“Voltaire… Hair? I would personally like to learn about Voltaire.”
I would normally agree to “shut up and listen” to “The Princess Diaries”‘ Lilly Moscovitz on any given day, but I have recently found myself caring more and more about… hair.
Throughout history, hair has represented numerous things in different cultures. An early Biblical example of men with long hair can be found in the Old Testament when the Nazarites would refrain from cutting their hair due to a covenant with God. Samson even gained strength from his hair. To the ancient Greeks, long hair was attributed to wealth and power, and in the Middle Ages it was illegal to cut a man’s hair without his consent. In more recent history, with the rise of the hippie movement in the 1960s, long hair came to symbolize rebellion or resistance to cultural norms, giving the trend a stigma for those generations.
But what about today? Our generation has given rise to an equally countercultural “hipster” movement that echoes some of the same sentiments of the hippies, only with less color and worse attitudes. This irony-fueled hipster subculture has led to several trends that have, in turn, made long hair much more common in today’s society. It has become increasingly common for men to grow out their hair into styles that were once considered feminine — for example, the “man bun.” Similarly, more and more women have opted for shorter hairstyles. Society’s definition of what is masculine or feminine has drastically evolved since the 1960s and 70s, yet Harding still seems to be a few years behind on this issue — even by conservative Christian standards. The cultural change of style norms in modern society is not a threat to Christianity like some seem to think.
It is difficult to pinpoint exactly why Harding still holds tightly to the hair rule for men. Having encountered the rule firsthand, the only answer I have personally been given is that it depends on who you ask, which is by no means a real answer. In fact, several administrators have admitted their lack of knowledge regarding the reasoning behind it. Some say it’s scriptural. Though if we take what Paul wrote to the Corinthians literally, there ought to be a rule forcing women to cover their heads, as that command is in the very same passage.
Others have claimed that the rule is based on keeping a professional image around campus. While that makes a bit more sense, I struggle to find a remotely consistent implementation of that “professional image.” Harding’s idea of professionalism doesn’t allow longer hair on men, but allows women to cut their hair as short as they please — they can even buzz the sides. It allows students to wear sweatpants, T-shirts, hoodies and flip-flops to class, none of which would be accepted in any other “professional” setting. While I’m not against any of those things, I would like to point out how Harding’s perception of what is and isn’t professional appears to be somewhat inconsistent.
The student handbook states: “Hair should be neatly trimmed off the collar and free of extreme styles such as mohawks or ponytails. Beards are to be neatly trimmed.” If ponytails are really that extreme, how are women getting away with them? We are living in a time that is much more open to hairstyles of varying lengths for both men and women. Today, longer hair on men does not represent rebellion or immorality, but rather an honest and individualized sense of style. Harding should consider that its attempt to preserve an outdated image of a clean-cut, professional Christian could potentially promote exclusivity among that specific demographic. Not every student here is a Bible or business major.
This week, in a poetic and tragic twist of fate, I was asked to cut my hair. This actually came as a bit of a surprise to me because I have been wearing my hair in a bun daily since school started and was only asked to cut it based on the assumption that it was “probably too long.” I am fully aware of the agreement I signed as a freshman to comply with Harding’s rules, and I’m not ignoring or arguing against that. However, my ongoing search to find out why this rule is important enough to remain in the handbook has turned out to be vague and inconclusive, which leads me to ask: Is it time to consider a change?
The good news is that there can be an open dialogue here. Rather than completely abolishing the rule, I would suggest a compromise in which all generations can agree on a standard that appeases both sides. Men could be allowed to grow their hair out without the pressure to cut it, but still be required to keep it neat, clean and off the collar. This makes the standard much easier to enforce fairly and less subjectively. Once a man’s hair grows past his collar, he need only put it up to comply with the rule. In this way, men can keep their hair and Harding can keep a “professional” standard.
Besides, Lilly Moscovitz was right; there really are much more important things to worry about than hair.
