Appeals court hears suit over boy's hairstyle

[icymist]

NEW ORLEANS — A southeast Texas school district asked a federal appeals court Friday to throw out a ruling that its enforcement of a grooming policy violated the rights of a kindergarten student who refuses to cut his hair for religious reasons.

In January, a federal judge in Houston barred the Needville Independent School District from disciplining the boy, a 5-year-old of Native American descent, for wearing his 13-inch hair in two long braids outside his shirt.

The boy's parents, Kenney Arocha and Michelle Betenbaugh, say he has a constitutional right to wear a hairstyle that conforms to his Native American religious beliefs. His father hasn't cut his hair in 11 years, believing his long braids have religious meaning.

More

[Divine Discontent]

1. closed minded arses! you don't look or conform to what we want!

[EndersDame]

2. Hey its gender discrimination girls are allowed long hair

I also think if kids are allowed to were cross pendents than they should have long hair

[hayu_lol]

3. When you consider that across the country...

kids show up for kindergarten or other grades without a brush touching their hair, the draconian dress policy of this school district is beyond the pale.

Think Fundie type dress codes.

The judge was correct in his ruling.

[southpaw]

4. To hell with the whole religious aspect

it's gender discrimination if male students are subject to hair-length regulations while female students are not. I thought this kind of horse-shit played out in the 1970s.


The religion angle is crap. What if a child's parents insisted that their son or daughter's 'sincerely held religious belief' required them to wear a rotting skunk corpse around their neck?

[MineralMan]

5. Well, the girl in your second example might have a hard time

finding a date, so maybe it's really a birth control device. That's protected, I'm sure.

[Chulanowa]

7. Because by making it a religious case, a win is nearly guaranteed

Sad fact of our legal system, but once religion is mentioned, everyone puts on the kid gloves and foam padding to make sure nobody gets hurt.

Had it been "they're discriminating against him because he's a boy" I guarantee you the judge would have said "so what?"

[southpaw]

11. Yeah, you make a good point.

Sexism isn't taken seriously if it negatively impacts or prejudicially stereotypes males. Same is true af racial prejudice aimed at whites.


Absolutely agree about the kid gloves for religion.

Well, damnit... Esmerelda and Keith telepathically instructed me to run naked through a laundromat with a dozen live hamsters taped to my arse... so arresting me for indecent exposure/animal cruelty is tantamount to religious persecution!

[Ms. Toad]

13. From a legal standpoint, religion is a stronger case.

Religious discrimination is subjected to review on a strict scrutiny basis. Gender on a heightened scrutiny. That means it is easier to prove discrimination on the basis of religion than it is on the basis of gender. If I were the family's attorney, and I had those two options, I would bring the case on the basis of religious discrimination.

That said, generally applicable laws that do not deliberately target a particular religion (like the prohibitions on peyote use - directed at stemming drug abuse but which also impact Native American religious rituals) are more frequently being upheld as constitutional. On that basis, the gender discrimination (assuming the dress code was different for males than females) might be an easier sell.

[reggie the dog]

6. I would argue that daddy is a long haired hippie

and that his son has a right to look like his dad in a public school in a free country. But I am a dirty hippie....if they found against me I would just move away.

[Obamanaut]

8. We read right here on DU that all (not some, not a few, but all)

religious beliefs are based on mythology, so there is no reason to get our panties twisted because the boy is expected to cut his hair and violate those mythological beliefs.

Christians endure ridicule because of their bible, but Muslums and now Native Americans must be understood.

Man, this is too weird.

Let them all leave their religions at home or their place of worship, and if the school, job site, profession, etc has rules regarding dress/grooming, they can adhere or go elsewhere.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. It's such a shame and double standard.

On DU you never hear about the countless Christian child victims who are expelled from schools over their Christian mullets and bowl cuts.

[blondeatlast]

15. Because, ya know, this Christian always wore "funny" clothes to school. YHGTBK. nt

[Xicano]

9. Reminds me of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIGB-AM_Zq0

[surrealAmerican]

12. Are the parents in this school district ok with ...

... having them spend all this money in order to force a five-year-old to cut his hair? Couldn't their tax money be better spent, oh, maybe, educating their children?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. Oh, geez... with all due respect (none), fuck "religious reasons"

I am so tired of the expanded rights of "religious" people as opposed to just people who have strong feelings, principles, convictions, etc..

The special status given religion in the Free Exercise Clause would be a violation of the Establishment Clause were it not in the Constitution.

Liking long hair as an aesthetic choice is at least as valid as liking long hair because your grandfather had long hair or because some you imagine that an imaginary being told you how to wear your hair.

Agnostic children ought to have the same access to long-hair. If there is a reason sufficiently compelling to dictate hairstyles to agnostic children who just like long hair then it should apply to everyone.

The framers fucked up by not making the First Amendment protect Free Exercise of Conscience.