I use that product sometimes and don't smell anything. Perhaps people are using too much of it. :)

All things in moderation. I shouldn't smell your shower gels, body sprays, and perfumes before and aftger you leave the viccinity. The same goes for other personal care products. I use a tea tree oil product from time to time and know that a very small amount is permissable to prevent those who hate the smell from being repulsed.

If she was allergic to the smell (which I doubt, she probably just didn't like the smell with no medical condition--we all have smells that repulse us even if others aren't bothered by it) a counselor should've called the parents. Never remove a child from a class regardless of the race.

To me the issue was the child's removal, the principal's apparent approval, and the failure of both the teacher and the principal to notify the parent.

It sounds like the teacher didn't want to a) be bothered with the child or b) wanted to have something negative to say about the child or c) felt the child was doing too well and had to do "something" about it. Of all the "reasons" for changing this child's classroom because of her "allergies" or "allergic reaction" to this hair care product, phuleeeze! I'm sure the woman could have done better than that.

Moreover, this girl had apparently been in this class for over a year, and just now, JUST NOW, the teacher seems to "notice" such an offending smelling hair product. It doesn't make any sense what so ever.

Both the teacher and the principal and the district have some serious explaining of this situation to do. The child should have never been removed from the classroom setting from the get go. The whole issue could have been resolved in many other ways than what the teacher did and what the principal/district allowed her to do.

Attending school in a very small town will teach you many things, especially about covert and overt racism, and to me, this is what this whole situation is about.

This isn't about very small towns. Dumb happens wherever people are. Attending school anywhere can teach you about covert and overt racism. For the record, that doesn't mean that everything that happens is racism.

I remember in 8th grade, all the girls received Jean Nate body spray for Christmas. The poor teachers had to deal with 30 over-sprayed girls in class. We got a talking-to because "makeup, too much hairspray and the like" were not allowed in my (Catholic) school. One girl got her head doused in the bathroom sink with water because it was excessively hair-sprayed. I guarantee that would never happen today.

That teacher (in the article) is an idiot. Perhaps I am naive, but I believe that teachers should be devoid of personal agendas in the classroom. I hope that when this is resolved and she has to apologize, someone talks to the kids to let them know that this is not acceptable behavior.

True this isn't about small towns, but again, this was simply my perspective.

Now yes, dumb does happen any and everywhere, but sometimes, someone, somewhere has got to point out the dumb and say, "For the love of all that is holy, let's just stop this dumb _______."

In this case, this to me, is an act of racism. No, everything that happens isn't about racism, but when it is, you've got to stop it how and when you can or else the situation(s) can and will continue until a) the point of no return or b)a return that one doesn't want to face.

In this particular case, to me, this was and is simply covert racism, pure and simple. Again, this is just the way that I'm seeing it, folks don't have to agree or they can, but this is just what I see plain and simple.

To me, this child gets too feel self-conscious about her hair for many years to come because her teacher is/was unwilling to simply talk to her parents about the issue. The child gets to find that innocence gets easily lost when the "adult" of the classroom isn't willing to be an adult and she (the child) gets thrown under the proverbial bus for something she had nothing to do with. The child gets to doubt her self-esteem for many years because of this teachers unwillingness to change her attitude and check herself by dealing with the situation like an adult. Because of this "woman's" behavior (and I use that term on shaky ground) the child will have ramifications that were a) subliminal, b) subconsciously "gifted" to her, and c) unncessary within this child's life. She (the girl) shouldn't have to feel this woman's issues because this woman didn't just want to stand up and be one.

Again, this is just simply how I see things and yes, having gotten some of my educational background from a small town has "skewed" some of my vision at times.

I can't find anything in the article you posted that would make me feel comfortable saying I'm sure what the teacher's motives were, especially since it gives only one side of the story. Sure, it might have been racism, but it also might simply have been an extra helping of crazy with a side of stupid.

