NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299312,00.html

(Yes, it's from fox news, I know, I know)

The mother of a 14-year-old high school student wants her son back at school after he was suspended for long hair that doesn't comply with the dress code.

Claudius Benson, a ninth grader at Old Redford Academy in southwest Detroit, hasn't had a haircut in 10 years because of his religious beliefs.

"This is not about a haircut, it's about our deeply held spiritual beliefs," Alecha Benson, Claudius' mother, told FOXNews.com. "These are strongly held religious beliefs that we have had in practice for much of my son's life."

The school won't allow a religious exemption that would permit Benson to return to school.

......

The Old Redford Academy "reserves the right to counsel, reprimand and even dismiss a student if the student does not cooperate or comply with the school standards."

"Hair must be neatly groomed in a close-cropped hair cut. Hair must be evenly shaped. (Braids twists, dreadlocks, etc., are unacceptable)," according to the school's dress code.

The school stands behind its dress code but will consider the Benson family's request.

....

A school security guard escorted Claudius Benson to a meeting with a school administrator on Sept. 6 — the third day of school — where he was given a suspension form, according to the complaint.

Alecha Benson appealed to the school's board of directors on Sept. 11, explaining that her son's hair could not be cut because of religious beliefs. Claudius Benson remains on suspension.

Alecha Benson said she asked the ACLU for help because a board won't fully review the matter until Oct. 10, which would leave her son out of school for more than a month.

So, there's a lot wrong here, beginning with why a public school should be able to dictate a single haircut for everyone who attends. I can understand requiring neat dress that doesn't distract from the school environment, but that rule basically says, "No male hairstyles except for cutting it all off, kk? And don't even think about any other typical hairstyles for black males."

And then there's the fact that the school board won't review it for a full month? They put a student on suspension and they don't get to the review right away? Great, you've probably ruined his school year no matter what. Good job!

The kids belief is clearly bogus. If he really had deeply held religious beliefs about god he wouldn't rely on the ACLU.

He's basically just a troublemaker, and should be expelled.

I might be able to understand the schools reasoning if it was a private institution, but since it is a public school.. Shouldn't the township/state be involved?

Just remember, if you're a fundie the ACLU is a bunch of vile evil liberal bastards, until they're protecting your rights.


The school has an archaic rule, I can see more outlandish hair styles being against the rules, but just long hair? Hell I went to school with a guy who had a Ronald McDonald afro (white guy) and another with a hot pink 6 inch high fauxhawk.

The kids claims sounds fishy. I have not heard anybody defend hair growth due to Leviticus.....

Are there any groups that do that?

Jews.

The kids claims sounds fishy. I have not heard anybody defend hair growth due to Leviticus.....

Are there any groups that do that?

Hope the little rockstar wins. :D

I'd accuse them of gender discrimination and show up at classes anyway if I was still in school and they objected to my hairstyle. What are they going to do call the cops "There is a guy here with hair down to his nipples!" or drag me out with force so I can call the cops on them?

The kids belief is clearly bogus. If he really had deeply held religious beliefs about god he wouldn't rely on the ACLU.

He's basically just a troublemaker, and should be expelled.

Because real religious people hate civil liberties, and would never get help from such a godless evil communist organization as the ACLU. I see.

The kids claims sounds fishy. I have not heard anybody defend hair growth due to Leviticus.....

Are there any groups that do that?

As Fass mentioned, Jews, and some kinds of Orthodox Christians.

Jews.

Rastas too IIRC

It says the Familys religous beliefs, but doesnt mention a church. I think theres some bunch of "Pentacostalists" that have a ban on womens hair being cut, but I never heard it applied to men.....

Sikh, perhaps, and that's ten years of hair? Seriously?

It says the Familys religous beliefs, but doesnt mention a church. I think theres some bunch of "Pentacostalists" that have a ban on womens hair being cut, but I never heard it applied to men.....

I knew about the Hasidics (thanks Fass), but I didn't know if there were any Christian groups that have such stances.

Thanks all....

It's true!

God Hates Barbers! (http://godhatesbarbers.com/)

It's true!

God Hates Barbers! (http://godhatesbarbers.com/)

LOL!

The school has an archaic rule, I can see more outlandish hair styles being against the rules, but just long hair? Hell I went to school with a guy who had a Ronald McDonald afro (white guy) and another with a hot pink 6 inch high fauxhawk.

Seriously. I could see "No pink mohawks, etc." But simple long hair or cornrows? It's not like that would be distracting or unkempt.

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that this particular school's dress code hasn't been updated since the 1950s ....

It's 2007 and people still give a shit if a guy has long hair?

Yeesh.

Of course the ACLU would help a Christian...it's there job to defend those who feel their rights are being violated...

...And you can be a Christian and still work with the ACLU without being a hypocrite...So long as you have never stated that ACLU is seeking to destroy America/alligned with the Devil/etc

*is intentionally trying not to be tongue-in-cheek*

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that this particular school's dress code hasn't been updated since the 1950s ....

It's 2007 and people still give a shit if a guy has long hair?

Yeesh.

And yeah, what he said!

What kind of Back Assward school is this?

A buddy of mine attended a religious (Christian) high school. At the time he started high school, his habit was to wear his hair down to just past his jaw line. He was informed that this was far too long for a boy's hair and it did not comply with dress code. To this day, my pal remembers how he laughed out loud at the principal when he was informed of this rule, because a picture of Jesus--with hair down past his shoulders--was mounted on the wall of the office.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299312,00.html

(Yes, it's from fox news, I know, I know)



Good, we need more sources from a fair and balanced news network.

A little strategically placed bubble gum could cure both their problems. Pity it isn't allowed in school. ;)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299312,00.html

So, there's a lot wrong here, beginning with why a public school should be able to dictate a single haircut for everyone who attends. I can understand requiring neat dress that doesn't distract from the school environment, but that rule basically says, "No male hairstyles except for cutting it all off, kk? And don't even think about any other typical hairstyles for black males."

The school is a Charter School. Don't people have to apply and be accepted to go to a charter school?

The school is a Charter School. Don't people have to apply and be accepted to go to a charter school?

Ok, so I answer my own question and I even used WIKI.

Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools in the United States which have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools, in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter.[1]

State-run charter schools (schools not affiliated with local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups, universities, and some government entities [2].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school

So, it appears they can set the dress standards which are clearly published on the schools web site.

http://www.oldredford.com/ORA/ora%20dress%20code.htm

There is no reason the student should have applied to go there if he didn't intend to follow the very strict dress code. :rolleyes:

Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools in the United States

The bolded part is for emphasis. Regardless of whether they are exempt from certain regulations, nothing can exempt them from the United States Constitution. Any part of their charter which would be in violation of the constitution would be null and void, and place him in no particular obligation to adhere to it.

now, whether this does in fact violate the constitution is another story.

Just remember, if you're a fundie the ACLU is a bunch of vile evil liberal bastards, until they're protecting your rights.


The school has an archaic rule, I can see more outlandish hair styles being against the rules, but just long hair? Hell I went to school with a guy who had a Ronald McDonald afro (white guy) and another with a hot pink 6 inch high fauxhawk.

No. They can still vile evil liberal bastards while they're defending your rights. Christians have no problem believing mutually contradictory things at the same time.

The school is a Charter School. Don't people have to apply and be accepted to go to a charter school?

Charter schools are supposed to be a part of the public school system. I was inclined to say that if this is a private school then they can have whatever stupid rules they like. You accept their services on their terms or you decline them, just like they accept your patronage on your terms or they decline it.

But if they're accepting government money, they have no right to make this demand.

The school is a Charter School. Don't people have to apply and be accepted to go to a charter school?

Generally, yes. But charter schools are still public schools.


now, whether this does in fact violate the constitution is another story.

Is there case law on anything like this? I know that Tinker covers political speech - and that exceptions to dress code rules have to be made for it. I know that, as a general rule, laws which are not directed at religious belief but just happen to affect it can be applied.

What I don't know is how that applies in a school setting, where students are compelled to attend. Can we really make, "Don't be a particular religion/don't follow a particular religion," a requirement for attendance at a public school? My instinct would be to say no. It would seem to me that, unless school activities were being disrupted by a given religious practice, the school cannot regulate it.

What I don't know is how that applies in a school setting, where students are compelled to attend. Can we really make, "Don't be a particular religion/don't follow a particular religion," a requirement for attendance at a public school? My instinct would be to say no. It would seem to me that, unless school activities were being disrupted by a given religious practice, the school cannot regulate it.

No they can't, it violates the accepted interpretation of the anti-establishment clause by singling out a particular religious sect.

No they can't, it violates the accepted interpretation of the anti-establishment clause by singling out a particular religious sect.

But it doesn't actually single out anyone. It says, "No male student can have long hair." Now, effectively, this means that any male whose religious beliefs forbid him to cut his hair cannot practice his religion and still attend this school. But the rule was not directed at said religious belief.

This could be compared to laws like, "Nobody can use peyote." The law made a certain type of drug use illegal. Effectively, this meant that some Native Americans could not participate in religious rituals. However, the courts upheld the law because it's purpose was not to stifle religion, but to prevent drug use.

It could also, however, be compared to Tinker. Schools certainly can institute dress codes, but there are exemptions to said dress codes that must be allowed. If a student is engaging in political speech, the school cannot regulate that. The question, then, is whether or not religious practice gets the same level of consideration as political speech. My view on this is that yes, it should, as per the 1st Amendment.

I also think the comparison to Tinker is a more direct one. We aren't talking about a law regulating haircut, but a school dress code, so case law pertaining to school dress codes seems like a more appropriate guide. Unfortunately, I can't find anything pertaining to religious exemptions for school dress codes.

This pertains to military dress code: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=475&invol=503
It does not require a religious exemption in military dress. However, law is quite often applied to the military very differently than in other arenas.

It's....tricky. Which is about all I can say right now without giving it further thought. The problem is I think that while Tinker dealt with clothes and free expression, it was more clear cut because obviously certain clothing can carry a very specific message in a very clear way. Not cutting your hair less so.

Frankly it almost seems to me to be an equal protection argument as well. The rule discriminates against only males with long hair.

What I don't know is how that applies in a school setting, where students are compelled to attend. Can we really make, "Don't be a particular religion/don't follow a particular religion," a requirement for attendance at a public school? My instinct would be to say no. It would seem to me that, unless school activities were being disrupted by a given religious practice, the school cannot regulate it.

You aren't compelled to attend a charter school though. It's optional.

It's....tricky. Which is about all I can say right now without giving it further thought. The problem is I think that while Tinker dealt with clothes and free expression, it was more clear cut because obviously certain clothing can carry a very specific message in a very clear way. Not cutting your hair less so.

Yes, but this wouldn't be speech. It would be religious practice. Still covered by the 1st Amendment, so I would expect it to get equal consideration, but a bit of a different situation as well.

Frankly it almost seems to me to be an equal protection argument as well. The rule discriminates against only males with long hair.

Yes, but from what I understand, the courts generally apply a less stringent test to gender discrimination than to other types. Depending on the mood of the court, "generally accepted by society" might actually work as an argument.

Of course, that said, I totally agree that it is garbage to discriminate on that basis. If female students do not have to cut their hair short as well, then my opinion would be that the rule is unconstitutional on its face.

Generally, yes. But charter schools are still public schools.

Is there case law on anything like this? I know that Tinker covers political speech - and that exceptions to dress code rules have to be made for it. I know that, as a general rule, laws which are not directed at religious belief but just happen to affect it can be applied.

What I don't know is how that applies in a school setting, where students are compelled to attend. Can we really make, "Don't be a particular religion/don't follow a particular religion," a requirement for attendance at a public school? My instinct would be to say no. It would seem to me that, unless school activities were being disrupted by a given religious practice, the school cannot regulate it.

My question is why would anyone who knows, or should have known, the dress code before he applied to the charter school apply? I just don't understand that. If he had not applied and been accepted to the carter school, he would have gone to some other publicly funded school that did not have such a strict dress code.

You aren't compelled to attend a charter school though. It's optional.

You have to attend some school.

Yes, a charter school is optional. It is often also very competitive and students often get much better educations there. So then the question becomes, "Are we going to deny this student the best education he can get because of his religious views?"


My question is why would anyone who knows, or should have known, the dress code before he applied to the charter school apply? I just don't understand that. If he had not applied and been accepted to the carter school, he would have gone to some other publicly funded school that did not have such a strict dress code.

