Today, anything that DEI Democrats or social justice warriors do not agree with is automatically deemed racist. Look no further than a recent post on X by author and social justice activist Keith Boykin. He cried racism over a recent court ruling that upheld a Texas school district’s dress and grooming policy.
The case focused on Darryl George, a black student at the high school in Barbers Hill School District who wanted to wear his hair “in tied and twisted locs on top of his head.” The district claimed George’s hair violated its dress and grooming policy; it suspended him when he refused to adhere to it. A lawsuit was filed over the suspension, and a Texas state district court ruled last week that the district’s hair and grooming policy was not discriminatory, the Associated Press reported.
“A Texas judge has ruled that a school district can force Darryl George to cut his natural locs, despite the state’s CROWN Act that prohibits hairstyle discrimination,” Boykin posted. “This is anti-Blackness in a country that they keep telling us has never been racist.”
Except, no, it’s not anti-blackness, it’s equality. Nevertheless, many social justice warriors and others on the Left, such as Boykin, were outraged that a black student would have to follow the same rules and guidelines as students of every other race in the district. They cried racism. But a careful look at the district’s grooming standards shows, as usual, claims of racism were untrue.
Consider the actual policy, not the revisionist claims of left-wingers and social justice activists such as Boykin. It states hair must be “neat, clean, and well groomed.” It prohibits “geometric or unusual patterns (including Mohawks) shaved or cut in the hair.” It also restricts “unnatural color or color variation,” hairstyles that feature designs “beyond a single straight direction.” It also bans “ponytails or tails” and stipulates that a boy’s hair must not “extend below the eyebrows, ear lobes, or below the top of a t-shirt collar.”
The hair policy is unquestionably restrictive. However, it focuses on having the school’s male students neat and well-groomed. Furthermore, the policy prohibits wild or long hair (such as “tails” mentioned above) that apply to all students, regardless of race.
Dr. Wilfred Reilly, author, political scientist, and professor at Kentucky State University, a historically black college and university, agrees with the ruling.
“This seems like an absolutely standard policy that almost every male has seen from a coach or a principal: ‘No Afros, hippie long hair, mullets, etc.,’” Reilly told me. “It would seem to ban all or almost all of those things, plus Mohawks. We can’t have team or school policies that let ONLY black guys not cut their hair.”
Larry Elder, a former presidential candidate, gubernatorial candidate, lawyer, radio, talk show, and podcast host, agreed.
“I can certainly understand why the student, his parents, and others see no problem with his hairstyle. But the school’s objection is certainly not ‘racist,’ as Boykin says,” Elder told me. “Boykin argues, ‘This is anti-Blackness in a country that they keep telling us has never been racist.’ Sigh. For crying out loud, who says the country ‘has never been racist?’ I’d be interested to know the racial composition of the school administration.”
He also touched on the real systemic issues affecting black students in schools. As one may have guessed, it has nothing to do with hairstyles.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Finally, in a country where 85% of black eighth graders can neither read nor write at grade level, the last thing I would worry about is a young black man’s hairstyle,” Elder said. “And it’s counterproductive to teach a young black man that a good faith objection to his hairstyle is tantamount to ‘anti-Blackness in a country that they keep telling us has never been racist.’ Is Boykin as upset about the fact that there are 13 public high schools in Baltimore, all in the inner city, where 0% of the kids can do math at a grade level? Where is the outrage about that?”
As Elder and Reilly noted, there’s nothing racist about this policy. Any objective person would agree that the policy, while very restrictive, applies to students of all races. Any outrage or hysteria over it is just typical left-wing performative politics. George’s defenders wanted special priorities and privileges, not equality. It’s part of the DEI Democrats’ contemporary political strategy to distract and deflect from issues that real issues matter. They use race because that’s all they have.
