Banning the dreadlocks

WITH the disturbing level of indiscipline in our schools, we fully understand why many principals insist on the strict observance by students of rules, regulations and codes of dress and conduct. Still, in enforcing such compliance, principals must be careful of the decisions they make, weighing whether the infringement they object to is so disruptive as to justify denying the student admission to the school and possibly the educational opportunity he or she has merited.

The need to maintain discipline is clearly the reason why the principal of St Charles High School Sister Adrianna Noel has refused to accept 12-year-old Kalifa Logan who wears a “dreadlocks” hairstyle. In denying Kalifa, a government-sponsored student, of a place at St Charles, however, the principal, it seems to us has erred not only on the side of good order but also in not accepting the guidance of precedence in such issues. According to Sister Adrianna, dreadlocks hairstyles had become a trend among students at St Charles and, as a result, the school has had to clamp down “on such behaviour.” While the principal’s policy for keeping good order must be respected, we fail to see how the wearing of dreadlocks by students can represent in itself a threat to the level of discipline at the school. Is it her experience that students with dreadlocks have been troublemakers, poor learners, bad influences at St Charles or is it that the hairstyle common among persons of the Rastafarian faith is simply not welcome in a private Catholic school?

In any case, why the clampdown now? Sr Adrianna does not say, but she insists that dreadlocks had become a “disciplinary problem” and, as a private institution, St Charles reserves the right to determine who should be admitted and who should not. To a large extent she may well be correct in holding such a view, but it seems to us that the hijab precedent of eight years ago has placed some legal limits on that right. We refer to the case of Common Entrance student Sumayyah Mohammed who was refused entry into Holy Name Convent because she insisted on wearing the hijab, a headcovering required by her Muslim faith. The objections to Sumayyah were practically the same as those raised by St Charles against Kalifa. The convent held that people who manage the schools must have the authority to make the rules and to enforce them. Sister Paul D’Ornellas, representing Holy Name, pointed out that schools had built up over time certain practices which ensure effective management. “They become a living tradition and the wearing of  uniforms is one of these management practices that make for sound discipline.”

The value of such an argument is a fact of experience and, as a general contention, it can hardly be refuted. However, such rules cannot override the rights granted to citizens under the constitution, including the right to practise their religious beliefs. This, in fact, is essentially the winning submission made by Sumayyah’s attorneys in her judicial review motion before the Hgh Court which, in its judgment, ordered that she be permitted to wear a specially tailored hijab that would conform to the school uniform, as suggested by her parents. In the light of this case, the best solution to Kalifa’s problem at St Charles seems to suggest itself. The school, instead of insisting on a denial that may be unconstitutional, should confer with her parents to decide on an acceptable styling for her dreadlocks, ensuring that they are kept neat and tidy. Could not such a compromise save the day?