Citation: Massie v. Henry, Haywood County, N.C.,455 F.2d 779 (4th Cir. 1972)
Topic: Student Dress Codes, i.e. male’s hair length
Relief Sought: Students brought action for declaratory and injunctive relief from being suspended due to violating a school guideline regulating hair and sideburn length of male students.
Issues: (1) Is it the right of a male to wear long hair and to have long sideburns a constitutionally protected right? (2) Does a student’s appearance fall under First Amendment protection?
Facts: Minor plaintiffs brought action in regards to their school suspensionsresulting from their failure to abide by a school regulation regarding male students’ hair length. The district court found the school’s regulation was justified, and that none of plaintiffs' constitutional rights had been denied; therefore, dismissing the action. Prior to the plaintiffs’ suspensions, a male student with long hair was called a “hippie” by another student, resulting in a fight. There were reports of male students with long hair being a considerable distraction in the classrooms, enough to make teachers’ classsroom management difficult. A welding teacher would not allow long haired students in his classroom due to safety risks to the students. In the school’s hair regulations, there was no mention of hair must be hygienic; nor did the schoolclaim that plaintiffs' hair was unhygenic.
Finding of the Appellate Court:The District Court’s findings were reversed.
Reasoning: In this case there was no evidence that hygienic concerns were a factor in the students’ suspensions. The school justified their hair regulation as a need for safety, and student discipline. In Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251, 11 S. Ct. 1000, 35 L. Ed. 734 (1891); Bishop v. Colaw, 450 F.2d at 1075; Clews v. Cloncs, supra, 432 F.2d at 1263-1264; Richards v. Thurston, supra, 424 F.2d at 1284-1285 courts found that a person’s right to wear their hair as they wish is an aspect guaranteed by the due process clause. Therefore, government-funded schools may not discipline students for their hairstyles. The personal selection of length of one’s hair is a form of speech, and is protected under the First Amendment. In this case, the court rejected the school’s contention that other students were distracted by the plaintiff’s hair. Also rejected was evidence that short hair was required for health and safety reasons when engaging in athletics, laboratory work, or other dangerous educational tasks. The claim of classroom disruption was insufficient as a reason for the regulation. In Bishop v. Colaw, 450 F.2d 1069 (8 Cir., 1971)courts found that a school district’s justifications for a hair regulation: “disruption in the classroom, sanitation problem in the swimming pool, safety problem in shop classes, and an asserted correlation of long hair with poor grades” were insufficient to demonstrate the necessity for the regulation, and invalidated it.