Written by Don Byrd
A requirement that a Native American child (“A.A.”) in Texas hide his long hair, in a bun or tucked in his shirt, is a violation of his religious freedom rights, a divided 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit ruled on Friday. The Needville School District had offered an exemption from its strict short hair policy, but still mandated that the hair not be worn long and in plain view. The Appeals Court decision, however, affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not allow that substantial burden.
Perhaps most interestingly, the argument that the school has a “compelling interest” in demanding discipline and asserting authority through the hair policy was firmly rejected (my emphasis):
Regulation of hair and dress in public schools is meant in part to instill discipline and to teach respect for authority—not because a kindergartner is a flight risk or because he will need to take direction from superiors in a warzone—but because a grooming policy preserves order in the classroom and prepares students to become society’s next generation of citizens. These goals are legitimate, but they are not served by applying the District’s hair regulation to A.A. That legitimacy accepts that the wearing of long hair and unconventional dress by most boys may be seen as an act of defiance—and a rejection of authority. Well and good, but A.A.’s long hair is conceded to be an exercise, not of rebellion, but of adherence to religious belief. That adherence does not thwart the school’s pedagogical mission, a teacher’s dominion over her classroom, or a principal’s ability to maintain an environment conducive to learning. As the District has conceded, it is an acknowledgment of piety to religion and fealty to an authority superior to individual whim.
In other words, the child’s determination to express his religious believes is evidence of the very qualities the District seeks to instill with its policy.