He could have. But perhaps this school is better - better test scores, better learning environment, etc. That certainly is often the case with charter schools. Given the fact that this school serves students in urban Detroit, it is very likely that this school will be much better for him than the public school he would otherwise attend. Why should a student's religious beliefs keep them from attending the best school that they can and getting the best education that they can?

My question is why would anyone who knows, or should have known, the dress code before he applied to the charter school apply? I just don't understand that. If he had not applied and been accepted to the carter school, he would have gone to some other publicly funded school that did not have such a strict dress code.

Presumably the school has other qualities besides its strict dress code. Perhaps it is known to have a good math program, and he likes math. Perhaps his best friend goes there. Perhaps it's in a better neighborhood than his alternative choice. Perhaps one of his parents went there. Perhaps students from this school have been statistically more likely to get accepted to good colleges. I can come up with hundreds and hundreds of hypothetical reasons one might choose a school with an unfortunate dress code in spite of said dress code.

Correct, military dress standards have no applicability to constitutionality, since effectively military personnel have contracted away some rights while in service that civilians enjoy.

You cannot wear clothing or talk derogatory of the President or the US government.

You cannot wear religious paraphernalia while in uniform (there is some paraphernalia which chaplains can wear however, though this is part of the uniform regs for that particular part of the service).

Some stuff is from certain practical situations. Beards are out at present (unless for medical waiver) because they effect the seal around breathing apparatuses.

my husband went to the local Christian university for his theology degree, their dress code says "hair should not be a color that is not found in nature", my husband being the smart ass that he is dyed his hair blue. When confronted by the administration he said one word "blueberries" and was then told to either "shave it all off or bleach it out" to which he replied "robin's egg" and they told him they would suspend him, and he said "blue jay" and they eventually dropped it.

He felt victorious, although after that his parents made him pay his own tuition.

I approve of this smart-assedness. :)

A buddy of mine attended a religious (Christian) high school. At the time he started high school, his habit was to wear his hair down to just past his jaw line. He was informed that this was far too long for a boy's hair and it did not comply with dress code. To this day, my pal remembers how he laughed out loud at the principal when he was informed of this rule, because a picture of Jesus--with hair down past his shoulders--was mounted on the wall of the office.

my husband went to the local Christian university for his theology degree, their dress code says "hair should not be a color that is not found in nature", my husband being the smart ass that he is dyed his hair blue. When confronted by the administration he said one word "blueberries" and was then told to either "shave it all off or bleach it out" to which he replied "robin's egg" and they told him they would suspend him, and he said "blue jay" and they eventually dropped it.

He felt victorious, although after that his parents made him pay his own tuition.

For interested Canuks:

It would be a fairly clear cut case (hahaha) if this happened in Canada. Section 2(a) of the Charter protects religious beliefs, and it does not matter if the beliefs are widely held, or only held on the individual level. A single person could believe that his or her religion dictated the growing of long hair, and it would fall under Charter protection.

Religious beliefs have a fairly low threshold in terms of gaining Charter protection, but they also have a fairly high threshold when it comes to infringing upon them using section 1. If religious rights are infringed upon by the government, the onus is on them under the Oakes test to prove that:

there is a pressing and substantial objective to the infringement
the means are proportional and:
rationally connected to the objective
there is minimal impairment of rights
there is proportionality between the infringement and the objective
Devereux v. Lambton County says that schools can enforce dress codes, but Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys also states that infringements on religious freedom within schools must meet the high standards of the Oake test. Since Multani was dealing with a Sikh student who wanted to wear his kirpan (ceremonial dagger) to school, and THAT was allowed under s.2(a), it is highly unlikely that kicking a kid out for not cutting his hair would ever be found to be a justified infringement.

Bah, but who knows what you crazy yanks and your pretend law will do.

I approve of this smart-assedness. :)

it's hell to live with. :p

Here (http://www.aclumich.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=541) is a link to more information about the case, including links to the briefs filed by the ACLU and other documents. (I can't get the link to the complaint to work. Fox's link didn't work for me either.)

I find the ACLU brief very persuasive. The kid has rights under both the Michigan Constitution and the U.S. Constitution (as well as under a Michigan statute) that I think are being violated.

It isn't an entirely easy call, however, and I haven't read any briefs from the otherside which might changed my mind.

One note: Although the ACLU does routinely help Christians (and conservatives), it appears in this particular case that the boy's religious beliefs are based on his mother's strict Jewish upbringing.

You have to attend some school.

Yes, a charter school is optional. It is often also very competitive and students often get much better educations there. So then the question becomes, "Are we going to deny this student the best education he can get because of his religious views?"



He could have. But perhaps this school is better - better test scores, better learning environment, etc. That certainly is often the case with charter schools. Given the fact that this school serves students in urban Detroit, it is very likely that this school will be much better for him than the public school he would otherwise attend. Why should a student's religious beliefs keep them from attending the best school that they can and getting the best education that they can?

Presumably the school has other qualities besides its strict dress code. Perhaps it is known to have a good math program, and he likes math. Perhaps his best friend goes there. Perhaps it's in a better neighborhood than his alternative choice. Perhaps one of his parents went there. Perhaps students from this school have been statistically more likely to get accepted to good colleges. I can come up with hundreds and hundreds of hypothetical reasons one might choose a school with an unfortunate dress code in spite of said dress code.

We all have to make choices and that is what this is about. This student and his mother knew the dress code going in, and if you read it, it is a very strict dress code. They also knew what their religious beliefs are and they knew there was a conflict between the two. Their choices were to follow their religion or the dress code.

It’s like the people who join the military. They know there are a lot of rules they will have to abide by, they know if they don’t abide by those rules they can get thrown out (fired) or even thrown in jail. If you don’t like the rules going in, don’t go in. There are other jobs, and there are other schools.

P.S. I looked at the picture in the link and it doesn’t look like 10 years of hair growth IMHO.

We all have to make choices and that is what this is about. This student and his mother knew the dress code going in, and if you read it, it is a very strict dress code. They also knew what their religious beliefs are and they knew there was a conflict between the two. Their choices were to follow their religion or the dress code.

It’s like the people who join the military. They know there are a lot of rules they will have to abide by, they know if they don’t abide by those rules they can get thrown out (fired) or even thrown in jail. If you don’t like the rules going in, don’t go in. There are other jobs, and there are other schools.

