Sims v. Colfax Community School District

• Decision Date: 16 January 1970
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 8-2537-C-2.
• Parties: Susan SIMS, Minor, by her father and Next Friend Aeric Sims, Plaintiff, v. COLFAX COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

307 F. Supp. 485

Susan SIMS, Minor, by her father and Next Friend Aeric Sims, Plaintiff, v. COLFAX COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 8-2537-C-2.

United States District Court S. D. Iowa, Central Division.

January 16, 1970.

James P. Piazza, Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiff.

John N. Diehl, Newton, Iowa, Kent M. Forney, Des Moines, Iowa, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HANSON, District Judge.

The matter before the Court is the constitutionality of a public school regulation which seeks to control the length of students' hair. Jurisdiction of this cause is predicated and admitted under Title 42 U.S.C., Sections 1981, 1983 and Title 28 U.S.C., Sections 2281, 2284 on the allegation that the action by the defendants violates a federal constitutional right guaranteed the plaintiff under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff, Susan Sims, brings this action by her father and next friend, Aeric Sims. Plaintiff, a student in the Colfax Community School, was suspended from school on December 2, 1968 for her failure to comply with a hair rule as set forth in a student handbook. This handbook which is distributed to all students at the commencement of the school year contains various rules and regulations promulgated by school officials to govern student conduct. The rule concerning students' hair which is being challenged by plaintiff states, to-wit:

Hair must be kept one finger width above the eyebrows, clear across the forehead.

On January 13, 1969, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby plaintiff was permitted to return to school and continue her education. This stipulation provided the following: (1) Plaintiff would voluntarily comply with the hair rule; (2) Such action by plaintiff would be without prejudice to further legal action and (3) No administrative penalties would be imposed by reason of plaintiff's absences incurred by reason of the claimed violation of the hair rule and that plaintiff would be assisted in her make-up work. Plaintiff subsequently filed this suit challenging the constitutionality of the hair rule and this matter was tried to the Court without a jury.

The precise issue to be decided by the Court is whether the rule in question violates the plaintiff's constitutional rights. At the outset the Court thinks it appropriate to state that the issue befor the Court is not a novel one. Indeed, there have been numerous cases exploring the validity of public school regulations concerning hair length and other hirsute adornments. See, e, g., Griffin v. Tatum, 300 F.Supp. 60 (M.D. Ala.1969); Crews v. Cloncs, 303 F.Supp. 1370 (S.D.Ind.1969); Lucia v. Duggan, 303 F.Supp. 112 (D.Mass.1969); Breen v. Kahl, 296 F.Supp. 702 (W.D.Wis. 1969); Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School Dist., 261 F.Supp. 545 (N.D.Tex. 1966) aff'd. 392 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1968). However, to the Court's knowledge, this is the first case involving the hair length of a female student.

The Court well knows that the field of female coiffure is one of shifting sand trodden only by the most resolute of men. The Court thus undertakes this journey with some trepidation. Since time immemorial attempts to impose standards of appearance upon the fairer sex have been fraught with peril. Arbiters of hirsute fashion, perhaps understanding the chameleon nature of the subject matter, have approached the problem with more innovation than insight. Against this delicate social milieu and ever mindful of the equal protection clause, this Court undertakes to comb the tangled roots of this hairy issue.

It cannot be seriously disputed that the interest of the State in maintaining an educational system is of such importance that the State is in fact charged with the duty to further and protect the public school system. Nor can it be denied that rules and regulations governing student conduct are required to maintain an orderly educational program. School officials of necessity have thus been given a wide latitude of discretion in formulating rules and regulations to prescribe and control student conduct within the school. Iowa Code Sections 279.8, 282.4 (1966). However, this discretion is not unlimited. Only those school rules and regulations that are reasonable are permissible. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969); Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1966); Blackwell v. Issaquena County Board of Educ., 363 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1966).

It must, therefore, be recognized that under our democratic system, public school officials may not act autocratically nor are they vested with absolute authority over their students. As the Supreme Court stated in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. at 511, 89 S.Ct. at 739:

"Students in school as well as out of school are `persons' under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect * * *."

The issue herein must therefore be resolved by deciding whether the hair regulation contained in the student handbook of the Colfax Community School and promulgated by its duly authorized representatives is reasonable. The appropriate analysis in determining reasonableness is that of weighing the individual's interest in engaging in the forbidden activity against the State's interest in circumscribing such activity.

The case law concerning hair regulations in public secondary schools demonstrates the difficulty in characterizing the interest a student has in the free choice of hair style. Some courts have assumed that a student's interest in the selection of hair style is to be afforded the same degree of protection as that granted First Amendment rights such as free speech. Crews v. Cloncs, supra. Other courts have stated that a student's choice of hair style is at least a highly protected right though possibly not within the intendment of the First Amendment. Griffin v. Tatum, supra; Breen v. Kahl, supra; Davis v. Firment, 269 F.Supp. 524 (E.D.La.1967), aff'd 408 F.2d 1085 (5th Cir. 1969); Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School Dist., supra; Westley v. Rossi, 305 F.Supp. 706 (U.S.D.C.Minn.1969).

Accordingly, because the courts above have attached great importance to choice of hair style by public school students, it has been held that the State is permitted to invade this interest only upon a showing of compelling reasons for so doing or upon a showing that if the forbidden conduct is allowed there would be a material and substantial interference to the educational system. Consequently, hair rules have been upheld where the school demonstrated that long hair actually resulted in disruption of the school. Incidents of disruption that have been shown to result from long hair have been in the nature of harassment, use of obscene or derogatory language, fights, health and sanitation problems, physical dangers, obscene appearance, and distraction of other students. Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School Dist., supra; Davis v. Firment, supra. Conversely, if the school was unable to support factually the hair rule with incidents of disruption within the school, the hair rules have been found unreasonable and, therefore, unconstitutional. Griffin v. Tatum, supra; Breen v. Kahl, supra; Richards v. Thurston, 304 F.Supp. 449 (D.Mass.1969); Westley v. Rossi, supra.

A few courts have adopted a different approach concerning the reasonableness of hair rules. These cases do not give any particular importance to a student's right to wear any hair style desired and merely state that if the hair rule is reasonably calculated to prevent disruption or interference, the rule is constitutional. Leonard v. School Committee of Attleboro, 349 Mass. 704, 212 N.E.2d 468, 14 A.L.R.3d 1192 (1965); Contreras v. Merced Union High School District, unreported (E.D.Cal. Dec. 13, 1968). Thus, these courts only look to see whether the rule might prevent disruption and do not necessarily require the school to make an objective showing of disruption.

In the instant case, plaintiff has neither pled nor argued the First Amendment. In fact, plaintiff's attorney stated on oral argument that the First Amendment was not pled because he felt it inapplicable. Consequently, the Court need not concern itself with the difficult question of whether a student's personal and untrammeled selection of hair style is protected under the First Amendment.

Nevertheless, this Court finds that regardless of the applicability of the First Amendment a student's free choice of his appearance is constitutionally protected under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Griffin v. Tatum, supra; Breen v. Kahl, supra; Zachry v. Brown, 299 F.Supp. 1360 (N.D.Ala.1967). Moreover, the Court finds that because every individual should...