Lotus Bloom and the Afro Revolution

Lotus Bloom and the Afro Revolution explores a longstanding practice in United States school districts to create and implement dress codes that—both directly and indirectly—target students of color. For example, a recent study found that “68 percent of D.C. public high schools that publish their dress codes online ban hair wraps or head scarves” (“Dress Coded.” National Women’s Law Center). While some would argue that this policy applies to all students—and therefore is not racially motivated—it ignores the fact that wraps and scarves are traditional headwear associated with Black and other minority cultures. Similarly, parents like Aaron and Colleen Cook discuss raising their adopted Black teenage daughters at Mystic Valley Regional Charter School, a district north of Boston, that “bans hair extensions in its dress code, deeming them ‘distracting’” (Lattimore, Kayla. “When Black Hair Violates the Dress Code.” NPR, 17 July 2017). Through these dress codes, school districts practice legalized assimilation, forcing their students of color to conform to traditionally “white” standards, punishing students who attempt to represent their own culture or heritage through their style, dress, and hair.

In Lotus Bloom and the Afro Revolution, this idea is explored through Lotus and the discrimination she faces for choosing to wear her hair in an afro. While Lotus’s afro serves as a source of pride and a form of expression, she becomes the target of the school board when she is bullied for how she looks. Instead of standing up in defense of her as the victim, the board places blame on her instead, insisting that her hair is somehow a distraction to Adolpho and the other students. This decision further emphasizes the prejudice of these dress codes. Instead of blaming those who would become “distracted,” these standards shift the blame to the nonconforming person, further excluding them because of something as superficial as hair style or clothing.

In the novel, the unfairness of Lotus’s situation is emphasized by her reaction to being told she—and only she—is violating the dress code. When Mrs. Cortez comments that Lotus is not “the image [they] want for [their] orchestra” (173), Lotus thinks, in disbelief, that “Everyone here knows what she just said was wrong, right? Or is it just me?” (173). Ironically, none of the people at the meeting, other than her mother, speak out against the racist language Mrs. Cortez uses or her openly expressing that a Black girl is not someone they want to be leading their orchestra, simply because of her hair. Then, when she speaks to the school board, Lotus points out, “We have kids at Atlantis who come to school with no hair on the sides of their heads and the tops painted in rainbow colors. And I’m the distraction?” (248). These reactions from Lotus call attention to notions that should be extremely obvious to the public: It is wrong to believe someone cannot lead an orchestra because of how they look, and the school is specifically targeting Black girls while ignoring other blatant dress code violations. However, due to the legality of these dress codes, the systemic racism that exists to keep them in place, and the public’s unwillingness to stand against them, they continue to be used as a weapon of discrimination.