The question is whether one should have to chose between religious beliefs and one's best opportunity for an education merely because of some school dress code.

The school doesn't allow hats, but makes an exception for yarmulkes. Why shouldn't a similar exception be given here?

(Especially, given your comment below, because it doesn't seem there is anything particularly unruly or disruptive about the young man's hair.)

P.S. I looked at the picture in the link and it doesn’t look like 10 years of hair growth IMHO.

So, IYHO, the boy and his mother are just liars? You can tell that from the picture? How insightful of you.

He felt victorious, although after that his parents made him pay his own tuition.

http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/23_29_132.gif Justice was swift and horrible.

OK, now that I've had a bit to think, let's do a bit of a quick summary. There are two Supreme Court cases of major relevance here. The first is, as mentioned, is Tinker v. Des Moines. In this case, a school prohibition on students wearing black arm bands as symbolic protest of vietnam was found unconstitutional because it infringed on their right to free speech.

The second is Employment Division v. Smith, the "peyote case." In this case, the Supreme Court held it constitutional for a law to illegalize peyote consumption, even if it impacted native american religious rituals.

In numerous supreme court cases, the court has articulated the "strict scrutinty" standard for limiting such things, which, in general, is "compelling state interest and no less restrictive alternative to achieving that interest". In other words, the state can limit your rights if its reason is compelling, and has no less intrusive means to do so. Both "pure" speech and religious freedom follow that doctrine.

One of the big differences between Tinker and Smith was that one was a means to an end, the other an end in itself. What I mean is, in Tinker, the interest involved was to limit distraction, decrease rowdiness, and generally make schools a better learning enviornment. IT was not (or at least not explicitly) to prevent vietnam protesters from protesting. So the banning of black arm bands was a means to an end.

In Smith on the ohter hand, it was the end itself. The interest was to eliminate the use of certain kinds of drugs. So they eliminated those drugs. The court found that eliminating drugs was a compelling state interest, there was no less intrusive means to elminiate drugs than to illegalize them, and that the law was not specifically targeting native americans. So it was a permissible violation.

In Tinker on the other hand, the ruling was less clear. Courts have said that school decorum is a legitimate interest, and this justifies enforcing dress codes, limiting clothing options, etc etc, but the Tinker court was quite clear. Because something, at some point, at some time, in some way might cause a disruption is not enough to violate pure speech rights of students. Lesser speech rights maybe. You can stop them from wearing sports jerseys, or shirts with cartoons. But you can't stifle free political discourse on the grounds that somebody might find it offensive.

The case was clear. Anytime someone says ANYTHING, the risk of offense and disruption. The burden is on the school to conclusively demonstrate that, when it comes to "pure speech", that this need is compelling. And considering similar standards have been articulated towards religion as it has to speech, I fail to see why the same standard should not be applied, which is to say, it is the school's burden to prove that their interest in having this boy violate his religious tenants is compelling, and not just a preventative measure for what might, possibly, at some point, maybe occur.

The ACLU shouldn't help christians.

The question is whether one should have to chose between religious beliefs and one's best opportunity for an education merely because of some school dress code.

The school doesn't allow hats, but makes an exception for yarmulkes. Why shouldn't a similar exception be given here?

(Especially, given your comment below, because it doesn't seem there is anything particularly unruly or disruptive about the young man's hair.)

So, IYHO, the boy and his mother are just liars? You can tell that from the picture? How insightful of you.

1. There are other schools and there are other options that could provide an equally good education.

2. I did not say the boy or his mother were liars. I said IMHO it does not look like 10 years of hair growth, but I am not an expert on hair or hair growth.

Here (http://www.aclumich.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=541) is a link to more information about the case, including links to the briefs filed by the ACLU and other documents. (I can't get the link to the complaint to work. Fox's link didn't work for me either.)

Weird. I can get to it.

Edit: Oh, and thanks for the extra info!

I find the ACLU brief very persuasive. The kid has rights under both the Michigan Constitution and the U.S. Constitution (as well as under a Michigan statute) that I think are being violated.

It isn't an entirely easy call, however, and I haven't read any briefs from the otherside which might changed my mind.

I was just reading a case (which I've unfortunately closed) stating that, even if a dress code could be applied without religious exemption (it was a prison guard dress code), religious exemptions cannot be applied in a discriminatory fashion. Even if I didn't think the argument currently being made was valid, the school allowing religious exemptions for yamulkes and hijab would clearly make this a case of religious discrimination.

One note: Although the ACLU does routinely help Christians (and conservatives), it appears in this particular case that the boy's religious beliefs are based on his mother's strict Jewish upbringing.

Indeed. The use of the term "Old Testament" rather than just referring to the Torah led me to believe that she has since become Christian. There really isn't anything that makes it clear. It says she has left the Jewish group in which she studied, but it doesn't say whether or not they currently attend any religious services or adhere to the New Testament as well. Not that it matters, of course - other than the fact that my thread title would be wrong. =)

This pertains to military dress code: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=475&invol=503
It does not require a religious exemption in military dress. However, law is quite often applied to the military very differently than in other arenas.

Correct, military dress standards have no applicability to constitutionality, since effectively military personnel have contracted away some rights while in service that civilians enjoy.

You cannot wear clothing or talk derogatory of the President or the US government.

You cannot wear religious paraphernalia while in uniform (there is some paraphernalia which chaplains can wear however, though this is part of the uniform regs for that particular part of the service).

Some stuff is from certain practical situations. Beards are out at present (unless for medical waiver) because they effect the seal around breathing apparatuses.

FWIW, it appears that there is a specific statute (10 USC 774 (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C45.txt)) allowing military personnel to wear religious apparel within limits:

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART II - PERSONNEL
CHAPTER 45 - THE UNIFORM

-HEAD-
Sec. 774. Religious apparel: wearing while in uniform

-STATUTE-
(a) General Rule. - Except as provided under subsection (b), a
member of the armed forces may wear an item of religious apparel
while wearing the uniform of the member's armed force.
(b) Exceptions. - The Secretary concerned may prohibit the
wearing of an item of religious apparel -
(1) in circumstances with respect to which the Secretary
determines that the wearing of the item would interfere with the
performance of the member's military duties; or
(2) if the Secretary determines, under regulations under
subsection (c), that the item of apparel is not neat and
conservative.

