Earlier this year, a secondary five student, Nathan Lam Chak-chun, lodged a complaint to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) against Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Wong Fut Nam College, which was suspected of punishing him for having long hair. This case has sparked off intense discussion in the community, and has revealed many similar situations that have occurred for years at different secondary schools throughout Hong Kong. Punitive measures related to this issue include student demerits, forcefully cutting their hair, and barring them from school activities and campus. Narrowly speaking, it seems unlikely that restrictions based on hairstyle and dress code are reasonable. More broadly, the controversy regarding the reasonableness of school rules could be viewed as part of the debate on how to strike a balance between paternalistic intervention and granting students the right to choose.
Preserving Obsolete Rules Harms School Reputation
Nathan Lam believes that his purpose is based on freedom of choice for students, rather than introducing the Correctional Services Department’s practice of forcing all female prisoners to cut their hair short. In terms of dress-code issues in Hong Kong schools, the EOC, on behalf of a female teacher, eventually settled a case out of court. In this instance, the victim accepted an apology and received monetary compensation, as well as the promise of amending the teacher dress-code policy of that particular school. This case is influential because other schools have to follow the amendment or face the risk of being charged.
Many would agree that teachers should be role models to students. Given that wearing a dress or skirt is not a necessary requirement for female teachers, then it seems unreasonable to require female students to wear this type of clothing.
On July 22, 2022, in a Commercial Radio Hong Kong interview entitled “On a Clear Day,” Tang Fei, principal of Heung To Secondary School (Tseung Kwan O) and a vice-chairperson of Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers (HKFEW), offered at least three flawed arguments in an attempt to defend the logic of forcing male students to have short hair in secondary schools.
First, he claimed that “male students are sweat-prone,” which is an odd argument that ultimately lacks any sufficient evidence. After all, there are numerous examples of athletes of both sexes who have long hair and sweat more than average male students, but still manage to keep their hair clean.
Second, when Tang was asked why only females are allowed to have long hair, even though some of them sweat easily, he replied that males and females have psychological differences and thus should not be regulated by the same set of rules. Putting such a thought into practice highlights the widely discussed issue of gender stereotypes.
Third, Tang added that it is “unnecessary” to further discuss the justifiability of school rules regarding hairstyle restrictions, because such rules are already well established. Many schools in Hong Kong already expect their students to comply with their rules, regardless of whether they have participated in the process of constructing them, or whether they fully agree with them. In other interviews on the topic, the student interviewees recalled their teachers arrogantly telling them to follow school rules, such as saying “This is a school rule/an order! You should follow it!” and “You should quit the school if you don’t want to follow the rules!” However, these responses ignore the importance of explaining the reasonableness of school rules, and instead emphasizes the notion that school teachers have absolute power over students. Students’ noncompliance is regarded as disrespecting teachers and tarnishing the school’s reputation, which should be corrected through disciplinary action.
Certainly, some establishments have a dress-code. For instance, The Hong Kong Jockey Club has a minimum dress code for members to enter specific venues, and its official website does not explain the rationale behind it in detail. Some racing commentators have speculated that such rules are stipulated to differentiate the honorable identity of these members from ordinary people.
However, schools should not directly copy the rules of other organizations without justification, given that some institutions should uphold a certain level of tradition and cosmopolitan coexistence. The majority of secondary schools in Hong Kong have similar school rules. As such, even if a student chose to transfer to another school, it is very likely that she/he would be faced with the same problem. In other words, the impact of restricting a student’s hairstyle at school is widespread. It is thus important to examine whether this practice is reasonable from a public perspective.
Dr. Stanley Chung Chi-yuen, principal of Carmel Holy Word Secondary School and vice-president of the Hong Kong Society of Counselling and Psychology, published a commentary article in Ming Pao Daily News on July 29, 2022 arguing that the aim of restricting the hairstyle of male students is to delay their gratification by extrinsic motivation interventions. In doing so, their intrinsic motivation to follow school rules and their capacity for self-control can arguably be cultivated in the long run. However, this argument is flawed as it wrongly assumes that all male students want to have long hair. Furthermore, the means of delaying others’ gratification is not limited to forcing them to have short hair. During Hong Kong’s fifth wave of COVID-19, the HKSAR government suspended hair salons from doing business. During this period, thousands of people had little choice but to delay their gratification of cutting their hair shorter, while those who wanted to keep their hair long were less affected. It is thus unconvincing that requiring male students to keep their hairstyle short is fair and always effective to achieve the goal of delaying their gratification.
