Too hipster for school

pickarooney · 07-04-2016 06:14AM

The Amish are up in arms all over Twitter about this.

darkpagandeath · 07-04-2016 06:38AM

There tends to be gaps in stories like this, You know the fella being young. Probably the 5-6th time he's been told to shave it off. Only after repeated warnings I wager he was sent home. Unless he can grow that beard in 24 hours.

07-04-2016 06:43AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It might look bad but who cares. Denying education for no reason. I assume it's like that in most schools.

It's not denying education for no reason, it's imposing a sanction because a rule was broken. One may disagree with the rule, the sanction, criticise the Board of Management or teachers who made the rule but have the school performing so well. But they are entitled to make such rules, and indeed determine the sanctions. Just as employers are and do. Hopefully he'll come to his senses and learn a good lesson about life out of all this, and drop the silly "rush to social media playing hysterical victim card" routine.

pickarooney · 07-04-2016 06:54AM

It's a school that doesn't allow girls or non Catholics. Why on earth is that kind of discrimination not only permitted but encouraged and even praised? Talk about preparing kids for adult life...

theteal · 07-04-2016 06:57AM

I was wondering why he even mentioned the Amish in his rant. Then I looked at the link. That's a fine example of a fluffy ginger Amish beard.

Little CuChulainn · 07-04-2016 06:57AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's the need for such a rule I'm questioning in the first place. If said educators need rules on facial hair (and you have to question why) and are more concerned about enforcing them than they are about class and curriculum content, they are morons.

I don't know if he's a problem or not - there's no mention made of whether or not he studies and gets decent grades or not. Clearly not an issue.

Apart from a uniformity thing, I'd say it also grew out of a concern for hygiene and safety. It's a perfectly reasonable ruled that will be encountered in many workplaces.

sugarman wrote: »

I hate this attitude in schools.

Our principal would stand at the main entrance every single morning, pulling EVERYONE up for earings/piercings, beards, tattoos and non school items of clothing. Also, if he didnt like your choice of school shoes!

Generally anywhere between 20-30 students would be pulled aside each morning, some would comply, others wouldnt and be sent home. At a guess 5-10 per day. Which is a joke, because of appearance over their education.

Generally the people he would pull up, would be the quite type, usually "rockers" that do well in school and their studies. Yet there were plenty of scumbags disrupting classes and acting the bollox every day of the week he'd let get away with murder.

A lot these school rules and policies need to get updated and/or become more relaxed, especially where the student is a good student.

A schools code of practice and it's enforcement is the best way of demonstrating to children how the law works in adulthood. You might say it's at the expense of education but I consider it to be an important life lesson, especially in situations where this kind of lesson is missing at home. You break a rule you get punished. Simple and effective.

07-04-2016 07:00AM

pickarooney wrote: »

It's a school that doesn't allow girls or non Catholics. Why on earth is that kind of discrimination not only permitted but encouraged and even praised? Talk about preparing kids for adult life...

Acc to their wiki page, they have Protestant, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh students.

Might I ask your evidence for the assertion that they exclude non Catholics?

The all boys thing, as you are aware, is not uncommon. The assertion that they exclude people on religious grounds is, in this day and age, far more serious.

pickarooney · 07-04-2016 07:09AM

'It's not that uncommon' is not an excuse. It's retrograde. Do the Sikhs and Muslims have to comply with the no beards rule? And have to wear a cross?

07-04-2016 07:20AM

pickarooney wrote: »

'It's not that uncommon' is not an excuse. It's retrograde. Do the Sikhs and Muslims have to comply with the no beards rule? And have to wear a cross?

For clarification, are you retracting the assertion that they do not admit non Catholics?

Where are you getting this "do they have to wear a cross" thing? Is there some suggestion that they do or is this, again, completely made up by you?

pickarooney · 07-04-2016 07:24AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For clarification, are you retracting the assertion that they do not admit non Catholics?