(c) Regulations. - The Secretary concerned shall prescribe
regulations concerning the wearing of religious apparel by members
of the armed forces under the Secretary's jurisdiction while the
members are wearing the uniform. Such regulations shall be
consistent with subsections (a) and (b).
(d) Religious Apparel Defined. - In this section, the term
"religious apparel" means apparel the wearing of which is part of
the observance of the religious faith practiced by the member.

-SOURCE-
(Added Pub. L. 100-180, div. A, title V, Sec. 508(a)(2), Dec. 4,
1987, 101 Stat. 1086.) (emphasis added)

1. There are other schools and there are other options that could provide an equally good education.

Are there? Do you know this for a fact? Are you intimately familiar with the school district in which he lives? With his family and their financial status? With his strengths and weaknesses as a student?

2. I did not say the boy or his mother were liars. I said IMHO it does not look like 10 years of hair growth, but I am not an expert on hair or hair growth.

It's really hard to tell how long it would be if it were straightened out.

FWIW, it appears that there is a specific statute (10 USC 774 (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C45.txt)) allowing military personnel to wear religious apparel within limits:
*snip*

Interesting. I wonder if this was a reaction to the case (or cases like it) that I linked to?

1. There are other schools and there are other options that could provide an equally good education.

You have no idea whether or not that is true. You are merely speculating.

Moreover, you are ducking the question of why the boy's religious beliefs should exclude him from the school he and his mother think would be best for him. Part of the whole idea of charter schools is that they provide unique opportunities. Why should he be denied that opportunity?

EDIT: You also failed to answer a key question: "The school doesn't allow hats, but makes an exception for yarmulkes. Why shouldn't a similar exception be given here?"

2. I did not say the boy or his mother were liars. I said IMHO it does not look like 10 years of hair growth, but I am not an expert on hair or hair growth.

What is your point, then?

If you are suggesting that the boy does not actually have 10 years of hair growth, then you are, in fact, suggesting the boy and his mother are liars.

If you are simply suggesting that the boy's hair doesn't look unreasonably long, then just say so. That would appear to support the boy's claim.

It's really hard to tell how long it would be if it were straightened out.

*has black person hair* I could grow that in a couple years. It is possible his hair grows exceptionally slow though.

*has black person hair* I could grow that in a couple years. It is possible his hair grows exceptionally slow though.

If it is possible that his hair has not been cut in 10 years and he and his mother say his hair has not been cut in 10 years, why don't we just believe them? Do you really have a basis for doubting them based on that one picture?

If it is possible that his hair has not been cut in 10 years and he and his mother say his hair has not been cut in 10 years, why don't we just believe them? Do you really have a basis for doubting them based on that one picture?

Okay, fine maybe my hair grows exceptionally fast is what you wanted me to say? To be perfectly honest I'm not overly concerned whether it's two years of growth or ten, unless there's some minimum amount of time one must follow a legitimate religion before you get the exceptions?

You have no idea whether or not that is true. You are merely speculating.

Yes I am.

Moreover, you are ducking the question of why the boy's religious beliefs should exclude him from the school he and his mother think would be best for him. Part of the whole idea of charter schools is that they provide unique opportunities. Why should he be denied that opportunity?

If he knew there was a conflict between the two, and he chose the school, knowing he could be thrown out for non-compliance then he took the risk and should accept the consequences. His religious beliefs did not exclude him from the school, the fact that he violated a dress code that he was or should have been aware of, excluded him. It's all about choices.

What is your point, then?

If you are suggesting that the boy does not actually have 10 years of hair growth, then you are, in fact, suggesting the boy and his mother are liars.

If you are simply suggesting that the boy's hair doesn't look unreasonably long, then just say so. That would appear to support the boy's claim.

The point is, he knew his hair was in violation of the dress code, yet he made the choice to ignore the dress code. Is his hair unreasonably long is not relevant; the fact that it is not in accordance with the dress code is relevant.

Yes I am.

Like I said:
Are you intimately familiar with the school district in which he lives? With his family and their financial status? With his strengths and weaknesses as a student?

And, I'll add: With the particular strengths of this school?

If he knew there was a conflict between the two, and he chose the school, knowing he could be thrown out for non-compliance then he took the risk and should accept the consequences. His religious beliefs did not exclude him from the school, the fact that he violated a dress code that he was or should have been aware of, excluded him. It's all about choices.

The point is, he knew his hair was in violation of the dress code, yet he made the choice to ignore the dress code. Is his hair unreasonably long is not relevant; the fact that it is not in accordance with the dress code is relevant.

In this case, he shouldn't have to make a choice. And, it would appear that both the Michigan state constitution and the US Constitution bar the school from requiring him to make that choice. "Follow my religion or get the best education I can," should not be a choice a student has to make.

In this case, all of the burden is on the school. They must not only demonstrate that this burden on his religious practice advances a compelling state interest, but also that it does so in the least drastic way possible (as per the Michigan Constitution). They also are clearly applying this rule in a discriminatory manner, as they allow religious exemptions for yamulkes and hijab, despite the rules in the dress code against hats.

The point is, he knew his hair was in violation of the dress code, yet he made the choice to ignore the dress code.

And yet, as you continue to ignore, if the dress code is unconstitutional, he has every right to ignore it, because it is...wait for it....illegal.

And if the dress code is illegal, he has no duty or obligation to obey it.

The ACLU also defended Oliver North, Fox's favourite military man (next to Petraeus now probably).

I wouldn't let those Philistines cut my hair.

Like I said:
Are you intimately familiar with the school district in which he lives? With his family and their financial status? With his strengths and weaknesses as a student?

And, I'll add: With the particular strengths of this school?



In this case, he shouldn't have to make a choice. And, it would appear that both the Michigan state constitution and the US Constitution bar the school from requiring him to make that choice. "Follow my religion or get the best education I can," should not be a choice a student has to make.

In this case, all of the burden is on the school. They must not only demonstrate that this burden on his religious practice advances a compelling state interest, but also that it does so in the least drastic way possible (as per the Michigan Constitution). They also are clearly applying this rule in a discriminatory manner, as they allow religious exemptions for yamulkes and hijab, despite the rules in the dress code against hats.

OK! You win. Let's do away with all charter schools and dress rules in any publicly funded educational education system. I'm sure the kids will get a great education. :(

And yet, as you continue to ignore, if the dress code is unconstitutional, he has every right to ignore it, because it is...wait for it....illegal.

