Public School Hair
Needville school district in Texas has a problem. They have a rule that says boys cannot wear their hair longer than their collar. Why? Well, no one seems to care why, they just have a rule, and they’re not making any exceptions to their rule. They do actually make a claim that boys who have short hair have better attendance records than those with long hair. No really, they do. Of course, since they have a rule that no boys can have long hair, I’m really not sure how they can back up that claim with anything remotely looking like actual evidence.
But of course, that doesn’t matter.
Can you believe that federal courts have already made rules saying that schools can have such directions? Aren’t you so glad to see that your tax dollars are being spent on absolutely critical things — like making rules about hair length of 5-year old boys in schools. But hey, we’ve got rules, so we have to follow them, no matter what. So the school district is saying that the 5-year old in question cannot attend school unless he cuts his hair.
So what if the boy doesn’t attend school? This is Texas, so you know what’s going to happen next — they WILL seize the child and take him from his family. Nope, no one will have done anything wrong, there will be NO court hearings, there will be no juries, no judgments. That’s how justice works in Texas, we have learned. If there’s a child involved, the child is taken first, then, well, whatever the judge wants to happen happens next. I imagine the state will strap the child down and cut his hair. Then they will put him in a foster home away from his parents because, in the eyes of government, the parent is dangerous because she didn’t cut his hair.
This sounds far-fetched, but it is reality today. This story is happening right now to real people. And people claim this is the “land of the free.” What a load.
And the Houston Chronicle, supporting the oppressive government actually claims:
The dispute illustrates a problem American schools have faced for decades: how to balance individual student rights against rules designed to maintain order and discipline in the classroom.
No, no it doesn’t at all. These lunatics are actually claiming that a boy with hair longer than his collar is dangerous! This doesn’t highlight a problem with American schools — it highlights a problem of a government that’s totally out of control. I can solve this “decades”-old problem in 1 second: get government out of the education business. It really is that simple.
Of course, that solution involves freedom and personal responsibility, so there’s just no way the current politicians will EVER allow it to happen. That solution will take money and power out of the hands of bureaucrats and puts it in people — and government simply cannot allow ANY reduction in their power, ever.
I just wish the “reporters” would be honest and report the facts, instead of claiming lies that support more government. But I’m no more likely to get that than I am educational freedom in this country today, am I?
Popularity: 24% [?]
Possibly similar posts - Reason #87 to Homeschool - Freedom? Not in America. - Freedom From Government? No way. - Government Schools Update - Rapist in School? Shhhh! Don’t Tell!
[...] http://www.ogresview.com/archives/880 [...]
My son has long hair… very long hair. He wears it in a very long ponytail… Guess we won’t move to Texas anytime soon! LOL!!!
Ogre,
The father of this child claims to be descended from what he thinks were Apaches who fled to Mexico in the 1800s rather than be put on the reservation. He grew up in a slightly larger town than Needville, a few miles down the highway, and he cut his hair to attend school.
The mother, lily white scotch irish, shows up at the school and asks for an exception to the strict hair and dress codes of the district. Apparently, the superintendant asked her for some sort of documentation, some sort of governmental record of tribal affiliation or perhaps some literature on the version of native american beliefs she claims to follow that support no hair cutting as a religious observance.
Rather than hire an attorney and try and resolve the dispute quietly through a mutually acceptable agreement, before the school board even heard her appeal, this mother went to the newspaper, tv stations, and internet to start a media circus to parade her child in front of.
That action undermines her credibility when she claims she wants to make that rural community her home. Small towns don’t forget because there’s not a whole lot else going on, and unfortunately her child will shoulder the stigmatization alone at the school regardless of whether or not he keeps his hair. This couple certainly isn’t making friends through this sort of behavior, and the best I think she can hope for is a pyrrhic victory.
Personally, I think the kid should be able to keep his hair if he’s brave enough (pun intended), but he should also realize those country boys may tie him to the monkey bars with it.
The mother’s actions and demeanor (if you listen to an interview or read her blog), make this whole situation suspect. Unfortunately, the kid will reap the worldwind of his mother’s poor judgement.
Honestly it doesn’t matter to me one bit about the mother, or her intelligence level. What matters to me is freedom. How foolish is it that a government institution has rules and regulations regarding length of hair and is willing to enforce those regulations with violence? Do you believe for a minute that they will permit this family to be left alone? As I mentioned — the government WILL destroy this family or kill people in order to enforce a rule about HAIR LENGTH. That’s utterly and completely insane. People should be free to be stupid — especially when they’re not harming anyone else.