She already has her mind made up and that's going to set the context for everything else. :) Opinions are awesome as long as people understand the difference between opinions on race and speaking definitively as though covert and overt racism are always so apparent. Then libramunoz is adding the girl's self-consciousness over her hair (which is an assumption) to the equation. That's a leap only used as a recipe for race and racism. However....

You all already know this, but I must say what I've said hundreds of times, which is that racism isn't about "add race then stir." If this story hadn't used the race catch phrases of "Olive Oil Moisturizer (LOL)," "African American," and "NAACP," this would've just been a story about a nasally sensitive dumb teacher and a school administration that doesn't understand school-parent protocol.

At the same time, racism is about outcome and not intent. The teacher/school doesn't need a racial intent for it to have a racial outcome (i.e. the student being sent to a class of African Americans who are not academically up to par--the very existence of a class of African Americans who are not academically up to par). But, again, the outcome isn't so apparent solely based on what I've read.

This is bullshit. I doubt if it would have been some 8 year old boy drenching himself in his older brother's AXE that the teacher would have removed him to another classroom.

I seriously doubt if the teacher even has allergies at all. Also, why was the girl immediately transferred to a classroom with mostly African-American children? Are there only two rooms for each grade? If so, why are homerooms in an elementary school determined by the kids' intelligence level? That's a really good way to make a division between the groups.

I don't recall having homerooms in elementary school. Maybe that's just my bad memory.

The general answer to your question: Tracking. Yes, it is a good and very intentional way to make a division between groups based on grades, race, learning capabiliites, etc.

I guess homeroom was a bad way to put it. We had 2 classrooms full of students in my elementary school. These were chosen by random (everyone from the smartest to the slowest student could be in the same room) but we were "tracked" into ability-appropriate math and reading classes. I hope that makes more sense as to what I was saying.

I'm sure it makes it easier for the teacher but I know when I got into junior high and everything was tracked, I was sick and tired of the same old assholes in my classes by halfway through 7th grade. :p

Here's what I don't understand...why didn't the teacher send a note home with the child asking to switch to a scentless hair product if she was allergic to the smell? I have a family member that can get severe headaches and nausea just from the smell of my shampoo, so the teacher might be telling the truth about her allergy. Who knows...but I don't understand why she couldn't simply talk to the school or the parents or both and ask the parents of the child to change hair products and then send a note home to the other parents of students in her class asking everyone to use scent free hair products and lotions. It seems unlikely to me that if she has a severe allergy to scents and fragrances no other child caused a reaction. That way everyone would be asked to avoid scented products and no child would be singled out.

As I said, to me and from my point of view, yes, this is how I see the article and how I see this incident.

Yes, it could be the easiest helping of stupid on the side along with a plate of education, but for me, the way that things were handled become a lesson in covertness at it's best.

Yes, I did add the issue of the child's self-esteem to be brought into the mix. I have seen things that are little that were heaped on a child and for some children it does become an issue later within their life. Was it purposely done, for some yes, for most no. However for this child, I happen to see this as a real possibility.

For me this is just what it is as it is presented and I'm sure that not everyone will agree with how I am seeing the situation and that's o.k.

lol. i use coconut oil. i kinda enjoy walking around smelling like a coconut. :D

If her allergies are that debilitating she should have sent a note home WITH EVERY CHILD, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SCHOOL YEAR that said "I am allergic to life. Please don't use anything on your child but Ivory Soap" or something of the like. There's no way one child should have been singled out in any way shape or form, at any time. Sorry, but this is the teacher's problem (if it actually exists). She needs to either get on an effective regimen of shots or ask parents from the get-go to help her deal with it.

2 things...


Because the child's teacher stated that she was allergic to the smell of the olive oil moisturizing hair lotion that the little girl used, Organic Root Stimulator (pictured below).

How can you be 'allergic' to a smell?

Even if they were using pure olive oil (which I sometimes use) VIRGIN Olive oil cut with a frgrance is the best way to go if you plan on using pure Olive oil

this whole article stinks.