Jamaican Supreme Court Rules that School Policy Banning Dreadlocks is not Unconstitutional- A Reflection on Emancipation Day

As reported by the Washington Post, the Jamaican Supreme Court ruled Friday that a school was within its rights to demand that a girl cut her dreadlocks to attend classes, a surprise decision that touched on issues of identity and one the most recognizable symbols of the island’s Rastafarian culture. The ruling capped a two-year battle after the girl — then 5 years old — was told she must cut her dreadlocks for “hygiene” reasons to study at Kensington Primary School in a Kingston suburb.

A bit ironically, the court’s decision was released on the eve of Emancipation Day.

When I read the news, I was both incensed and hurt by the court’s ruling especially since I recently did a post on natural hair discrimination. It was even more hurtful considering the historical significance of today as Emancipation Day.

In my previous post “Unapologetic: Why We Should Advocate for Natural Hair,” I spoke of the long history of U.S. judicial apathy for recognizing natural hair or dreadlocks as warranting protection under the law from discriminatory work and school policies. I expected more from my own nation, the land of my descendants and the land which, unlike the United States, does have a population where the majority is of African descent. Where the judges are, invariably, black people. The judgement reinforced to me that our own people can reinforce biases and discriminatory practices that have long been instilled in us from when our nation was a colony. I wondered at all if the Justices found persuasive (whether directly or indirectly) U.S. precedent denying natural hair/locks protection from discrimination under the law. I wondered if the fact that the parents do not identify as Rastafari had anything to do with the decision. If it is being argued that the school’s policy is unconstitutional because it infringes on the freedom of religion, not being Rastafarian may negate claiming the school’s policy interferes with freedom of religion.

The positive from this is that the Prime Minister of Jamaica, Andrew Holness, quickly denounced discrimination against children for their hairstyles, releasing a statement that read in part “This Government does not believe that there should be any law which could be interpreted to deny access to a citizen merely on the basis of their hairstyle. We…always maintained that our children must not be discriminated against, nor deprived of their right to education because of socio-economic issues such as their hairstyle.”

The statement also went on to acknowledge that the Government would review the Education Act to reflect a more “modern and culturally inclusive” position.

The response of the Prime Minister was a reassuring stance. The public’s response is also reassuring with the ruling being widely condemned on social media.

With Mr. Holness’s reference to the Education Act, again we see the judiciary’s failure to acknowledge natural hair discrimination. Rather than being addressed by the courts, we are needing legislation as band-aids for the court to even acknowledge this issue. For example I mentioned in my previous post, the introduction of the Crown Act in seven states to combat hair discrimination against people of African descent in the U.S.

All we can do now is await the full judgement to understand the court’s reasoning. Until the full judgment is released, we can only speculate as to the court’s reasoning but regardless of the reasoning, we can still be disappointed by and speak out against the result.

What are your thoughts on the court’s final verdict?

Connect with me on social media, Instagram @nadianhowe or clicking the social media icons on the page!