Categories
Join Us At:
|
Texas School District Refuses to Acknowledge First AmendmentThe Needville Independent School District (NISD) in Texas just isn’t willing to accept that a Houston-area kindergartener, identified in court by his initials A.A., wears his long braids as an exercise of his Native American religion—nor that the U.S. Constitution and Texas’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA) require them to accommodate A.A’s religious exercise. In November 2007, A.A.'s parents requested an exemption to the school district grooming code’s requirement that boys have short hair. After months of denying A.A.’s requests for this exemption, just days before the school year began in August 2008, NISD enacted a humiliating and uncomfortable policy that required A.A. to keep his hair in a single, tightly woven braid stuffed down the back of his shirt when at school. A.A. and his parents refused the school’s district’s mandate that he hide the braids that are a symbol of his faith, and A.A. spent a month segregated from his classmates in in-school suspension for standing up for his beliefs. This punishment only stopped when the ACLU and ACLU of Texas filed a lawsuit in October 2008, and immediately after the filing, a temporary restraining order returned A.A. to class with his long braids. This past January, a federal district judge ruled (PDF) this policy violated A.A.'s First Amendment rights and violated the TRFRA. But NISD’s struggle to force the boy to conform to their appearance standards without regard for his religious beliefs didn’t end there. Last Friday, attorneys for NISD complained in oral argument before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that the district court improperly substituted its judgment for that of school administrators about how best to implement the school’s grooming code. But the truth is that NISD unlawfully substituted its judgment for that of A.A. and his family about how best to practice their Native American faith. As the ACLU argued in response, the Texas legislature, through TRFRA, requires NISD to look at the burden its punitive policy imposes on A.A. from the boy’s perspective, not their own. This echoes the deference federal courts have long given to individuals’ sincere interpretations of their religious beliefs—and how they should be practiced—under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Both clearly support the order returning A.A. to class, but since we found ourselves once again arguing the point in court last week, it seems that NISD still just doesn’t get it.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 27 Responses to "Texas School District Refuses to Acknowledge First Amendment" |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Dec 8th, 2009 at 2:16pm
That is just so ridiculous!!! People should be able to wear whta they want when they want to and how they want to. The school just doesnt want them to
Dec 8th, 2009 at 4:05pm
Or maybe the ACLU does not understand that allowing a child to be exempt from the school dress code due to "religious" reasons violates separation of church and state. Either allow no one to have braids, or allow everyone to have one. It's unconstitutional to allow one person to have one, but not others, due to their faith. I'm usually a fan and side with the ACLU, but not in this case.
Dec 8th, 2009 at 5:28pm
NISD doesn't get it. It was not so long ago that you would get beat up in Texas for wearing long hair. I hope Obama punishes Texas.
Dec 8th, 2009 at 6:15pm
By allowing this child to dress and wear his hair as he wishes in the public school based on his religeous beliefs, the school is accepting one set of beliefs over others. This is not fair to the students who cannot practice their beliefs in the school and a clear violation of church and state. The child needs to leave his religion at home and adhere to the public dress code.
Dec 8th, 2009 at 6:32pm
Excuse, how the hell is not forcing the kid to essentially give up his religion "accepting one set of beliefs over others"? The Texas school system is already "accepting one set of beliefs over others" by the very existence of this code, without any regard to children's rights for religious expression. Frankly, I also have problems with this whole hair-length code, since its blatantly forcing gender stereotypes down people's throats.
Dec 8th, 2009 at 7:54pm
I understand that he should leave his religion at the door, but he can't just cut his hair off at the begining of the school day and re-attach it when he goes home. It reminds me of a battle I had in school where there was a no hats policy, but a jewish kid was allowed to wear a baseball hat one day when he forgot his yamaka. I asked why his religious freedom is acceptable but my freedom of expression is not? Of course, I was in school at a time when it was considered that the first amendment is nullified when I stepped into the building.
Dec 8th, 2009 at 8:57pm
This whole situation is ridiculous. I say all children should wear long hair and braids--so that they may get lice and other diseases to pass along to each other--that makes a whole lot of sense doesn't it? My religion tells me to never wash my hands or wear gloves before open heart surgery. Hopefully the Aclu will stand up for me in Court, or on the other hand I could just use plain old common sense and save taxpayers money in lawyers fees by just adhering to the policy of washing hands and wearing gloves before an operation. you see common sense is freely given--if you don't want to use it don't, that's your right to do so, but don't try and take the rights away of a majority so one kid can wear his hair long. Cut your damn hair or go to another school that allows long hair--many of them don't have dress codes; Instead we are going to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers money so one kid can wear his hair long and rightly so--he should be able to wear his hair long, just not in this school. I wonder if we have to make everyone except his plight of wearing long hair. I need everyone in my school to wear surgical masks so I don't catch a disease--let's make everyone except my plight while I don't have to wear a mask, or we could just use a little common sense and make me the only one who wears the mask while everyone else carries about their business mask free. This country's lack of common sense is absolutely sickening. What did the Puritans do to exercise their religious beliefs--they left to practice it elsewhere.
