In a lawsuit brought by a Black Texas high school student, alleging that school administrators had violated his civil rights by requiring him to cut his hair in order to comply with school rules, a federal court has rejected the majority of the claims.
Due to his natural locs, Darryl George was repeatedly suspended from Barbers Hill High School in Mont Belvieu, a community about 40 minutes outside of Houston, last summer. This marked the beginning of his conflict with the school.
According to local media sources, school administrators stated that George’s locs were visible below his eyebrows and ear lobes, in violation of the district’s clothing code for male pupils.
During his junior year, George skipped the majority of his scheduled classes and was placed on in-school suspension.
Related Posts
At that time, Darryl’s mother, Darresha George, told The Associated Press, “He has to sit on a stool for eight hours in a cubicle.” That is really unsettling. He would complain that his back suffers from having to sit on a stool every day when he got home.”
As a result, George and his mother filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the state’s CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair), which outlaws discrimination based on race in hair, against the school district, the superintendent, his principal, assistant principal, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, and Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Just one day before the Texas legislation entered into force on September 1st of last year, George was first suspended.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown rejected the allegations against Abbott, Paxton, the district, and school personnel in his decision on Tuesday.
Brown also rejected arguments that the district policy had infringed George’s First Amendment rights and that the enforcement was predominantly directed at Black children. The school had not demonstrated a “persistent, widespread practice of disparate, race-based enforcement” with regard to its policy, according to the court. Regarding the free speech argument, he concluded that there was no prior evidence to establish the First Amendment’s support for hair length.
George’s allegation of sex discrimination, however, was valid. “What is the rationale behind the dress code’s distinction between male and female students?” Brown asked in his judgment. The allegation is upheld at this first stage as the District does not justify the sex-based disparities in its clothing code.”
Legislators of color reintroduce the federal CROWN Act, which outlaws discrimination based on hair type.
Government
Legislators of color reintroduce the federal CROWN Act, which outlaws discrimination based on hair type.
While citing a related case from 1970 in which the court found that “the existence and enforcement of the hair-cut rule causes far more disruption of the classroom instructional process than the hair it seeks to prohibit,” Brown admitted that the state’s argument had its shortcomings.