Where are you getting this "do they have to wear a cross" thing? Is there some suggestion that they do or is this, again, completely made up by you?

It's on the first page of their school policy. All students required to wear the school crest, which is a cross, along with some other hypocritical guff about mutual respect and acceptance. I didn't see anything about Sikhs or Muslims.

Esel · 07-04-2016 07:24AM

"Stand by your principal's" my English teacher always thought me.

"Never beard the lying in his then" was also good advise.

"A good day to shave the hay" was a saying I often herd in my younger daze.

"I will in me erse" was a good sean-fhocal too. (sick)

darkpagandeath · 07-04-2016 07:37AM

pickarooney wrote: »

It's a school that doesn't allow girls or non Catholics. Why on earth is that kind of discrimination not only permitted but encouraged and even praised? Talk about preparing kids for adult life...

Try getting into a Muslim or Jewish academy/School for example.

pickarooney · 07-04-2016 07:40AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Try getting into a Muslim or Jewish academy/School for example.

Why on earth would I want to do that? Was I not clear in that I don't encourage sexual and religious discrimination?

darkpagandeath · 07-04-2016 07:42AM

pickarooney wrote: »

Why on earth would I want to do that? Was I not clear in that I don't encourage sexual and religious discrimination?

I was not agreeing with the segregation. Was pointing out it's not just a Christian/Catholic thing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-04-2016 08:32AM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But are the more concerned about enforcing the rule than teaching or is it just a case that there is a rule,he refused to follow it and he is being told to follow the rule or he can't attend.It's his own fault if his education suffers and nobody elses. Education is mainly down to the person being educated.

It doesn't matter whether there is a need for the rule or not there are dress codes rules everywhere when he gets out of school and the school have decided that there is going to be a dress code and he needs to comply with it whether he wants to or not.He's the problem in this situation not anyone else.

Education is not about teaching someone to obey rules for the sake of it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-04-2016 08:34AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Acc to their wiki page, they have Protestant, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh students.

Might I ask your evidence for the assertion that they exclude non Catholics?

The all boys thing, as you are aware, is not uncommon. The assertion that they exclude people on religious grounds is, in this day and age, far more serious.

That would be intetesring, becsuse Sikhs arent traditionally allowed to shave.

07-04-2016 08:38AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Education is not about teaching someone to obey rules for the sake of it.

But life is sometimes about agreeing with rules you agree to, and not unilaterally withdrawing from them, from agreeing to enter a school knowing their rules, to participating in society with laws laid down authority, to the small print in the employment contract you signed, and accepting that there can be consequences for suddenly deciding to break them.

Aongus Von Heisenberg · 07-04-2016 09:03AM

Isn't a beard just the late teens early twenties uniform now anyway?

This kid isn't challenging any status-quo, he's just slavishly following a different dress-code from the one in his school rules and defaming those who won't change the rules to accommodate him by calling them racists.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-04-2016 09:14AM

Deleted User wrote: »

But life is sometimes about agreeing with rules you agree to, and not unilaterally withdrawing from them, from agreeing to enter a school knowing their rules, to participating in society with laws laid down authority, to the small print in the employment contract you signed, and accepting that there can be consequences for suddenly deciding to break them.

Again, there is a massive difference between rules and laws. In adult life, you have a choice where rules are concerned, we don't with laws. There is no authority that laws down laws about appearance.

Now if he explicitly agreed to obey said rules (and not his parents on his behalf) and then chose to flaunt them, you'd have a point.

07-04-2016 09:59AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again, there is a massive difference between rules and laws. In adult life, you have a choice where rules are concerned, we don't with laws. There is no authority that laws down laws about appearance.

Now if he explicitly agreed to obey said rules (and not his parents on his behalf) and then chose to flaunt them, you'd have a point.

He is of an age where his guardians can agree on his behalf. It seems like they have. Perhaps he should take up his beef with them.

