Letter of the Day | Why are we still locking out students for grooming infractions?

THE EDITOR, Madam:

On September 8, most schools reopened with students eager to return to classrooms for the start of a new academic year. With the recent improvements in CSEC and CAPE results, the hope is that next year will bring even greater academic success, particularly in mathematics and English.

Yet, for some students, that hope was cut short before they even crossed the school gate. Reports surfaced of children being denied entry because of hairstyles deemed ‘inappropriate’ or pants considered ‘too tight’. While school rules are often justified as instilling discipline and structure, we must ask: What is the true cost of enforcing them with an iron fist?

Former Education Minister Fayval Williams and the current minister, Dana Morris Dixon, have both repeatedly urged administrators not to lock out students for grooming infractions. Despite this, the practice persists. The ministry’s School Grooming Guidelines lack the necessary enforcement power, and as a result, children continue to suffer exclusions that are both harmful and unnecessary.

The late Frantz Fanon, in The Wretched of the Earth, cautioned against the mimicry of colonial ideals by native institutions, noting the inability “to carry on two-sided discussion” when thought is confined by colonial constructs. Grooming rules in Jamaican schools are remnants of that colonial inheritance — disproportionately affecting Black children and especially targeting natural hair and cultural expression.

I can personally attest to this, having attended two traditional and prestigious all-girls institutions, where certain rules were enforced with such severity that they warranted a ‘home order’ as a form of discipline. The question remains: Does “rules are rules” make such practices just? Or are we simply reproducing outdated, discriminatory standards under the guise of discipline?

From a legal standpoint, these rules are vulnerable. They would likely fail the proportionality test under the Oakes framework, as they cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Jamaica, as a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, has pledged to guarantee every child the right to education, dignity, and protection from discrimination. Lockouts for grooming infractions fly in the face of these obligations.

To bar a child from learning because of hair or clothing is to deny them opportunity, dignity, and justice. None but ourselves can free our minds and our schools from this outdated thinking.

AFRICKA STEPHENS

Attorney-in-waiting

Executive Founder of Fi We

Children Foundation

astephens@fiwechildren.org