And if the dress code is illegal, he has no duty or obligation to obey it.

Please show me where the Constitution says, "Every citizen in a public funded educational system has the right to have their hair styled in whatever manner they so desire. Please tell me where the Constitution says a school district can not have a dress code. Please.

Please show me where the Constitution says, "Every citizen in a public funded educational system has the right to have their hair styled in whatever manner they so desire. Please tell me where the Constitution says a school district can not have a dress code. Please.

once you are actually willing to discuss the actual topic rather than creating ludicrus and, frankly, stupid strawmen, fine.

Until then, educate yourself on the topic, then talk. Because you're obviously extraordinarily lacking any material knowledge on this subject and, frankly, I don't feel like repeating myself. I've cited two cases in this tread already. Why don't you read them?

Because, until then, honestly, you're not being "clever", you're not being "smart", you're not "winning". You're just showing yourself ot be willfully ignorant.

Now if you want people to think that you are ignorant, that's your own business. But frankly I thougth you'd have a better opinion of yourself than that.

once you are actually willing to discuss the actual topic rather than creating ludicrus and, frankly, stupid strawmen, fine.

Until then, educate yourself on the topic, then talk. Because you're obviously extraordinarily lacking any material knowledge on this subject and, frankly, I don't feel like repeating myself. I've cited two cases in this tread already. Why don't you read them?

Because, until then, honestly, you're not being "clever", you're not being "smart", you're not "winning". You're just showing yourself ot be willfully ignorant.

Now if you want people to think that you are ignorant, that's your own business. But frankly I thougth you'd have a better opinion of yourself than that.

Just like all liberals. When you can't debate the subject attack the opponent. Have a good night.

Just like all liberals. When you can't debate the subject attack the opponent.

Ahh the irony. As I said, when you are actually ready to respond to the arguments made, let me know. I posted a fairly good primer on the relevant case law and what it says. When you are ready to respond to that, feel free.

However I won't go through the effort to repeat myself, but I'll do you the favor and repost it, because...well...you seem to have a short attention span:

OK, now that I've had a bit to think, let's do a bit of a quick summary. There are two Supreme Court cases of major relevance here. The first is, as mentioned, is Tinker v. Des Moines. In this case, a school prohibition on students wearing black arm bands as symbolic protest of vietnam was found unconstitutional because it infringed on their right to free speech.

The second is Employment Division v. Smith, the "peyote case." In this case, the Supreme Court held it constitutional for a law to illegalize peyote consumption, even if it impacted native american religious rituals.

In numerous supreme court cases, the court has articulated the "strict scrutinty" standard for limiting such things, which, in general, is "compelling state interest and no less restrictive alternative to achieving that interest". In other words, the state can limit your rights if its reason is compelling, and has no less intrusive means to do so. Both "pure" speech and religious freedom follow that doctrine.

One of the big differences between Tinker and Smith was that one was a means to an end, the other an end in itself. What I mean is, in Tinker, the interest involved was to limit distraction, decrease rowdiness, and generally make schools a better learning enviornment. IT was not (or at least not explicitly) to prevent vietnam protesters from protesting. So the banning of black arm bands was a means to an end.

In Smith on the ohter hand, it was the end itself. The interest was to eliminate the use of certain kinds of drugs. So they eliminated those drugs. The court found that eliminating drugs was a compelling state interest, there was no less intrusive means to elminiate drugs than to illegalize them, and that the law was not specifically targeting native americans. So it was a permissible violation.

In Tinker on the other hand, the ruling was less clear. Courts have said that school decorum is a legitimate interest, and this justifies enforcing dress codes, limiting clothing options, etc etc, but the Tinker court was quite clear. Because something, at some point, at some time, in some way might cause a disruption is not enough to violate pure speech rights of students. Lesser speech rights maybe. You can stop them from wearing sports jerseys, or shirts with cartoons. But you can't stifle free political discourse on the grounds that somebody might find it offensive.

The case was clear. Anytime someone says ANYTHING, the risk of offense and disruption. The burden is on the school to conclusively demonstrate that, when it comes to "pure speech", that this need is compelling. And considering similar standards have been articulated towards religion as it has to speech, I fail to see why the same standard should not be applied, which is to say, it is the school's burden to prove that their interest in having this boy violate his religious tenants is compelling, and not just a preventative measure for what might, possibly, at some point, maybe occur.


Now, when you are ready to discuss that in a cohesive fashion, let me know. I will be happy to discuss and debate the matter as to whether this fits in with the standard of Tinker. Whether you are ready to have an honest debate instead of resorting to nonsensical gibberish of "show me where it says schools can't have dress codes!" which not only fails to respond to what anybody is saying, but makes you look foolish, let me know.

Have a good night.

At this point whether you go or stay makes no difference to me. You contribute nothing of value to this discussion and as such your presence in it is of no value. I have already stated the basics of guiding law. The ball is now in your court. When you are ready to argue about the points raised, and not the points you want to pretend were raised, I will be happy to oblidge

I won't hold my breath. Until then, you shan't be missed.

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that this particular school's dress code hasn't been updated since the 1950s ....

It's 2007 and people still give a shit if a guy has long hair?

Yeesh.

I concur.I mean if its his relegion why can he have like the seek type head cover or tie it up with a bandana or something no big deal.

OK! You win. Let's do away with all charter schools and dress rules in any publicly funded educational education system. I'm sure the kids will get a great education. :(

And this has what at all to do with anything I said.

Oh, that's right, nothing!

I take it you can't actually address what I actually said?

Just like all liberals. When you can't debate the subject attack the opponent. Have a good night.

Wow. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Your questions have already been answered. No one has been arguing for all dress codes to be abolished, so it is extremely obvious that you aren't even bothering.

The ACLU shouldn't help christians.

That's especially funny (not) because the family in question appears to be Jewish, not Christian. The prohibition in Leviticus on cutting one's hair is an Orthodox Jewish thing, not Christian.

Oh I know you were just being a troll, but you can at least be accurate :)

Please show me where the Constitution says, "Every citizen in a public funded educational system has the right to have their hair styled in whatever manner they so desire. Please tell me where the Constitution says a school district can not have a dress code. Please.

What part of the First Amendment don't you understand?

