Hair today, gone tomorrow

Danny Adkison

In the mid-1960s the Beatles came to America. It wasn’t long afterward that young males were starting to imitate the Beatles. I’m not referring to endless hours spent in a garage trying to learn the chords to “Love Me Do” or “I Want To Hold Your Hand.” I’m referring to a constitutional right.

It could have occurred in Anywhere, U.S.A. in the mid-sixties. Prior to the beginning of school, students are lingering outside the building, but they are not anxiously awaiting the bell signaling the beginning of class. They were waiting to find out how the school would react. The issue? A young male had decided to let his hair grow, actually hanging slightly over his ears. It was the latest fashion fad sweeping the United States: the Beatles hairdo.

In many school districts males wearing their hair at this length were suspended or even expelled. Looking back it was much to do about nothing since the so-called “long” hair became “short” compared to how males began to wear their hair in the 1970s (more like Jesus than John).

The issue has recently resurfaced in a kindergarten school located in a suburb of Dallas, Texas. It seems Taylor Pugh (aka “Tater Tot”) is facing an in-school suspension for wearing his hair long.

What does this have to do with the U.S. Constitution?

The answer to that question surfaced when many families sued school districts for suspending or expelling males who wore their hair longer than school dress codes allowed. Many were litigated in lower federal courts. The arguments presented on both sides of the issue might surprise you.

The schools, of course, had their arguments for why they insisted on regulating hair length.

First, the long-haired males were causing disturbances in school. Gawking students in hallways were causing delays in reaching classes. Second, the long hair created sanitation issues. Long hair could clog the school’s pool filter (just to mention one example). Finally, long hair on males was dangerous. This was a concern in particular classes such as “welding” where the long hair could catch fire.

Parents who sued school districts (or, rather, the lawyers representing them) had their arguments as well. The primary one was that the students were merely exercising a constitutional freedom or right: freedom of expression. It is not a right explicitly recognized in the Constitution, but it encompasses, in one phrase, freedom of speech, press, and individuality.

This was especially pertinent in the mid-1960s when our country was mired in the Vietnam War. The counter-culture mentality, the generation gap, all these things were causing young people to express their individuality. Mary Beth Tinker, an honors student in Des Moines, Iowa, expressed her objection to the war by wearing a black armband to school. She was expelled. Some males wore their hair long as a symbolic protest to the war.

How did the courts respond? Mostly they pointed out the faulty logic of the schools’ rules.

For example, federal judges repeatedly pointed out that the disturbances in the schools were not caused by those males with long hair, but from other students who found this weird. As far as sanitation and safety? Those issues hadn’t been raised with females. They were only raised when males with long hair showed up in school. Some federal judges even came up with their own arguments in support of the students. For example, one held up a painting depicting the Founding Fathers and pointed out that most of them, applying current school dress codes, would be expelled from public schools.

Sometimes, too, other rights got involved in hair issues. One case, from Pawnee, Okla., raised the additional issue of Native Americans wishing to wear long braided hair to school to highlight their culture and religious beliefs. (The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overrule the lower decision upholding the suspension.)

The current Texas case involves a kindergartner, so making the freedom of expression case might be a stretch (the family does assert, however, they that have American Indian heritage). But the notion of expression has itself expanded since the 60s. One no longer has to have a “cause” to make a case for looking like one wants. In the case of the young Taylor, how does his hair length raise any legitimate concerns that young females, with the same hair length, wouldn’t raise?

Adults are constantly seeking to instill individuality into their children. If there is a legitimate reason for keeping hair at a certain length (boys or girls) let the schools make their case. Otherwise, they send the twisted message that you need to look like everyone else so you can be your own unique self.

Dr. Danny M. Adkison teaches constitutional law at Oklahoma State University.