The distinction between rules and laws does not help his case at all. There are plenty of authorities that lay down rules about appearance, from a Church saying "no one in swim wear" to an employer saying "wear a uniform" to a school saying the exact same thing. None of them are laws, they are simply rules, and if you and I (or someone with legal authority on our behalf, such as an agent or, in the case of a minor, a guardian) accepts those rules, there are consequences for unilaterally breaking them. Not serious consequences, as may come with breaking laws, but removal from the Church, the place of work, the school etc. Which is precisely what has happened here.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-04-2016 10:15AM

Deleted User wrote: »

He is of an age where his guardians can agree on his behalf. It seems like they have. Perhaps he should take up his beef with them.

Agreed on that point.

The distinction between rules and laws does not help his case at all. There are plenty of authorities that lay down rules about appearance, from a Church saying "no one in swim wear" to an employer saying "wear a uniform" to a school saying the exact same thing. None of them are laws, they are simply rules, and if you and I (or someone with legal authority on our behalf, such as an agent or, in the case of a minor, a guardian) accepts those rules, there are consequences for unilaterally breaking them. Not serious consequences, as may come with breaking laws, but removal from the Church, the place of work, the school etc. Which is precisely what has happened here.

I agree - as long as the student has the choice to attend another school. If we use the "real life" analogy; then we, in real life, have choices. No one dictates to us. We can change job, leave churches, even move to different countries in real life if we don't like the rules of society. (And I'm not saying "laws" created by a government, which serve a completely different purpose to "rules" of society).

But again, my point is: should the school be more focused on educating and stimulating students, or just instilling a belief that all rules should be obeyed mindless without questioning the authority. If it's the later, I'd argue that they are not educating at all, and I'd also question the moral being taught to young adults in a country that sells itself on the ideal of a bright, well-educated young workforce.

TL-DR - is a bright, well-educated young workforce simply one that doesn't question?

"They want you just bright enough to operate the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enought to passively accept it."
- George Carlin

MilesMorales1 · 07-04-2016 10:21AM

Our vice principal used to keep disposal razors in his office and force lads who weren't clean shaven to shave in the school bathrooms without foam or nothing. This lad needs to cop onto himself frankly.

darkpagandeath · 07-04-2016 10:23AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Agreed on that point.

I agree - as long as the student has the choice to attend another school. If we use the "real life" analogy; then we, in real life, have choices. No one dictates to us. We can change job, leave churches, even move to different countries in real life if we don't like the rules of society. (And I'm not saying "laws" created by a government, which serve a completely different purpose to "rules" of society).

But again, my point is: should the school be more focused on educating and stimulating students, or just instilling a belief that all rules should be obeyed mindless without questioning the authority. If it's the later, I'd argue that they are not educating at all, and I'd also question the moral being taught to young adults in a country that sells itself on the ideal of a bright, well-educated young workforce.

TL-DR - is a bright, well-educated young workforce simply one that doesn't question?

"They want you just bright enough to operate the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enought to passively accept it."
- George Carlin

How would you imagine he will be paying for that then ? Considering his parents put him in this one and are the guardians that signed him up to the rules ?

Little CuChulainn · 07-04-2016 11:01AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Agreed on that point.

I agree - as long as the student has the choice to attend another school. If we use the "real life" analogy; then we, in real life, have choices. No one dictates to us. We can change job, leave churches, even move to different countries in real life if we don't like the rules of society. (And I'm not saying "laws" created by a government, which serve a completely different purpose to "rules" of society).

But again, my point is: should the school be more focused on educating and stimulating students, or just instilling a belief that all rules should be obeyed mindless without questioning the authority. If it's the later, I'd argue that they are not educating at all, and I'd also question the moral being taught to young adults in a country that sells itself on the ideal of a bright, well-educated young workforce.

TL-DR - is a bright, well-educated young workforce simply one that doesn't question?

"They want you just bright enough to operate the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enought to passively accept it."
- George Carlin

Why is it you think a person can't be bright just because they have to learn that they are bound by certain rules, whether it be rules set out by the law or by your first work contract. Schools play a much larger role in kids education than simply the academic portion.