"no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Here we have a case involving the free exercise of religion (and possibly freedom of speech). The case isn't merely about the "right of students having their hair styled in whatever manner they so desire" any more than Lawrence v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html), 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was merely about the right to bugger each other.

Here we have a clear case of whether or not the school district policy (i.e., the law) prohibits the free exercise of religion. Whether it does or not is open to debate, but whether or not the boy has a right to free exercise of religion is not debatable.

Moreover, as I've pointed out and is explained in links I've provided, the boy also has rights under the Michigan Constitution and under Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

I find it strange that it appears to be the liberals on here that are the only ones valuing freedom of religion.

Just like all liberals. When you can't debate the subject attack the opponent. Have a good night.

Gee, if you ignore posts (including citations to Supreme Court cases) and say something stupid, you run the risk that somebody may say your posts don't address the arguments and are stupid.

That is not attacking the opponent, that is attacking the stupid, unresponsive, and ill-informed thing the opponent said.

But "just like all conservatives," you can't debate the subject so you avoid answering other people's questions and arguments.

For example, you continue to refuse to provide any argument for why the school policy should override the students religious freedom. You also refuse to explain why the policy should have an exemption for the wearing of yamulkes, but not for long hair based on the same religious beliefs.

geez TCT what am I chopped liver? :p

OK! You win. Let's do away with all charter schools and dress rules in any publicly funded educational education system. I'm sure the kids will get a great education. :(

Please tell me where the Constitution says a school district can not have a dress code. Please.

You are simply being absurd.

No one (other than you) is suggesting we do away with all charter schools. We are merely suggesting that charter schools must obey the federal and state constitutions and state law.

Similarly, no one is suggesting you cannot have a dress code. Again, we are merely suggesting that such codes must conform to the federal and state constitutions and state law.

Is that really so hard to grasp?

geez TCT what am I chopped liver? :p

Not sure what you mean.

As usual you are doing an excellent job of explaining the issues and arguing your viewpoint, I'm merely joining in.

(I seem to have an addiction to the term "merely.")

Not sure what you mean.

How TYPICAL of you. I slave ALL DAY over a hot westlaw putting together a nice citation for you, and do you even say hello?

No, you're all about Michigan constitution this and civil rights act that. What about MY legal analysis huh? What about MY research? No, I suppose that doesn't matter to you does it? I miss our time together! Is that so wrong???

Heh, nah, just usually you add or comment on whatever legal arguments I make when we run into each other.

BTW checdk the RIAA thread.

The kids claims sounds fishy. I have not heard anybody defend hair growth due to Leviticus.....

Are there any groups that do that?

Only Sikh's as far as I know. But at least they put it in a topknot/bun covering if they're young and a turban when older so it doesn't leave a mess.

The bolded part is for emphasis. Regardless of whether they are exempt from certain regulations, nothing can exempt them from the United States Constitution. Any part of their charter which would be in violation of the constitution would be null and void, and place him in no particular obligation to adhere to it.

now, whether this does in fact violate the constitution is another story.

Question: If you can pick and choose parts of a dress code, does that not basically eliminate it?

One of the reasons of dress codes in some schools was to eliminate gang colors. Where do gang colors fall under the question of Freedom of Expression?

Question: If you can pick and choose parts of a dress code, does that not basically eliminate it?

Not really, because you can only pick out the unconstitutional parts. Gang colors, hmm, Interesting question, and me being unable to cite cases and such on it like those two, *defers*.

What part of the First Amendment don't you understand?

"no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Here we have a case involving the free exercise of religion (and possibly freedom of speech). The case isn't merely about the "right of students having their hair styled in whatever manner they so desire" any more than Lawrence v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html), 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was merely about the right to bugger each other.


A question I have wondered is how do you "legally validate" religious beliefs? Is there such a method or do we simply take all claims without question?

-clarify-
That comes off wrong to me. What I am wondering is how do you deal with the possibility of made up religious beliefs to suit a goal?

A question I have wondered is how do you "legally validate" religious beliefs? Is there such a method or do we simply take all claims without question?

He also left out the "Congress shall establish" portion of the first amendment. :rolleyes:

He also left out the "Congress shall establish" portion of the first amendment. :rolleyes:

psssst, read Tinker

Question: If you can pick and choose parts of a dress code, does that not basically eliminate it?

One of the reasons of dress codes in some schools was to eliminate gang colors. Where do gang colors fall under the question of Freedom of Expression?

the argument is being that gang colors are not "pure" speech, in that they do not promulgate a clear expression of political or religious intent.

Only Sikh's as far as I know. But at least they put it in a topknot/bun covering if they're young and a turban when older so it doesn't leave a mess.

I thought Sikhs didn't cut their hair because they want to stay as God made them. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with Leviticus though.

Please show me where the Constitution says, "Every citizen in a public funded educational system has the right to have their hair styled in whatever manner they so desire. Please tell me where the Constitution says a school district can not have a dress code. Please.

Where does the Constitution define drinking laws? Worker safety laws? Those are left to the state.

Only in certain matters does the Constitution trump state law via the 14th amendment.

The hair code is a matter of religious belief and as such that part of the dress code is invalid due to the establishment clause.

A question I have wondered is how do you "legally validate" religious beliefs? Is there such a method or do we simply take all claims without question?

-clarify-
That comes off wrong to me. What I am wondering is how do you deal with the possibility of made up religious beliefs to suit a goal?

effectively it's a burden shifting. The student in that instance would have the burden to demonstrate that this is their actual religious belief. It need not be a popular one, or an "old" one, and it has been articulated before the various methodologies to determine so, but the short answer is, it is the burden of the one claiming that it is their religious belief that their belief is a true belief.

the argument is being that gang colors are not "pure" speech, in that they do not promulgate a clear expression of political or religious intent.

Ok. Thanks!

effectively it's a burden shifting. The student in that instance would have the burden to demonstrate that this is their actual religious belief. It need not be a popular one, or an "old" one, and it has been articulated before the various methodologies to determine so, but the short answer is, it is the burden of the one claiming that it is their religious belief that their belief is a true belief.

Ok. Which in the current matter was done by the mother and her explanations.

Who evaluates proof? The judge or do they bring in say a cultural anthropologist or can it be a combination of both?

I am wondering if there can be a situation where the judge is a mindset of there is only one true religion and said belief would be shot down.

Hell, the ACLU steps in wherever they feel that they might be needed. I mean, they even filed an amicus brief for Rush Limbaugh.

