School's hair policy gets the brush-off

[december]

A Superior Court judge ruled yesterday that a private school may not dictate the length of a student’s hair.

The [decision’s]…second paragraph quoted the lyrics from Hair, made popular by the Cowsills Family of Newport: “Gimme a head with hair. /Long beautiful hair. /Shining, gleaming, flaxen, waxen.”

Fortunato wrote: "It is tempting to conclude succinctly by paraphrasing Pink Floyd, at least so far as hairstyles are concerned: “Leave the kids alone!” (The actual lyrics to the song “Another Brick in the Wall” are: “Hey, teacher! Leave them kids alone!”)

But Fortunato did not end there. He concluded: “Lurking in the interstices of all arbitrary authority is usually some cruel irony. In the instant matter, it would be painfully ironic if students who affected the hairstyle of Jesus Christ and his disciples were barred from St. Raphael while the school admitted and encouraged only those whose hairstyles mimicked those of the Enron and Global Crossings Boards of Directors.”

The judge explained why he had the legal authority over a private school.

“Private schools are different from private bowling leagues, private yacht clubs and private advocacy groups.” Schools are licensed by the state “with the express condition that they educate children to be citizens in a democracy. It would be anomalous indeed if people entrusted with this important mission were permitted to impose a 24-hour rule mandating a purposeless conformity to an arbitrary hair code. Democracy does not require – nor has it ever required – robots.”

newspaper article judge’s decision

Although I don’t like school’s hair the rule, I found the judge’s decision unpersuasive. He justified his power to impose his views on a private organization, because it’s licensed and because education is important. That’s not enough.

The judge has a point that hair length applies outside of school as well as in school. Still, there’s no need for this young man to cut his hair; he can simply attend some other school.

I was surprised as well by the style of the decision…

[doreen]

If this decision doesn’t get overturned on an appeal (and I expect the school will appeal), it will be because the rules was new and appeared to be targeted at this student in particular. In my experience with Catholic schools, the dress codes and haircut rules are either long-standing (long hair for boys has been prohibited at my kids school at least since I went there 34 years ago) or the changes have been phased in ("Starting with the class of 2003, the uniform will be…). I’ve never heard of a school accepting a student with long hair, allowing him to have long hair for the rest of the year, and then adding a rule against long hair.

[Some_Guy]

Yanno, I never, ever thought I’d say this, but I agree with december.

[brief pause while I scrub my brain with lye]

Like every other judge in the country, this judge’s job is to enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch. Unless the state legislature has passed a specific law requiring tha private schools in that state not restrict personal appearance, the judge has no law to enforce. He certainly has no cause to apply the standard legal objections to school dress codes, all of which hinge on the government’s prohibition against regulating expression against an entity that is not the government. It’s a bad decision, and this argument

James P. Howe, Gorman’s lawyer, argued that even a private organization cannot treat a member in a way that is “arbitrary and capricious.”

is simply wrong. Luckily, it’s a no-brainer to be reversed on appeal.

I also should point out that I don’t like the idea of such a policy - I simply agree that the school in question has a right to formulate and enforce such a policy.