House rules

We keep hearing it: if a school has "house rules", outsiders should stay out, if you do not like the rules, go somewhere else. It sounds tidy, it is not that simple.

First, schools do not live outside the law. Any school that is registered and regulated by the country must follow national standards on equality. Globally, governments have tried the same approach that St. Maarten’s Minister of Education used with SKOS. She gave them the opportunity to begin aligning with pending legislation, even easing certain requirements. SKOS chose, like many before them, to resist. So be it. Now the law must provide its full protections. House rules can set uniforms and routines, but they cannot override basic rights. When a rule singles out a group in practice, the problem lies with the rule, not the child.

Second, on a small island, choice is not truly free. Seats are few, quality varies, and academic plans often tie students to certain schools. Telling a family to leave because a child wears natural hair is not neutral, it is a penalty on the student.

Third, the impact here is not neutral. Policies that police afros, locs, braids, twists, Bantu knots, or other protective styles fall heaviest on Black children. For many, these styles are not fashion, they are how natural hair stays healthy. The message sent is clear, conform to a narrow look or risk exclusion. That echoes a long history in which Black hair was controlled to enforce assimilation and social order. Colonial laws and school codes once measured respectability by how closely a person hid or altered their natural features. Repeating that logic in 2025, even with polite language, is discrimination by another name.

Fourth, the faith argument does not settle it. Moral formation can teach modesty, respect, and responsibility without dictating inches of hair or reclassifying cultural hairstyles as religious symbols to be banned. Schools can be Catholic or Christian and still be fair. Protecting dignity is not a threat to doctrine.

This is why the familiar slogan, house rules or leave, fails. It treats rights like canteen options and ignores who carries the cost. It also overlooks the simple fact that the government has a duty to prevent discrimination in any school it authorizes. The board’s recent letter has, in truth, given the Minister of Education a clear brief. Use this moment to tighten the bill on hair discrimination. Make it specific, workable, and enforceable.

Excusing discrimination as "house rules" asks children to carry an old burden so adults can avoid a hard conversation. Some people obviously still cannot connect the dots, which is especially troubling in a Caribbean society shaped by slavery and its afterlives.

We can do better. Set fair rules, protect every child’s dignity, keep school focused on learning.

‍