Parents in Girard need to demand the district revise its discriminatory hair policy
The story of an unnamed 8-year old Native American boy forced by Girard USD 248 to cut his hair or be kicked out of his elementary school is an example of bad governance from the past and shameful conduct of the present.
Male children of Black and Native Americans, and others, face more prejudice and discrimination from schools for incorporating longer hair, locs, fades, lines or braids into their grooming choices. And, they face this additional scrutiny and restriction of their liberty often based simply because of their sex.
The R.V. Haderlein Elementary School handbook contains the following as part of their dress code:
Boy's Hair Length: Hair is not to touch the collar of a crew neck t-shirt, cover the eyebrows, or extend below the earlobes. Ponytails, rat tails, or any other style that would circumvent the policy are not permitted.”
The handbook has no hair length policy for girls.
Not for nothing but also prohibited in the handbook are “Hats and/or items worn on or about the head,” which would prevent any Muslim girls that may live in Kansas from wearing traditional scarves, hijabs, al-amiras, shaylas, etc.
Schools that continue to publish and enforce outdated notions of how boys should look and how they shouldn’t are stuck in the past, which is not where one should want a place of learning, except in history class.
Girard school officials appear to be operating still, as schools did in what they probably see as the good ole days, before 1943 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Prior to then, courts did not recognize that students even had civil rights and allowing schools to exercise nearly unchecked authority over students.
While the federal Appellate courts have gone back and forth recognizing a student’s rights and then limiting those rights in the interest of school officials’ need to maintain safety and discipline, this would seem to be a matter of common sense and good judgement. Here, school officials exercised neither.
Despite a significant number of court challenges over the past six decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on a case like this and there is no consensus amongst the various lower Circuit Courts. The Girard school district decision reflects a darker time when school officials argued that students lacked basic rights and does nothing to further the education of its students.
And, it likely violates the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title 7 of Kansas’ state Constitution not to mention the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
But, why do we as a society always seek remedy from the courts when other simpler, quicker, and more democratic avenues are available?
Parents and non-parents alike should demand that school board officials immediately remove the unnecessary and discriminatory boy’s hair policy from handbooks in each of its schools and allow parents to make decisions on such a basic personal choice as their child’s hair.
School superintendent Todd Ferguson told ABC News: “Nothing matters more than creating a safe, respectful and caring school for every student.”
Really?
What part of forcing an 8-year old child to cut his hair, disrespecting long-standing customs of Native Americans to wear longer hair styles, is either respectful or caring?
The school board meets next on Dec. 14.
Kevin Walters is the creator of "The Law & You," a discussion of practical civil rights for high school students and parents. He can be reached at 734Commish@gmail.com
This article originally appeared on Topeka Capital-Journal: Girard parents must demand district revise discriminatory hair policy
