Editorial | Unequivocal stance needed on hair length

Despite years of public education and law enforcement, sexual stereotypes and discrimination are still commonplace in many fields. More often than not, dresses remain the norm for female uniforms, while men are not expected to wear long hair. The fight against gender bias is regrettably still a work in progress in the city.

This is not the first time preferential rules for different sexes have been challenged. In late 2020, the city’s highest court ruled in favour of activist Leung Kwok-hung, nicknamed “Long Hair”, saying the long-standing prison requirement for male inmates to keep their hair short constitutes sex discrimination. Noting short hair for men was just a gender stereotype, the court said the Correctional Services Department could not justify why the rationale of the requirement – such as custodian discipline and giving less prominence to individuality – did not apply to female inmates.

Schools and prisons are obviously different, as are the rationale behind the rules governing the conducts of students and inmates. But based on the landmark court ruling, one would reasonably come to the view that the long hair ban for schoolboys looks discriminatory on the face of it.

The anti-discrimination and education authorities should have been more forthcoming when asked about the incident. Declining to comment on the case because of confidentiality, the watchdog said its role was to mediate rather than determine who was right or wrong. The education minister would not be drawn on the details either, saying individual schools have their own culture and the existing school guidelines would enable the matter to be handled professionally. But given the case has implications on wider school policies, an unequivocal stance would help clear the air and provide clearer directions for the education sector.