His hairstyle is “commonly or historically associated with race”, so it’s covered under the crown act. His hair was in a very common style with a long association with his race for centuries. The law doesn’t allow for discrimination for typical hairstyles, it doesn’t give any leeway to discriminate if the superintendent thinks it should be shorter.
He says it’s about the hair length and the crown act doesn’t cover length.
I wonder if he sees children arguing on the playground and is intimidated by their playground argument logic?
His hairstyle is “commonly or historically associated with race”, so it’s covered under the crown act. His hair was in a very common style with a long association with his race for centuries. The law doesn’t allow for discrimination for typical hairstyles, it doesn’t give any leeway to discriminate if the superintendent thinks it should be shorter.
Oh absolutely, thanks for the clarification. His logic just struck me as childish and I was tickled by a principal with childish logic.