And just to confirm — I’m not calling this family or anyone in it stupid. And believe me, there’s NO way I would ever have hair that long myself. And know what? I don’t think it looks good, either. But know what else? IT’S NOT MY HAIR. It’s none of my business, nor is it ANY business of government how long any person’s hair is. Having long hair in damn kindergarten cannot possibly have any detrimental effect on anyone. As others have pointed out — the only reason this is an issue is because of the total intolerance of the government in Needville.
If government didn’t have a monopoly on education, this would never be an issue.
I’m all for limited government, believe me. The school board is made up of members of the local community, and reflects the views of the community which elects them. This community is mostly composed of small town and rural folks. You don’t make headway with them when you come across as pushy. As I said, I think the mother handled this rather poorly.
When I grew up out there, we had 11 acres with cotton fields on three sides of the property. My bus ride to school was over 45 mintues (circuitous, no doubt, but you get the picture). It’s a small Texas town caught in a time warp.
There’s more “happening” places to grow up as a kid, but there are few better places to raise them.
This particular school has strict rules and standards in order to provide a structured and disciplined education. Folks out there still say “yes ma’am, no ma’am, yes sir, no sir.” I recall addressing all the teachers as “sir” or “ma’am,” or one of the coaches would make you run laps.
There’s no sagging pants, or scantily clad females, no need for metal detectors, etc. The school district has high ratings for performance despite the fact that about a third of the population out there is poor.
I couldn’t wait to get out of that place when I was growing up (I would have loved to challenge the hair code while I was there). I find it ironic that I feel compelled to defend it now, but the town really is getting a bum rap. In the news reports, the mother is taken at her word, which as I said, is highly suspect.
If you have to put a kid in a governement school (which you don’t have to do in Texas), you could do a whole lot worse than N.I.S.D.
I don’t question the character of the town or the school. I just know that if this were not a government school, this would not be an issue at all. If government wasn’t in the “education” business, this wouldn’t be news. The reason it’s so significant is that the government is using force to make someone cut their hair — and that’s just plain unreasonable, if you ask me. I don’t see any way that the length of someone’s hair can create a hostile learning environment — I can see demanding respect of students, but how does hair length affect the classroom?
I honestly don’t think hair length does affect the class room, but there is a policy against it, and as I said, this is a small town, with small town values. It was not uncommon for students in my class to be the second generation taught by the teacher, everyone knows everyone.
I wonder if this mother had lawyered up after her first meeting, and didn’t go running to the media, if things would have turned out differently.
If her beliefs are genuine and sincere, she’s invoking some potent first amendment protections that more than likely entitle her to an exception. Personally, based on my observation, I think she just doesn’t want to cut her son’s hair to comply with the school policy. That’s beside the point, though, as a decent lawyer could break it down for the school board. Even if you get a local judge sympathetic to the town, a genuine case of religious discrimination would not make it past an appeal.
It looks more like she went to the media in an attempt to strong arm the local school board. Now, someone has to back down. More importantly, she’s poisoned the well of local public opinion, the people she ostensibly wants to be neighbors with.
Indeed, the residents are against her — but they may have been no matter what she did. I’m not attempting to defend her actions or methods — I just want someone to explain to me why the school board is willing to fight over such a strange policy.
I not against the town having small-town values — I am against the town forcing others to accept their values. If the town can do this, couldn’t Detroit decide that since the city had their own values that Sharia law would be applied to all residents?
I’ve heard the demographics in Detroit are moving that direction if they’re not already there. Fortunately, the Establishment Clause of the constitution would prevent the imposition of Sharia Law. I guess they could implement some aspects, but a majority of the remedial measures like public whipping, stoning, or cutting off a hand would fall under the umbrella of cruel and unusual punishment.
My guess is the school board is willing to stick to their guns because if they make arbitrary exceptions, the rules lose value. That, and I bet pride is now involved as a result of the mother making it a public fight.
Were she to challenge the rule under some sort of equal protection/gender discrimination grounds, she’d most likely lose because the courts have routinely upheld different school dress codes by gender. This mother is probably challenging the rule on the right grounds (freedom of religion is strictly scrutinized by the courts and probably affords her the best chance of victory), but there is some doubt as to whether or not her position is genuine. So far, it seems more like personal choice, or a cultural argument at best. If the court beleives her, and thats a big “if,” the state will be required to prove a compelling reason for not allowing an exception, and I don’t see how she will not win eventually given that scenario.