You ask why can't students be stimulated? Was this kid not stimulated by his run in with the rules? He tried to start a bit of a campaign. Unfortunately he obviously isn't the brightest and his reasoning was pretty poor but he was still motivated by his conflict. I wonder what kind of students schools would produce if they were solely academic and afforded
them all the freedoms they wish. I'd imagine they'd be the kind of kids you see these days in college demanding safe spaces from opposing opinions or impolite people.

07-04-2016 11:02AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But again, my point is: should the school be more focused on educating and stimulating students, or just instilling a belief that all rules should be obeyed mindless without questioning the authority.

It's surely not an either/or, as is demonstrated by the point made earlier that this school apparently ranks amongst the highest in the country. They seem to be able to impart both education and the need to comply with rules very successfully indeed, presumably for hundreds of other students. Furthermore, is there really a suggestion that he cannot question the rules? I am not aware that they have sought to censor his questions.

darkpagandeath · 07-04-2016 11:03AM

I'm still waiting for someone to broach him being told a good few times to shave, His beard did not grow in a day.

VinLieger · 07-04-2016 11:05AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again, there is a massive difference between rules and laws. In adult life, you have a choice where rules are concerned, we don't with laws. There is no authority that laws down laws about appearance.

Now if he explicitly agreed to obey said rules (and not his parents on his behalf) and then chose to flaunt them, you'd have a point.

Why are his parents not allowed agree to him obeying the rules?

El_Duderino 09 · 07-04-2016 11:15AM

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote:

I don't think I agree with the school demanding that he shave it off or the principals childish comment about the Amish but if I were his father he would be shaving it off before I'd let him out of the house and not because I don't think a 16 year old should have a beard but because I wouldn't want people saying/ lthinking 'look at that wanker with the beard' about my son which is probably what I would think if I seen someone else his age with one besides its a ridiculous looking beard anyway plus it's ginger which adds to the ridiculousness factor ten-fold.

Harsh. Some of the most serious people on the world, and within our culture, have facial hair. Including senior government ministers snd business leaders. It's a very mixed message to tell children 'don't focus on outward beauty but shave off that ugly ginger beard, it's making me sick just looking at you'.

Maximus Alexander · 07-04-2016 11:15AM

A friend of mine had this exact same problem back in secondary school, 12+ years ago at this stage. He started to grow facial hair very young, IIRC when we were in 5th class he already had the beginnings of a moustache. Our secondary school also had a clean-shaven rule, but it wasn't really enforced until we got a new principal in 4th year I believe. At this stage, facial hair had been a permanent fixture on his face for several years and was part of his identity. It wasn't bumfluff, nor a wild raggedy mess. It was a normal, well-groomed beard.

He started to take a lot of flak from the new principal over it and, ultimately, despite otherwise being a model student he was suspended for refusing to shave it. He wasn't allowed to return to school until it was gone. It wasn't a hipster thing with him, the beard was just part of who he was and it felt completely wrong and unnatural for him to have to remove it.

Despite slagging him relentlessly (obviously), I agreed with his position. It was a part of his body that grew naturally on his face. It didn't interfere with his education, nor that of any other student. To make such a big deal of it, such that it culminated in actual suspension and interfered with his education, seemed awfully small-minded and childish on the school's part. You might say it was childish on his part too, to risk his education over this, but he had an excuse; he was a child!

Within a couple of weeks it had grown back anyway, and he spent the next two years taking longer routes to class in order to dodge the principal in the hallways.

07-04-2016 11:34AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

To make such a big deal of it, such that it culminated in actual suspension and interfered with his education, seemed awfully small-minded and childish on the school's part. You might say it was childish on his part too, to risk his education over this, but he had an excuse; he was a child!

But in that example, clearly the school changed policy...or at the very least their policy of not enforcing a policy.

In this one, not sure there is a suggestion that there was a tradition or precedent or custom of accepting it.

Too hipster for school

Comments