Conyers v. Glenn
Decision Date | 20 January 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 69--635,69--635 |
Citation | 243 So.2d 204 |
Parties | John W. CONYERS, a minor, by his mother and next friend, Janet M. Conyers, Appellant, v. Robert GLENN, as Principal of Clearwater High School, et al., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael O. Plunkett, Clearwater, for appellant.
Edward A. Turville, St. Petersburg, for appellees.
Conyers had parental consent to wear his hair long, but was suspended from Clearwater High School without a hearing for failure to cut it. He sought a temporary injunction and a hearing before the School Board on his contention that the regulation violated his constitutional rights.
The trial judge granted a temporary injunction, permitting Conyers to remain in school pending decision of his case. At a later hearing the trial judge announced that he would hear argument, but had prepared a lengthy order in which he found that Conyers was not entitled to due process, reasoning that the School Board was no more obligated to grant a hearing than are a child's parents. The complaint was dismissed.
One can understand how a trial judge, after researching the matter briefly, might be led to this conclusion. If he began with American Jurisprudence he would have read the following in 47 Am.Jur., Schools § 171:
Referring to the annotations cited, he would have learned that in Jones v. Day, 1921, 127 Miss. 136, 89 So. 906, 18 A.L.R. 645, the Supreme Court of Mississippi upheld a rule of the trustees of the Wilkinson County Agricultural High School requiring students to wear khaki uniforms. In 1923 the Supreme Court of Arkansas upheld the suspension of a girl for failure to remove powder she had worn for cosmetic purposes. Pugsley v. Sellmeyer, 158 Ark. 247, 250 S.W. 538, 30 A.L.R. 1212. A glimmer of dissent as to reasonableness of such regulations appears: Mr. Justice Hart said,
In 1965 the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts unanimously upheld the power of the school authorities to deny admission to a long-haired student. Leonard v. School Committee of Attleboro, 1965, 349 Mass. 704, 212 N.E.2d 468, 14 A.L.R.3d 1192. In the annotation which follows at page 1201, the legal scholar following this method of research would read of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1966, 258 F.Supp. 971, in which the federal district court upheld the right of a school board to forbid the wearing of black armbands protesting our involvement in Vietnam.
But he would not learn of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 1969, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731, which reversed that decision and makes it perfectly clear that students are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and entitled to due process.
We follow Tinker and hold that this complaint was at least prematurely dismissed. Fla.Const. Decl. of Rights § 9, F.S.A., U.S.Const. Amend. XIV.
But what is due process? This is a larger and more complex question.
The order appealed from is grounded on the theory that parental authority has been transferred by the will of the majority to the board, and that the board has authority to prescribe the students' dress. The corollary of this proposition is that if these long-haired young, grown to legal age, sufficiently persuade their fellow citizens to elect, by a bare majority, a bare majority of a school board, then that governmental body shall have the authority, by vote of its new majority, to suspend the student who cuts his hair during the term.
We cannot uphold the regulation for violation of which Conyers was suspended without according the same right of governance to future school boards. We would surmise that many who are not offended in the slightest by the imposition of the collective will on the long-haired boy of today would be early advocates of the short-haired individual's right to be different in a long-haired society. It is principle, not fashion, to which judges must repair in determining the extent to which government may invade the rights of the individual. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510. The opinions in Griswold reveal the difficulty our Justices have in ascribing to some specific constitutional inhibition their view that the state has overstepped the limits of its power. But the one clear consequence of Griswold is that some showing of overriding public necessity is a necessary predicate to state action interfering with the freedom of the individual. Cf. State v. Eitel, Fla.1969, 227 So.2d 489. Conyers has never had a hearing on the reasonableness of this regulation and has been denied public education--a valuable right--for failure to comply with it. It is not as if he had asked and was refused permission to absent himself momentarily from the classroom. The failure to comply is punished by summary suspension of his education, and on the meager record before us there is no justification for this. We can understand how, after reading American Jurisprudence and cases reported in A.L.R., the trial judge might think himself on sound ground when he states:
But the trouble is that the school board and the parent are in disagreement: one says he may not and the other says he may wear his hair long. If the school board said simply that Conyers could not scuff the floor with cleats on his shoes it would have unquestioned authority to do so and would not conflict with the parent's authority to let the child tap dance on the dining room table if he wanted to. 1 Both the board and the parent cannot prevail with respect to the length of the boy's hair. Appellees' argument that the Marines cut the hair of recruits overlooks the facts. The Marine does not go home every afternoon, and the high school is not a Marine barracks. The question here is whether the parent or the board is to control with respect to a matter as to which both cannot prevail. Unless the board can show some overriding necessity, this part of the child's nurture rests with the parent.
The trial judge asks: This statement is overbroad. The family is not obsolete in American life. Conyers has parental consent to wear his hair long. If the Pinellas County School Board wishes to Teach Conyers what the sentiments of the American majority are it may do so. But it cannot deny him the right to an education in the absence of a showing that his conduct As an individual infringes on the rights of other students to an education. This it failed to do. The question of hair length is one of fashion, 2 not morality. Throughout history, fashion has changed, and to suggest a moral question here is to malign the memory of our leaders whose portraits are on our currency, of Minute Men who took up muskets to win the right of the individual to make his own decisions free of unwarranted governmental interference. A clear majority of the Chief Justices of the United States would be ineligible by the Pinellas Board's standards to matriculate at Clearwater High School. 3
The cases in which suspension of students for wearing long hair has been upheld fall either into the category of those upholding school board authority either prior to or without acknowledging the change in constitutional standards wrought by such cases as Tinker and In re Gault, 1967, 387 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Independent School Dist. No. 8 of Seiling, Dewey County v. Swanson
...Or.App. 314, 505 P.2d 939 (1973); Meyers v. Arcata Union High School Dist., 269 Cal.App.2d 549, 75 Cal.Rptr. 68 (1969); Conyers v. Glenn, 243 So.2d 204 (Fla.App.1971); Breese v. Smith, 501 P.2d 159 (Alaska 1972); Graber v. Kniola, 52 Mich.App. 269, 216 N.W.2d 925 (1974); Laine v. Dittman, 1......
-
Hunt v. Board of Fire Com'rs of Massapequa Fire Dist.
...Murphy v. Pocatello School Dist. #25, 94 Idaho 32, 480 F.2d 878; Laine v. Dittman, 125 Ill.App.2d 136, 259 N.E.2d 824; see Conyers v. Glenn, 243 So.2d 204 (Fla.App.); Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 16 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. at 768--769. 4. Some cases rely on the presumption that legislation is valid ......
-
Sandstrom v. State
...(Fla.1953).20 Fla.Const. art. I, § 2.21 L. Maxcy, Inc. v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552, 139 So. 121, 131 (1932) (on rehearing).22 Conyers v. Glenn, 243 So.2d 204 (Fla.App.2d 1971) (hair length of students). To the same effect see Johnson v. Joint School District No. 60, 95 Idaho 317, 508 P.2d 547 (19......
-
Ponton v. Scarfone
...243 (1944); Springer v. Greer, 341 So.2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Jones v. Smith, 278 So.2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Conyers v. Glenn, 243 So.2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Tucker v. American Employers' Insurance Company, 171 So.2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). The foregoing authorities fall short of......