new thread
I thought you all might appreciate this story from Rhode Island: http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20021016_hair16.96f9a.html
In short, court rules that a parochial school's policy against log hair is arbitrary and illegal.
best, Pete
I realize it IS a private school BUT...
WHY should BOY's hairlength rules be any different than the Girl's???
Girls can wear SHORT, RASPBERRY/BLUEBERRY-colored hair...
I am living in the Littlest State and am very glad to hear this news...
I, too, am a Rhode Islander and am glad to hear this!
...takes me to a sign-up page... what's with that?
All the story says is that the court is going to rule on the issue. While the judges questions seemed to be leaning in favor of the boy, that doesn't indicate how he's going to rule.
I hope the kid prevails, but *ONLY* because the school changed its rules specifically to target him. If the rules had been in place beforehand - or if it weren't obvious that they were specifically targeting this one boy who was already enrolled - I would have hoped the school prevailed. From reading the story, the kid's parents seemed to take the same position; their beef is that the school changed the rules after they had enrolled, and the boy had attended for a year (with no problems). If they had known ahead of time, there would have been no problem.
... and i agree that the school shouldn't be allowed to target an individual with a rule.
...all the court did was grant a temporary restraining order against expulsion as there was yet no rule expressly forbidding ponytails. last summer the school added the rule to it's policy and the suit is against the rule.
the court hasn't rendered its decision on the lawsuit yet. the only thing the judge DID do (beyond the original restraining order) was deny motion to dismiss it.
Sorry if I overstated the case. However, it seems to me that in denying the motion to dismiss and in issuing the original restraining order that the court is inclined to see long hair as an isssue of expression. I also thought that in stating that the school hadn't proven it's case about his appearance causing distruption that the court was making an important statement about the arbitrary nature off these kinds of rules. I think this is an important ruling -- if not a full victory.
the court isn't seeing long hair as one thing or another... the school had no rule in writing concerning hair and therefore nothing to base the expulsion on. it is questionable as to whether the court will side with the family on the new hair rule despite the fact that it was clearly created in response to this individual's ponytail. i doubt that the judge is willing to open a pandora's box of legal action by setting the precedent of ruling a private school's dress & grooming code to be illegal.
It's about time! Good news!!
Okay, so I live here and can tell you something about the judges...
...ha..ha...and you can quote that.
So if the judge rules against the boy he did it on a whim...
That's always figured into a ruling of anykind if there's any room
to allow that.
of course it;s true a private school can tell you to dress in uniform
if they want to.
Public schools have kids almost naked in them...
Anyhow, I feel bad for the boy unless the father knows the judge...
which he probably does
where are the cigars?
The major issue there is not so much a civil rights issue as one of breach of contract. They accept the boy, take his money, and then want to change the terms of the deal? A lot of courts would say "No" to that. If, at this time in the year, he cannot readily transfer to another similar school, the court may not allow the school to bail from the situation by just handing his money back, either.
Imagine the ruckus had the school decided to go from co-ed to boys only, and midterm thrown all the girls out! :-)
In a contract dispute, this boy has a lot going in his favor. He acted completely in good faith. The school knew about him and that he was a lifetime longhair, and they said nothing, an act of bad faith. In detrimental reliance upon their acceptance of him and their having no policy against students such as him, he forewent other opportunities which have now passed because the school year has started. There is a substantial likelihood that the court will rule that the school is estopped from changing the rules under these circumstances for this student out of fairness and issue a permanent injunction, and that is the basis for the preliminary ruling.
A later article has appeared reporting on the hearing itself:
http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20021019_hair19.2df53.html
The judge's ruling will occur next week.
When this happens in our own communities, we should muster every longhair we know, and show up. Other communities who have suffered discrimination have used this tactic - it puts the judge on notice that a sizable chunk of the community is aware of the case and will care about how he rules.