District Court finds boys’ basketball haircut policy does not constitute discrimination or infringe student rights

Submitted by Mastodon on Sat, 2013-03-30 21:00

Article here. Excerpt:

'Among other more technical legal findings, the Court found that the due process, equal protection, and discrimination claims could not survive on their merits. The Court reasoned that public schools may lawfully enact and enforce dress and grooming policies and may even impose a higher degree of regulation on students who participate in interscholastic sports than the general student body. The student’s equal protection claim failed because the haircut policy applies only to male athletes who play basketball and not all male athletes, thereby eliminating any claims that male athletes were treated differently from female athletes. The Court stated that there was no evidence the school intentionally discriminated against the student because of his membership in the class of male athletes. Similarly, the student’s Title IX gender discrimination claim failed because the haircut policy does not discriminate against the student because of his gender.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

After all, as with male players, long hair can constitute a hazard in its own way. Anyone who has played a hard game of b-ball knows the close-in contact is bad enough w/out someone's long hair (whether it be free-flowing or tied back) getting in your face. It's also too easy to grab someone's hair in a momentary fit of pique: a clear foul but before it's called, the pullee could find him- or herself pulled to the ground hard and injured.

So really, if the boys are required to have a close cut, why not the girls? Bet they aren't.

And as for those who say girls would never grab another girl by the hair and pull her down in fit of pique, read/watch this.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2013-03-30 21:55