There was a jewish kid in school with me that occasionally wore a yarmulke, as he had an exception to the no hats rule, proving the district will bend to boniide religious beliefs.
I don’t see how this isn’t a case of a bonafide religious belief. As a Native myself, I know that America hosts about 5 million Natives, all of whom practice different and varied beliefs much like the different and varied beliefs of Christianity…
While the school has every right to uphold their own rules, you have to ask yourself if it truly makes sense that allowing one child to wear braids is going to de-value those rules. Does it mean that every person in Needville will quickly step in line to challenge a rule they have problems with. No.
The boy’s hair is really a non-issue. This case is simply another case of contemporary American institutions refusing to recognize a very BIG historical problem- how America has dealt with Indians. Indians have the right to refuse to get enrolled in a federal or state tribe. Indians have the right to practice their religious beliefs when they choose to practice them. The parents didn’t have to present DNA results (which unfortunately are not legally enough for any current federally-recognized tribes. Imagine that, if scientific, genetic evidence, isn’t enough to prove your race I don’t really know what is…). The thing is, tribes don’t determine who Indians are. And the US government can only regulate who an Indian is by “Arts and Crafts” or by the usage of raptor feathers. So, only an individual can determine for themselves if they are Indian. Imagine if you had to prove that you were white…I’m not sure how anyone would prove that especially if you couldn’t provide DNA results.
Is it really an issue if the father of the boy is not enrolled? No. According to the legalities, it is only something that can be defined by two laws. The Migratory Bird Act and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. Neither of which have anything to do with this case. And another question is “Don’t modern-day Indians have the right to refuse to be enrolled in federal or state-recognized tribes?” Of course they do.
Attacking the boy’s genetic heritage is purely vicious. And asking his family to present documentable proof that it’s practiced this religious belief for whatever amount of time they see fit is much like asking a Christian to produce documents of when they were saved, how many communions they’ve taken, and if they’ve abided by the ten commandments for the entirety of their life because that would establish ‘documentable’ proof. It’s ridiculous. The boy is obviously wanting to go to school, and from the videos I’ve seen is very intelligent for a young boy. Let him go. Let him grow long hair.
BTW, the mother had every right to go to the media. I find it interesting that the folks who are trying to downplay the value of cultural and religious beliefs are also downplaying the value of the media and a person’s right to free speech. The parents shouldn’t be forced to hire a lawyer because they WANT their child to be able to attend kindergarden. And regardless of whether or not they did, I doubt it would change the minds of the small-minded folks who are spewing their hate at them. Would those people really be more friendly to this family if they had just hired a lawyer and not talked to the press? Very doubtful.
“The boy’s hair is really a non-issue.” Wrong. His hair length is THE issue because it does not comply with the district’s hair/dress code. Allowing an exception to a rule for a less than legitimate reason is poor leadership because it is not even-handed. Certainly, you understand that.
“So, only an individual can determine for themselves if they are Indian.” You can’t be serious… you mean to say that ANYONE can decide to be native American Indian?
I am not aware of any school district official that is viciously attacking this child’s genetic heritage. More like, a white lady and a hispanic man had a child and decided he should be Native American Indian. One way to help sort this out will be to check the birth certificate of the child and/or parents.
The mother had every right to go to the media, but it wasn’t a smart move to do so before the school board had even heard her appeal. By making the fight public, you unnecessarily raise the stakes.
“Would those people really be more friendly to this family if they had just hired a lawyer and not talked to the press? Very doubtful.” Wrong, again. This kind of behavior is incongruous with her stated goal of enrolling the child in school, with his hair as it is, and joining the rural farming community.
The court will decide if this mother is credible. My impression of her actions and demeanor lead me reasonably to believe she is not.
Good points, Michael. This is one of the big problems when government interferes where it should not be. If the schools were not government, they would be free to make any rule they wanted — and would not have to make any exceptions for any religion. In other words, if this were a private school, they would be completely free to say, “Sorry, we don’t want people with long hair.” In a free country, there would be another school just down the street that would welcome people with long hair.
However, since it IS government, they are prohibited from doing anything that establishes a religion. This has been (wrongly) interpreted so that they must be 100% neutral to any and all religions — but how to you “prove” what you have or what you do is a religion? Recently in the Netherlands, to get around moronic smoking laws, people have created a new religion around smoking cigarettes. I wonder if this religion comes to America if the schools will be forced to allow their employees to smoke because it’s their religion?