Admittedly, some may argue that granting secondary students’ freedom to choose their hairstyle without any restriction would be adversarial to their personal development as well as the future of society. This is because they might not have developed the capacity of exercising full autonomy yet. It is also possible that these students might become preoccupied with their hair, thus reducing their ability to concentrate at school, and developing the bad habit of spending luxuriously. Worse still, these expenses could be paid by their parents through pocket money. There are also some cases where parents ask teachers to help manage their child’s undesirable behaviors. If hairstyle restrictions are relaxed in schools, then it would be more difficult for teachers to assume their educational role. Additionally, some worry that giving full autonomy to students would pave the way for tolerating hair coloring and tattoos on the dermis layer of the skin.
The above counter-arguments favor a larger extent of paternalistic intervention in the name of promoting the good of students. Nonetheless, the moral justifiability and effectiveness of this type of intervention is often called into debate. Moreover, the application of this principle is not consistent. Let us consider the following example. It is well-known that eating snacks and fast food is not healthy. As such, allowing people to develop poor eating habits could arguably place a greater burden on the healthcare system. Some students might also spend more money on snacks and junk food. Therefore, does it make sense to prohibit all secondary school students from eating certain types of food on campus? It is a difficult question, one which Hong Kong and many other cities around the world have not tackled. Either way, it would be preposterous to cite reasons of public health and mental health to support hairstyle restrictions as these lack sufficient evidence.
Urgent Need to Abolish Unjust School Rules
It seems reasonable to mention that secondary schools (or the like) in many foreign countries also have school rules to restrict certain behaviors, such as banning students from using mobile phones or other electronic devices at certain times and under specific circumstances. It should also be highlighted that not every common practice in society should be allowed on school campus. For instance, it would be more difficult to justify browsing porn websites in secondary schools, even if the user is aged 18 or above. Nevertheless, if the construction and interpretation of school rules were not based on factual support, then it would impose bias and unfairness to students.
C. Nikolaidis and Winston C. Thompson, two scholars of education policy at The Ohio State University, published an article in the Harvard Educational Review titled “Breaking School Rules: The Permissibility of Student Noncompliance in an Unjust Educational System”. Their paper argued that students who are discriminated against by unjust school rules may choose to break them deliberatively (e.g., hairstyle violations), even if they are aware of possible disciplinary action. This is because they believe that the benefit of obedience is negligible within an unjust school environment, and they perceive that their sense of agency and self-respect can be preserved only by resisting the oppressive power embodied by the school (p. 215). In some situations, students who violate school rules are not the direct victims; they do so in an attempt to show their solidarity with those who are being oppressed.
Robert Thornberg, a Professor of Education at the Department of Behavioural Sciences, Linköping University, published an article in the Children & Society academic journal in 2008 titled “‘It’s Not Fair!’—Voicing Pupils’ Criticisms of School Rules”. His article argued that primary school students are mature enough to recognize that some teachers provide poor explanations of the rationale behind school rules, act as bad role models who break these rules with impunity, and intervene to impose punishment selectively or indiscriminately. Given the asymmetry of power between teachers and students, they are likely to respond with false acceptance and hidden criticism. This phenomenon may have existed for a long time, but can never be justified.
It is clear that the current restrictions on hairstyles and dress code in most of Hong Kong’s secondary schools are not justified. Unfortunately, the history of Asia shows that hairstyle restrictions are sometimes politically sensitive, which may be an obstacle for promoting the reform of school rules. In the Qing dynasty, emperors stipulated an edict policy named “Tifayifu” to enforce Han Chinese to either follow Manchu hairstyle and clothing or suffer from severe punishment. After the collapse of the Qing dynasty, revolutionaries sent troops to arrest those who were trying to preserve Manchu hairstyle and clothing. Moreover, hairstyle restrictions were occurred during the period of martial law in Taiwan between the second half of last century. It is also worth mentioning that North Korea punishes its citizens if they follow the hairstyles of South Korean celebrities. The main purpose of North Korea restricting hairstyles is to force its people to show absolute loyalty to leadership. If education policymakers and school management believe that cultivating students’ sense of absolute loyalty to their school is of utmost importance, then not only would the rules about hairstyle and dress code be preserved, but tighter rules would also be imposed.
An earlier Chinese version of this article titled “中學髮禁之辯” appeared in print on August 16, 2022 in Section A, Page 14 of the Hong Kong Economic Journal. This version adds more content.
（本網歡迎各界投稿，文章內容為作者個人意見，並不代表本網立場。）