes it a worthwhile goal to ban them.
And that's what annoys me about cases like this. Without fail, the school responds to the controversy merely by blithely asserting how it has a "right" to establish a dress code. Certainly, it does, but that says nothing about whether this particular code (or application thereof) is intelligent. This is a dumb requirement. It is silly to ban three-year old kids from wearing dreadlocks, anymore than banning them from wearing pony tails. It's ridiculous to assert that dreads are "extreme" or "faddish". It's mean-spirited to kick a three-year old out of class for having the wrong hair. Charles County's Black population has exploded in recent years, and not all the local residents are pleased about it. When a school digs in and tries to defend a foolish rule that overwhelmingly affects its Black students, I start to wonder whether there isn't some latent hostility as well.
Rather, what I want to focus on is the school's dress regulation which the boy was cited as violating. It prohibits boys from wearing "extreme faddish hairstyles, including the use of rubber bands or the 'twisting' of hair." This is rather puzzling -- not because it's an unreasonable rule, but because I do not know how dreadlocks can accurately be labeled either "extreme" or "faddish." Dreadlocks have a long and distinguished history as a hairstyle -- it being particularly amenable to the type of kinky hair Black men and women tend to possess. They are neither new, nor strange, nor exotic, nor fleeting. They might, however, seem that way to a White schoolmaster, unaccustomed to how Black people's hair actually behaves (let alone the history of Black hairstyling). Like most other hair regimes, I've seen dreadlocks look very stylish and professional, and I've seen them look ugly and sloppy. But there is nothing intrinsic to them that makes it a worthwhile goal to ban them.
And that's what annoys me about cases like this. Without fail, the school responds to the controversy merely by blithely asserting how it has a "right" to establish a dress code. Certainly, it does, but that says nothing about whether this particular code (or application thereof) is intelligent. This is a dumb requirement. It is silly to ban three-year old kids from wearing dreadlocks, anymore than banning them from wearing pony tails. It's ridiculous to assert that dreads are "extreme" or "faddish". It's mean-spirited to kick a three-year old out of class for having the wrong hair. Charles County's Black population has exploded in recent years, and not all the local residents are pleased about it. When a school digs in and tries to defend a foolish rule that overwhelmingly affects its Black students, I start to wonder whether there isn't some latent hostility as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
