‘Misfits’ and the things we dread

I arrived wearing ‘non-school’ (meaning not allowed) attire on my first day at the Grey City, the legendary glory of the coast set on the desert hill, many years ago. I may have turned a few heads, but I sure did not make headlines. I guess my infraction was seemingly not as detestable nor life changing as the current challenge so all I got was a mild scolding from the bemused lady in charge.

prim and proper on interview day

I am conflicted, without a doubt on the question of how much latitude school authorities should not have by way of regulations in the context of general rights; never mind the sometimes obviously dubious and discriminatory stances. I mean, as an example, why could Caucasians be permitted to keep their hair long or in braids ‘because it was natural to them’, contrary to general rules in high schools to keep hair short? But my interest is really not in the particular but in what activates similar debates in the first place.

Not so long ago, I came very close, very close to cutting my locs which I had worn for more than a decade at the time. Well-meaning friends, classmates and senior colleagues counselled that I had come too close to becoming a member of the robbed and wigged fraternity to risk not getting in just because of my hair. I agreed with their logic. After all, I was never shy of short hair and I could grow my hair all over again as I had done countless times again.  But then I wondered, would this mean I could not grow my locs again for as long as I remained in the fraternity? I had also been advised to wear a skirt not trousers to the interview because females wearing pants were frowned on; so, did that also mean I could not wear trousers in practice?

Well, I did not cut my locs off but I did take the trouble to wrap it up 'nicely', if you will. I decided, if the interviewing panel could not look past my hair and would disregard my academic credentials and self-professed proven integrity then 'makola', the only professional law school in Ghana was probably not the place for me. Foolhardiness maybe or perhaps there was not that much at stake for me. My hair was not and never has been a statement of anything other than a lifestyle choice.

I recall one of my mates, finding the courage after a year of sitting in the same post grad class with me, asking with a knowing smile, if I was a 'roots girl' (whatever that meant). I told him that I was actually a full plant! Not to worry, I said that sweetly. Incidentally, many friends and family who advised against locking my hair when I first contemplated it and among other things opined that it was not professional, not nice and that it gave a bad impression about a person etc. now think it's nice. Some have even joined the ‘sisterhood’ because it is now what, trendy?

It's been several years of odd comments and assumptions about who I am but the on-going (dread) loc controversy is only symptomatic of our general attitude to many other things, attitudes that are unquestioned and presumably unquestionable; often justified by reference to the ‘who we are’ refrain. Really, who are we?

The real debates are yet to come but what are the odds that we will take a hard look at our fears and prejudices and challenge their very basis?

Salut