When a 13-year-old Native American student in Baton Rouge decided to grow out his hair for religious and cultural reasons, his school suspended him. As of press time Tuesday, the boy was back in school but not yet exempt from the policy.
The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the school system because of the unconstitutional suspension, defending the boy’s rights and making sure no similar incidents occur.
This isn’t the first time a school in Louisiana has found itself in this situation. In 2008, St. Tammany Parish eventually allowed a 5-year-old kindergarten student to wear his hair in a braid down his back at the request of the ACLU of Louisiana and the Native American Rights Fund of Boulder, Colo.
These incidents exhibit not only a blatant disregard of the First Amendment and a disturbing lack of empathy for other cultures, but also a distinct disrespect for the student’s right to an education.
In regard to religion, expelling or suspending a student is entirely unconstitutional. Even enforcing superficial restrictions, such as in the 2007 Texas case where school authorities asked the boy in question to pull his hair back into one braid instead of two, is necessarily wrong — a disrespect for the Constitution not only in word, but in spirit.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (which expanded on the First Amendment) states the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”
In other words, a rule preventing a citizen from fully practicing his or her religion, even if said rule was established without that intention, is unconstitutional simply because it does so.
In the Houma tradition the boy follows, cutting one’s hair is akin to dismemberment — talk about a substantial burden.
Furthermore, public schools do both themselves and America a disservice by crushing individuality in the form of biased dress code initiatives.
Recently, a girl in Terrebonne Parish who wanted to wear a tux to prom was promptly banned from the quintessential high school dance by school authorities. While she was ultimately allowed to attend wearing her preferred clothing choice because the school’s lawyer decided the case would be difficult to defend in court, the drama and media attention she was subjected to was hardly reasonable.
What is in question is not the pragmatism of wearing long hair or wearing traditional clothing, but the connotations associated with it. Long hair on males has been seen in an intensely negative light since the ’60s when it was adopted as a symbol of the counterculture movement. Thus, a certain stigma is associated with it: hippie, stoner, hobo or freak (or hippie stoner hobo freak).
A girl in a tuxedo is seen the same light, as intentionally subverting traditional gender roles.
The idea that boys must have short hair and girls must wear dresses to prom is a meaningless social construct that marginalizes individuals and enforces a socially conservative viewpoint.
Part of education is growing up and learning who you want to be. Naturally, this includes what you believe and what you want to wear.
Thus, the role of the school as the punitive social arbitrator is at odds with its intended primary role of educator.
As long as a student is well-behaved, it is unnecessary to punish him or her for something as subjective and pointless as having long hair. Realistically, adhering to such a minor personal preference — for religious reasons or otherwise — probably isn’t going to substantially impact his or her education. (Which begs the question: Whom exactly are the schools guarding?)
The harm of being suspended outweighs any harm associated with having long hair or wearing a tux. Those things don’t necessarily inhibit learning. Suspension, prejudice, legal drama and distrust of authority, however, do.
Macy Linton is a 19-year-old international studies freshman from Memphis, Tenn. Follow her on Twitter @TDR_Mlinton.
 
—-
Contact Macy Linton at [email protected]