The entire problem here is completely a creation of government. Get government out of the way, people would be free, and issues like this would simply never appear.
Superintendent Rhodes is indeed attacking the child’s genetic heritage. And allowing an exception the rule in this case is harly poor leadership. The dress code isn’t a set of rules. It’s a code to be followed. Just like in jobs and schools across the United States, an individual can request to be accomodated. The school is refusing to accomodate him.
The individual does have the right the determine for themselves if they are Indian or not. You keep skirting the DNA tests as well- which many Indians are forced to do because most current federally recognized tribes have enrollment procedures that are impossible for many Indians to accomplish. So what if the boy’s father is also Hispanic. So what if his mother is white. Less than one in eight Indians are full bloods which means that a huge portion of Indians are mixed-blood. Just like the father. Just like the boy. IT doesn’t mean they aren’t Indian. And tribes set quantum requirements, not white people. The issue doesn’t have to do with the race though. His beliefs are separate from that. But the school continues to attack the belief they are practicing by trying to force them to prove they are Indian…sounds like jurisdictional confusion.
This case isn’t based on the mother’s credibility or lack thereof because she went to the media. This case is about civil liberties and whether or not a school can tell a young boy that he can’t attend because of the beliefs his family chose to practice. Like I said…it’s a big mirror for America to look in and they don’t want to do it because they don’t know how to deal with Indians, especially mixed-blood families.
Most folks though have decided to hang the mother because they don’t like that she’s very honest and outspoken. And unfortunately for them and their witch-hunt cronies, they’re not ever going to be satisfied because the courts will not be deciding anything based on the mother’s actions. They will decide this case based on the school’s actions.
“The dress code isn’t a set of rules. It’s a code to be followed.”
Per dictionary.com, a code is:
3. any set of standards set forth and enforced by a local government agency for the protection of public safety, health, etc., as in the structural safety of buildings (building code), health requirements for plumbing, ventilation, etc. (sanitary or health code), and the specifications for fire escapes or exits (fire code).
4. a systematically arranged collection or compendium of laws, rules, or regulations.
5. any authoritative, general, systematic, and written statement of the legal rules and principles applicable in a given legal order to one or more broad areas of life.
A “code” is clearly a set of rules, so you’re not making sense.
“This case isn’t based on the mother’s credibility or lack thereof”
Actually, it is. By framing her complaint as religious discrimination the court will evaluate if she is “genuine” and “sincere,” so it is clear her credibility is of paramount importance.
Should they find her credible, the burden of proof is on the school to prove a compelling state interest NOT to extend an exception. If yoo would read the posts, I wouldn’t have to repeat myself.
“The individual does have the right the determine for themselves if they are Indian or not.” Again, this makes no sense at all.
“You keep skirting the DNA tests as well- which many Indians are forced to do because most current federally recognized tribes have enrollment procedures that are impossible for many Indians to accomplish.” Then they aren’t Indians in the eyes of the government, are they?
Atticus, you continue to reinforce the fact that you know nothing about Native American law or American law where it relates to Native Americans.
People can ask for accomodations to the dress code. The mother isn’t on trial here as you and the other Needville folks might insist. The boy traces his Native heritage through his father. So if any evidence is asked of the family it will likely be asked of the father.
The government doesn’t decide who is Indian and a judicial system is not going to even open that can or worms. They allow the tribes to do that ONLY with regard to (authentically-made) Arts and Crafts and with regard to Raptor feathers. Those are the only legal situations where a person must prove relation to a federally-recognized tribe. Other than that, a person is free to decide for themselves. And this father isn’t asking for raptor feathers. He’s not asking to have his art displayed as Native-made. So he’s not in violation of any law that says he’s can’t say he’s Indian unless he belongs to a tribe. Tribal enrollment is a procedure for citizenship, not proving blood (ask the slaves that were enrolled citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes). The government has stated in numerous cases that Indian individuals reserve the right to refuse to be enrolled. It does not make them ‘un-Indian’.
And…repeat away. I really don’t care how many times you have to repeat yourself.
Glad we cleared that up. Anyone who chooses to identify themsleves as an Indian, is in fact a Native American Indian…
Think as you like. I have never claimed to know the law as it relates to Native Americans. The family status as Native American is only relevant to the extent that it inures the credibility of their claims to be observing a Native American religion.