Hell, the ACLU steps in wherever they feel that they might be needed. I mean, they even filed an amicus brief for Rush Limbaugh.

Word.

*bows*

Who evaluates proof? The judge or do they bring in say a cultural anthropologist or can it be a combination of both?

Well a "cultural anthropologist" would just be an expert witness, and his testimony be considered evidence. But in the end that evidence is evaluated by the finders of fact, usually a judge.

I am wondering if there can be a situation where the judge is a mindset of there is only one true religion and said belief would be shot down.

Well in theory that is what the appeals process is for.

He also left out the "Congress shall establish" portion of the first amendment. :rolleyes:

*sigh*

Yes, I did.

Are you under the impression that part is relevant to this discussion? Are you under the impression that somehow the school policy doesn't fall under the First Amendment because it wasn't an act of Congress?

If so, your point is based in ignorance. The 14th Amendment incorporates the First Amendment and makes it apply to the states. The school gets its authority from the state. Thus, via the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment applies to the school.

But I thought that was understood here. Even if incorporation is a rather tricky subject, the idea that parts of the Bill of Rights like the First Amendment apply to the states and local authorities is pretty basic Constitutional Law.

But even if you didn't know that to begin with, it is pretty obvious from the linked materials and from our discussion.

EDIT: If you don't believe me about incorporation, here are links to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)) and to the NRA (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23) explaining the concept. Here is a quote from the Supreme Court that seems apt:

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures-Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

-- West Virginia v. Barnette (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=319&page=637#637), 319 U.S. 624, 637 (1943).

A question I have wondered is how do you "legally validate" religious beliefs? Is there such a method or do we simply take all claims without question?

-clarify-
That comes off wrong to me. What I am wondering is how do you deal with the possibility of made up religious beliefs to suit a goal?

Neo Art has answered this, but I'll try to provide some more information.

If you look at the ACLU's letter and brief, they both address this in some detail. I'll summarize some of what they say.

The Supreme Court test that the ACLU says applies here requires a court to consider five factors in order to determine whether a rule that burdens religion is unconstitutional. Those factors are: (1) whether the belief at issue is sincerely held, (2) whether the belief at issue is religiously motivated, (3) whether the regulation at issue burdens the exercise of the belief at issue, (4) if there is a compelling state interest which justifies the burden, and (5) if there is a less obtrusive form of regulation.* So, factors (1) and (2) go to the "legal validity" of the belief at issue.

While the "truth" of a belief is not open to question, there remains the significant question whether it is "truly held." This is the threshold question of sincerity. The sincerity of the belief is a factual matter like anything else and the court can hear evidence on the matter. Absent evidence to the contrary, however, courts will generally accept claimants' assertions regarding the sincerity of their belief.

Here there is lots of evidence of the sincerity of the belief in this case and I'm not sure the school is even going to contest that issue.

Similarly, courts apply a lenient standard to their analysis of whether a belief is religiously motivated. While a belief must have more than a purely secular or philosophical basis, it need not be endorsed or mandated by a religious organization to gan constitutional protection. Again, courts review evidence on the matter of whether the belief is religiously motivated, but they do not question the validity of particular beliefs.

Again, there seems to be plenty of evidence hear that the belief in this case is religously motivated and I don't know that that will even be a contested issue.

* note: as Neo Art has explained, Employment Division v. Smith and it's progeny have potentially effected the last three points of this test. But that isn't relevant to TBF's question.

Well a "cultural anthropologist" would just be an expert witness, and his testimony be considered evidence. But in the end that evidence is evaluated by the finders of fact, usually a judge.

Well in theory that is what the appeals process is for.

I suspected as much but I wanted to see if my thoughts were right.

Thanks again :)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299312,00.html

(Yes, it's from fox news, I know, I know)

The mother of a 14-year-old high school student wants her son back at school after he was suspended for long hair that doesn't comply with the dress code.

Claudius Benson, a ninth grader at Old Redford Academy in southwest Detroit, hasn't had a haircut in 10 years because of his religious beliefs.

"This is not about a haircut, it's about our deeply held spiritual beliefs," Alecha Benson, Claudius' mother, told FOXNews.com. "These are strongly held religious beliefs that we have had in practice for much of my son's life."

The school won't allow a religious exemption that would permit Benson to return to school.

......

The Old Redford Academy "reserves the right to counsel, reprimand and even dismiss a student if the student does not cooperate or comply with the school standards."

"Hair must be neatly groomed in a close-cropped hair cut. Hair must be evenly shaped. (Braids twists, dreadlocks, etc., are unacceptable)," according to the school's dress code.

The school stands behind its dress code but will consider the Benson family's request.

....

A school security guard escorted Claudius Benson to a meeting with a school administrator on Sept. 6 — the third day of school — where he was given a suspension form, according to the complaint.

Alecha Benson appealed to the school's board of directors on Sept. 11, explaining that her son's hair could not be cut because of religious beliefs. Claudius Benson remains on suspension.

Alecha Benson said she asked the ACLU for help because a board won't fully review the matter until Oct. 10, which would leave her son out of school for more than a month.

So, there's a lot wrong here, beginning with why a public school should be able to dictate a single haircut for everyone who attends. I can understand requiring neat dress that doesn't distract from the school environment, but that rule basically says, "No male hairstyles except for cutting it all off, kk? And don't even think about any other typical hairstyles for black males."

And then there's the fact that the school board won't review it for a full month? They put a student on suspension and they don't get to the review right away? Great, you've probably ruined his school year no matter what. Good job!

Actually that's a false statement. The rule would also ban white kids from long hair as well and if you ever looked at most heavy metal acts, many of them including white individuals, you'll find lots of long hair and that would all fall under this rule as well.

Actually that's a false statement. The rule would also ban white kids from long hair as well and if you ever looked at most heavy metal acts, many of them including white individuals, you'll find lots of long hair and that would all fall under this rule as well.

If you read what I said, I mentioned long hair separately. My comment was in reference to the prohibition of braids, twists, dreadlocks, etc. Both braids and twists can be (and often are) carried out with short hair, particularly in black males. Some people of other ethnicities get them on occasion, but they are primarily seen in the black community, as are dreadlocks. Outside of just long hair, all of the specifically mentioned hairstyles seem to be fairly common in the black community, while being much less common in those of other ethnicities.