CHESTER SAM­BRA­NO

The Na­tion­al Joint Ac­tion Com­mit­tee (NJAC) has called on the ad­min­is­tra­tion of Trin­i­ty Col­lege to is­sue a pub­lic apol­o­gy to the stu­dents and their par­ents who were de­nied par­tic­i­pa­tion in their re­cent school grad­u­a­tion cer­e­mo­ny be­cause of their hair­styles, which the school had con­sid­ered to be in­ap­pro­pri­ate.

In a me­dia re­lease, NJAC said from all re­ports, the stu­dents who suf­fered this most shame­ful ex­pe­ri­ence wore hair­styles that were neat and well-groomed. How­ev­er, most if not all wore cane row or afro hair­styles.

"NJAC is of the view that the ac­tion of the school’s ad­min­is­tra­tion was in di­rect vi­o­la­tion of the con­sti­tu­tion­al rights of the stu­dents," the or­gan­i­sa­tion said in its state­ment on the mat­ter.

NJAC not­ed that Sec­tion 4 (i) of the con­sti­tu­tion states that all cit­i­zens have the right to free­dom of thought and ex­pres­sion:

"As the young man cor­rect­ly stat­ed, one’s hair­style forms part of one’s ex­pres­sion. Just as the clothes that one may wear or the words that one may speak.”

“Fur­ther to this, Chap. 22:03 of the Equal Op­por­tu­ni­ty Act states that a per­son should not be dis­crim­i­nat­ed against on the ba­sis of Race, Eth­nic­i­ty, Re­li­gion, Ori­gin, Mar­i­tal Sta­tus or Dis­abil­i­ty. If one is to ac­cept that the laws of the coun­try take prece­dence over the laws of any in­sti­tu­tion with­in, then the Trin­i­ty Col­lege ad­min­is­tra­tion has some se­ri­ous ques­tions to an­swer," NJAC said.