It’s not just about hair

Dear Editor,

I write this letter to you and the public with the same levels of gall and audacity that the Catholic School Board of Sint Maarten wrote in their response to the Minister of ECYS regarding the Hair legislation. The reason I state that SKOS has the resounding audacity to do such, it's because as a product of their “prized” secondary institution, I found the letter to be laughably outrageous, and disingenuous but a true reflection of how they operate.

I felt vindicated.

Vindicated in my constant cries and complaints from the time I walked up those stairs in 1st form to the time I said good riddance in 5th. The letter proved me correct. SKOS cares about one thing and one thing only, their image.

If you haven't read the letter yet, I encourage all to do so. In the seven page document, the authors of this audacious piece of literature, argued that they would not implement the new hair policy because it goes against Catholicism and the standards for biblical hair.

Yes, you read that right, they said biblical hair.

Editor, I laughed. Because what is even biblical hair? In the letter they cite their definition of biblical hair from 1 Corinthians 11: 14-15 which states: 𝘋𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘺? 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨. I particularly have a peeve for the bastardization of scripture and using it outside of context. This was one of the many letters the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians where he was analyzing how they lived their lives at the time to what he believed goes against living for God. 1 Corinthians 11 has been deemed as one of the most complicated scripture to be interpreted by many theologians. Using such text to deem why you can’t adhere to a government policy is not only outrageous but as I said in my opening paragraph, audacious. The idea of “biblical hair” is disingenuous. History shows us that hair was reflected differently amongst the various cultural groups during said times. Wasn’t Jesus from Nazareth, a place where men usually had their hair longer?

It also made me reflect on my time at the school. Is hosting an annual bingo to raise funds biblical? Is going against the country’s constitution and mandating that students pay school fees biblical? Is the initiation process that 1st formers and other new students do at the beginning of the year with a mixture of aloes and honey (one drop of honey I may say, I was a part of the process in 5th form) biblical? Is pushing all the accusations of sexual assault and other inappropriate relationships teachers (both men and women) have with students under the rug biblical? Allowing said teachers to find other jobs at other institutions because you didn’t address the issue? Is that biblical? I can ask so many more questions based on the behaviors of SKOS if it’s biblical. However, that letter wasn’t written because of the hair policy. Oh no, it’s because SKOS realized that their bubble that fostered classism, racism and all other forms of discrimination is about to burst. In their letter, under the subsection problematic racial categorization, they stated the following:

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 “𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵.” 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘵𝘰 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘺? 𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰? 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘹𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴? 𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢, 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴?

𝘐𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦.

Le me tell ayu something about da last paragraph, yes. I had to laugh! Here is a quick story to immediately trump their claims of upholding non-discrimination principles. I remember one day I was sitting in my accounting class, and the Black boys in my class were complaining on how the administration was consistently on their case to cut off their hair. This was during the time where it was trendy to have a high fade, and do the little twists at the end. At this point, the boys were annoyed and exhausted with the conversation. What does their hair have to do with them learning how to balance a balance sheet? It was in that classroom where another example of the school’s hypocrisy was highlighted. Sitting in front of us was a white Dutch boy, whose hair was long enough to be pulled back into a pony tail. He was asked if anyone told him he had to cut his hair, and his response was no. How was his flowing hair not a problem but the guy's hair cut was? An immediate outrage unfolded. I clearly remembered them telling the administration until he cut his hair, they wouldn’t cut theirs. The following week, the Dutch boy showed up with his hair cut.

Is this not an example of racial categorization, even without said hair policy? How was it possible that non-black students were allowed to come to school with different hair colors and highlights, but if I wanted to mix my 1B braiding hair with a little blonde or brown, I would be punished? This translated with who could’ve gotten away with piercings, tattoos, and any other things that would “break the rules.” So please, do not pretend all of a sudden you care about discriminatory practices.

No, you care about the fact that this shines light on how you treat your students. How you force them to conform to a certain identity and image under the guise of a Catholic Education. Do you remember how you treated two graduating classes of your secondary institution because they were mostly middle and lower income Black students? Or how you’d dismiss all their concerns and worries, and try to only highlight the “good students” and send the “good students” to be representatives of the institution? Or how it was decided that there only needed one valedictorian after years of awarding two, one for business package and one for science package, so the Black girl wouldn’t get the award, but the Indian boy did? Or how it was decided that the high school diploma’s were handed to us in pink plastic folders that were purchased at the Dollar Store on L.B. Scott Road? Or how our awards were printed on regular letter sized printing paper? Not even cardstock? Or how you implemented stricter rules and curbed self expression throughout the school from uniform dress code to how assembly was held? Or how you would initiate witch hunts if a student unfortunately was sick on a day we had mass? Or when students complain about predatory behaviors, teachers were allowed to disappear and reappear with no real life consequences? I can go on and on and on and on. But this isn’t about the hair policy. It is about control. It’s about holding on to power that is rooted in white supremacy.

This is also our and previous governments faults. We put the power of education in the hands of subsidized school boards. We never implemented rigorous checks and balances to ensure that these institutions are being held accountable. School boards have done whatever they want to do with our tax dollars, because they can. Now that there is an effort to regulate such, SKOS believes that they are bigger than the program. This is a wake up call. And to those who are using this moment to say why the hair policy and not the other issues that are plaguing our schools? It is all connected. I dare you to ask SKOS about their biblical view on special needs.

Signed,

A disgruntled alumni of the SKOS secondary institution

‍