In the midst of a recurring national debate about hairstyles and their acceptance in the classroom, Harold Lovell says the most important thing is the right of a child to receive an education, and this right should not be taken away due to hairstyle or hair length.
“This is 2022, not 1922, and we need to get with the times. Back then, there might have been concerns about hair length and hygiene; but today those concerns are no longer relevant,” the Political Leader of the United Progressive Party (UPP) says.
He believes the same rule should apply to all students regardless of the schools they attend: That hair should be clean and groomed regardless of length.
“This is not a new issue. In the 70s and 80s there was resistance by some to the Afro hairstyle,” Lovell recalls. “We overcame that and should not turn back the hands of time.”
Lovell, an attorney, notes that the matter of dreadlocks – the hairstyle traditionally worn by members of the Rastafarian faith – was litigated more than two decades ago.
He refers to the groundbreaking 1997 case of Franklyn Francis vs the Attorney General, in which he defended the late sportscaster known widely as King Frank-I.
“The High Court has recognized the Rastafari faith as a religion and, as such, [followers] are entitled to the protection of the Constitution,” Lovell says.
“The growing of locks is an important part of the identity of the faith. [Hence], there should be no discrimination against members of the Rastafari faith,” he adds.
He acknowledges that private institutions have the right to set their rules and standards; “but the Constitution is the highest law of the land and must be obeyed by all,” Lovell concludes.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
The question appears to be WHY did the school reject the dreadlocks? Was it for hygiene reasons or religious reasons? If it was for religious reasons then both the Adventists and the Rastafari would be protected by the constitution. So, Mr. Lovell’s statements about the constitution being most important haven’t really addressed the situation completely.
How would the Constitution protect the Adventist? The Constitution says that you cannot discriminate against any one because of their religious beliefs. The Adventist is the one allegedly discriminating against the Rastafarian because of their hair style which is part of their religious belief system.
Well, forcing a school to have a rule contrary to their beliefs in order to operate would be discriminatory, wouldn’t it?
Perhaps the Ministry, private schools and Rastafari could all sit down and discuss the issue with an open mind and then craft new education regulations that all agree to. Perhaps the relevant private schools would not have a problem changing their rules to allow for locks if consulted nicely?
Our people who once weren’t allowed to get an education because of their skin colour now stopping their own people from learning because of the hair on their head….and i’ve heard facial hair to be a problem now too…RIDICULOUS!!!
Lovell you are irrelevant. The Cabinet has already made their position clear. Doesn’t matter what you have to say.
Only now Lovell, sit your ass down and shot up you missed the bus.
Trust Harold to always be a day late and a dollar short. I returned to Antigua in 2005, during the UPP administration. At the time, my son had never cut his hair and the present Durector of Education was then the Principal at the Antigua Grammar School (AGS). I was told that he had to cut his hair to attend AGS. I remember my son bawling and saying that he no longer wanted to live in Antigua.
The thing that bothers me about the hair policy (or lack thereof) is that the rules differ depending on which school a student attends. Had my son gone to PMS or Clare Hall, he could have styled his hair in a ponytail or what ever made him happy. Meanwhile, in the same government system, his hair could not be more that half-inch (I think) at AGS.
The whole thing is pure nonsense, and neither of the two major political parties should make any pronouncements – because neither did anything when they had a chance.
Comments are closed.