My comments regarding the mother’s challenge of the dress code under the 14th amendment umbrella are correct.
A Native American religion can be practiced by non-Indians…so being or not being Indian doesn’t detract from their credibility and should and will likely have little bearing on the legalities in this case. Take a look at the Native American Church. Lot’s of white folks in it.
My point is that a court is not going to set a precedent of saying a person is or isn’t Indian. So it’s not going to be an issue in this case. If the court does make that an issue to be looked at, they will be setting a very dangerous precedent that will likely set many other lawsuits into motion in Texas and other states. The courts do not have the jurisdiction to decide that, and without that jurisdiction they cannot claim that the father isn’t Indian or show evidence that the child isn’t. Regardless, the father has DNA results that are likely the same kind of test used in other court cases to prove evidence.
It simply isn’t black and white. Well, he isn’t with the Apache tribe so he isn’t Indian. That’s not how Indian blood is defined. And attacking how long he’s been practicing the belief isn’t really lawful either because any person in America reserves the right to choose their religion and how it’s practiced whenever they wish to. Just because the father hasn’t practiced it since his own birth doesn’t mean he isn’t allowed to uphold that belief with his child. A born-again Christian isn’t denied certain religious protections because they were ‘just’ born again. Those protections begin when they are born again. The father of Adriel was ‘born’ again in a way into his Native beliefs. And the courts won’t have a hard time at all finding evidence that the long hair is a religious practice (regardless of how long it’s been practiced). Expecially with the Apaches.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t always apply to Indians as well because Indians may refuse American citizenship and many Indians do. That’s why tribal enrollment is strictly about citizenship and not about blood quantum. And the 14th Amendment didn’t extend to Indians anyway until 1924. I’m not saying it doesn’t apply in this case, but it’s assumptuous to concede that all American laws do. As said before, America has not clearly dealt with Indians, particularly where the law is concerned. The US government doesn’t want to because even the smallest law or precedent can greatly change the current laws and cost millions and millions of dollars.
See? Now if government wasn’t giving away things or making decisions based on heritage or religion, none of this would be an issue! If we had freedom, it would make no difference to anyone whether someone wanted to claim to be “American Indian” or not. For years, I filled out “Native American” on forms, because that’s what I am. Does that make me a member of an Indian Tribe? I don’t know, and more importantly, government should never care!
I applaud your opinion here.
I wanted to comment that one way to avoid the seizure of the child is to ignore the rule and send the boy to school. No doubt he will not be allowed (because of said ridiculous rule) and likely suspended or expelled. In any case, the parents will have done right by attempting to send the child to school. At this point I would hope the parents would claim to be home-schooling until a verdict was reached in the court system. Although this may not even be necessary if he was expelled - I don’t know.
Also, he should be able to claim a religious exemption, not that it alleviates the root of the problem which you spoke of.
Thanks for stopping by, Sarah. However, sending the child to school WILL quickly result in seizure of the child by the state. Again, this is the state of Texas, where they have already illustrated that if the state thinks you’re “different,” they WILL take your children from you without a trial, jury, or even any due process at all. If the parents send the child to school, I bet the school would send him home. If the parents sent him to school again, social services would seize him from the school. If the parents didn’t send him to school, social services would seize him from their home.
It’s a bad situation, made worse because of government.
I have gone to a private Catholic schoo in PA for my entire life and I am about to begin my seinor year. The rule regarding boys hair length is the the same. I know that since my school is private the government has no say there, however the fact that a public school has this rule is ubsured. To say that the boy has to cut his hair to attend school is taking away this boys freedom to choose, it is not the schools job to tell children how to look. A persons hair is part of their body, to tell the boy that he has to have his hair a certain lenght is no diffrent that telling a young girl that she should have a certain weight. You may argue that you cant compair the two because forcing someone to maintain a certain weight could cause health problems, however dose that mean if there were no health risks in making a child mantain a certian weight that it would be acceptable? The answer is no, it would not be. It is not the schools job to regulate the students physical apperance, its job is to educate.
Good point Sean, except for one. You claim that the school’s job is to educate, and that’s just not true any more. The primary purpose of the school system is to employ people and spend money. I’m completely serious. Some teachers might like to educate, but the purpose of the system is absolutely NOT associated with education at all. Those who do learn while attending these schools usually learn in spite of the school, not because of it.