non-hypo

[Robert O'Brien]

Richard Duncan offered:

>
>By the way, is a policy that requires *boys* but not girls to grow
>their hair short really a "generally applicable policy?" A girl who
>wishes to grow her hair long because it is fashionable may do so; a boy
>who wishes to grow his hair long due to religious obligation may not
>do so. This is a policy that applies only to half of the students at
>the school. I don't believe it is generally applicable.


I share RD's sentiments, but the facts are that the Third, Fifth, Sixth,
Ninth, and Tenth Circuits of Appeals have held hair length is not within the
scope of federal judicial review; the First, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits
have found a fundamental right to govern one's appearance.  In regard to
Texas in particular, less than a year ago the state Supreme Court rejected a
challenge to the hair length code based on the Texas Equal Rights Amendment;
the vote was 7-1.  The case was brought by on behalf of an eight-year-old
who wore a ponytail similar to the one worn by his father.  Board of
Trustees of Bastrop indep. School Dist. v. Tourngate, 958 S.W. 2d 365, 41
Tex. Sup. J, 48 (1997).

Robert J. O'Brien
West Virginia Wesleyan College
obrien at wvwc.edu