A quiet but powerful cultural debate is sweeping across Ghana—one centred not on politics or economics, but on the dignity of schoolgirls and their right to wear their own hair.

At the heart of this conversation is Ghanaian Dr Shirley Ayangbah, an international law and economics expert, Founder of Global Economic Research Consulting (GERC), and a strong advocate for culturally grounded development in Africa.

Speaking from the United States, Dr Ayangbah offers a sharp, research-driven critique of Ghana’s longstanding school rule that forces girls to cut their natural hair.

Her position is clear: the rule is not Ghanaian. It is colonial—and its continued enforcement amounts to a quiet but painful cultural erasure.

“We inherited this from British missionary schools,” she explains, “not from our own traditions. Before colonisation, Ghanaian girls wore braids, threading, twists, and royal coiffures. None of those were seen as unclean or undisciplined.”

That historical clarity has sparked a renewed conversation among civil society groups, women’s organisations, and cultural advocates who believe the time has come to rethink the rule.

According to Dr Ayangbah, missionary educators introduced forced hair-cutting because they wanted African children to “look disciplined” and “closer to European standards.”

The practice, she stresses, was never about hygiene or learning. It was about control, uniformity, and cultural suppression.

“The rule was born from the belief that African hairstyles symbolised ‘pagan identity’,” she notes. “Shaving the hair was a symbolic way of disciplining African children into colonial obedience.”

For many activists today, the fact that such a rule still governs Ghana’s schools is troubling. For Dr. Ayangbah, it is deeply unjust.

She warns that compulsory shaving strips girls of key elements of feminine identity—an aspect traditionally revered in African societies.

“Hair in African cultures is more than aesthetics,” she explains. “It represents growth, beauty, maturity, and pride. Cutting it off takes away part of a girl’s cultural soul.”

The social implications are equally significant: hair grooming is an intimate ritual between mothers, daughters, aunties, and friends.

When girls are denied that experience, they lose a crucial part of social belonging and cultural learning.

She adds that grooming natural hair builds confidence in childhood—confidence that shapes how women later perceive professionalism, beauty, and success.

“If a girl grows up believing her natural hair is not acceptable in school,” she says, “she may grow into a woman who doubts its acceptability in corporate spaces.”

Gender inequality further deepens the issue. Dr Ayangbah points out that although boys also cut their hair, the meaning is not the same.

“Short hair for boys is culturally normal. For girls, it is not,” she insists.

In many schools today, boys are allowed minor expressions—fades, low locs, neatly trimmed styles—while girls are punished for harmless natural hairstyles such as cornrows or puffs.

This, she argues, reveals a quiet but persistent gendered bias in how discipline and grooming are enforced.

Beyond culture and gender, Dr. Ayangbah frames the issue as a human-rights concern.

“Children’s bodies belong to them,” she asserts. “Forcing a girl to shave her hair violates her bodily autonomy.”

International law protects children’s rights to cultural identity, expression, and psychological well-being.

When a rule disproportionately harms girls and undermines their cultural heritage, it begins to look like gender discrimination. And modern justifications for the rule, she says, simply do not hold up.

Research offers no evidence that shaved heads improve discipline, focus, or academic performance.

In fact, several protective styles—cornrows, threading, and twists—are proven to be hygienic, low-maintenance, and protective against scalp infections.

“The rule persists because nobody questioned it after independence,” she argues. “It is compliance culture—not an educational necessity.”

Dr Ayangbah also highlights how far behind Ghana is on this issue compared to other African nations.

"Countries like Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, and parts of Nigeria all allow girls to wear natural hairstyles.

...South Africa, after the 2016 “Hair Freedom Movement,” legally protects Black girls’ right to natural hair in schools. These nations demonstrate that natural hair does not interfere with discipline or learning.

Instead, they show that affirming cultural identity strengthens confidence and mental well-being.

For Ghana, the pathway to reform is not complicated. Dr Ayangbah outlines a structured seven-step policy roadmap," she passionately contested.

The Ministry of Education and the Ghana Education Service, she says, must begin with a formal review of school grooming policies.

She mentioned that Cultural experts, women’s groups, and child-rights advocates should be included in consultations to ensure a holistic approach.

"A pilot programme could be launched in selected schools, allowing neat natural styles such as cornrows, threading, twists, and low puffs.

Clear grooming guidelines—focused on neatness rather than erasure—would help schools transition smoothly without disciplinary challenges. Ultimately, the rule must be abolished and replaced with anti-discrimination protections for natural African hairstyles," she pointed out.

For Dr Ayangbah, this is more than a grooming change—it is a cultural awakening. “Reform is long overdue,” she concludes. “Our girls deserve to grow up proud of who they are, not edited versions shaped by colonial memory.”