![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearbased on this article about a muslim family suing a school system for not letting their daughter cover her head as required by their faith...
my thoughts is that its yet another example of the wrongness of the blanket absolutes, zero-tolerance and such insincere attempts to have all children treated equally.
if boys can't wear baseball caps at school, why should a muslim girl be allowed wear a head-scarf, or a jewish boy wear the cap (whatever its called)?
if they can't enforce a regulation uniformly (yes, i *meant* that word), the regulation has no bite when kids start complaining to parents and discriminiation lawsuits get filed.
in other words, when it comes to the "hats" issue, schools are in a no-win situation. allow some and they must allow all for face a lawsuit; deny all and they face a lawsuit.
better stupid clothing regulations be hanged. baseball caps and slogans on t-shirts are not a distraction: the *enforcement* of the regulation is the distraction. if they didn't concern themselves with that crap, the kids wouldn't be so intent on pushing teachers/administrators buttons and might actually instead pay attention in class.
my thoughts is that its yet another example of the wrongness of the blanket absolutes, zero-tolerance and such insincere attempts to have all children treated equally.
if boys can't wear baseball caps at school, why should a muslim girl be allowed wear a head-scarf, or a jewish boy wear the cap (whatever its called)?
if they can't enforce a regulation uniformly (yes, i *meant* that word), the regulation has no bite when kids start complaining to parents and discriminiation lawsuits get filed.
in other words, when it comes to the "hats" issue, schools are in a no-win situation. allow some and they must allow all for face a lawsuit; deny all and they face a lawsuit.
better stupid clothing regulations be hanged. baseball caps and slogans on t-shirts are not a distraction: the *enforcement* of the regulation is the distraction. if they didn't concern themselves with that crap, the kids wouldn't be so intent on pushing teachers/administrators buttons and might actually instead pay attention in class.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 11:15 am (UTC)Contrast this with the article linked to the bottom of *that* article -- the one about the lady who would not remove her veil for her drivers license photo. In that case, the judge ruled that the lady *must* remove her hijab for the photo, but the woman and her husband are appealing on the grounds of "religious discrimination". In that particular case, it's a flawed stand they are taking -- the same page has a sidebar showing the policies of drivers license photos for women in muslim countries -- and in each instance, the woman MUST remove her veil for the photo.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 11:36 am (UTC)yes, its a "no hats or hoods" inside the building, which makes no allowances for religious requirements. its a double-edged sword. make allowances for specific religions and (like the pledge) get sued for discrimination against non-practitioners, or sued by christians for favoritism. don't make allowances for specific religions and you get sued by them for direct discrimination and prejudice.
better still to just get rid of the absolutist no-hats policy altogether. colleges do that and nobody really complains...