Dec 9th, 2009 at 12:20am
I don't see how allowing this one child to wear his braids is 'not fair' to the other students. There is nothing here to indicate that the other students are excluded from exercising their right to live their religion, no matter what it is. And there certainly is no 'clear violation of church and state' by allowing students to live their own religion 24 hours a day, including while in school. From legalmatch.com comes this explanation of the meaning of 'separation of church and state': Separation of Church and State does not mean that religion and government may not come in contact at all. Rather, the Constitution forbids the government from favoring any religion over another. When the government interacts with religion, it must do so neutrally and have a secular purpose. Are those students allowed to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah and Halloween if they want? Then the boy should be allowed to wear his braids if he wants. If he is denied that right, THEN there is violation of the separation of church and state, because then the state is dictating how an individual is allowed to express religious belief.
Dec 9th, 2009 at 9:37am
I guess that it is step forward that people are switching from a variation of "ACLU sucks" to "I used to support you until...". Fortunately, I can detect when these posters are being disingenuous as they cannot tell the difference between supporting an individual's religious rights (Constitutionally protected) and the State favoring one religion over another (Constitutionally bared). ACLU, keep up the good work.
Dec 9th, 2009 at 12:32pm
I think school dress codes are themselves a violation of the first amendment. Denying everyone the right to wear braids should not be an option.
Dec 9th, 2009 at 2:31pm
my daughter was just susspended from her school for the remainder of 09-10 due to a body piercing. i don't pan on fighting just for her i pan on fighting for other childrens rights too... wehave no choice but to go to the PUBLIC school we go to unlss we want to pay thousands to re distric her and move her in with another relative.. the teachers are there to teach my child (who mind you was a A B C student until this) not tel me how to dress them and what they should look like. if i wanted that i would be in a private school not PUBLIC.
Dec 11th, 2009 at 7:54am
People just don't understand. These conservatives are devils who will stop at no amount of lies, bullying, and semantic acrobatics to get their will imposed upon the general populace as law. Texas is the leader in this kind of hateful fearmongering and intimidation, and it's sinister that they would do this to a people that the settlers of this state have so long done so wrong. They are without conscience because they interpret their own prejudices as the will of God, and the "will of God" as the true law of the earth.
Dec 11th, 2009 at 2:16pm
Folks. There *is not* a constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state. The only constitutional guarantee is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Congress didn't make a law, end of story. The ACLU is wrong. The school is retarded too, but there is no constitutional basis for the ACLU's involvement here.
Dec 11th, 2009 at 9:56pm
John, I agree with you. However, in all of this are our children learning reading, writing or arithmetic which in the first and foremost place should be the number one priority! Instead they are interuppted by adults who feel other things are much more important than educating our children. Maybe that's why our children that are coming out of our schools have poor scholastic ratings compared to other countries. Let's worry about educating the kids before we worry about what to wear or not to wear.
Dec 12th, 2009 at 11:47am
No student is required to "leave his religion at the door" when walking into a public school. Children may wear cross or Star of David jewelry, may keep Bibles or other religious items in their desks or lockers, may pray, etc. A.A.'s braids are no different. It is the school district who may not place restrictions on these actions or require children to pray, etc. That IS the ACLU's basis for involvement. I just made another donation to ACLU today - keep protecting us!
Dec 14th, 2009 at 12:35pm
John, the first amendment to the US Constitution actually reads. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The second clause is the key. The courts have consistently have extended "Congress" to include any and every representative of the State. This means that it is an ACLU issue as it is when the ACLU goes to bat when the State prohibits individual Christians from following their religion.
Dec 14th, 2009 at 3:10pm
To that persons response that the child wearing long braids should relocate to another place/school or state that allows the wearing on ones hair as one chooses...that was the most retarded statement I have read to date....that child is in his own land, we are the invaders...get your facts right guy...and if you don't like our freedoms which obviously Texas and your type doesn't, then you relocate...how about Iran, they seem to have a lot in common with you...
Dec 15th, 2009 at 7:12pm
the aclu is a left wing mouth piece. if the school does not allow the little braided brat to have braids he needs to go else where. the parents should cut his hair anyways and get rid of all his lice and coodies.
Dec 16th, 2009 at 4:18pm
anon #18. I hope that something less than your rights being trampled will allow you to come to your senses.
Go ACLU
Dec 19th, 2009 at 1:12pm
I think the religious aspects of the case are a bit of a red herring. Hairstyle is mostly arbitrary - if there's a reason boys aren't allowed to have long hair (e.g., some health or safety issue), then girls shouldn't be allowed to have long hair either, regardless of religious belief. (I can't imagine what the reason could be, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.) But if girls are allowed to have long hair, boys should be too.
Dec 22nd, 2009 at 10:41pm
While I agree that if girls are allowed long hair, so should boys, I cannot agree that religion does not enter into this. The boy's religion is clear about his religious needs. Just because Christians do not have dietary or hair cutting religious restrictions does not mean they are not important to people whose religion has these requirements.
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 12:06am
I went to a school with a dress code. I also grew up in a gang area. The school I went to everyone had to were one of two colors of shirts, belts, pants, and shoes. One of the colors was green. I could be against my religion to were green. How would I solve this problem. I could go to a different school, go against my religion, or choose the other options presented to me. Merry Christmas and a God blessed New Year.
Dec 26th, 2009 at 12:06pm
Your knowledge close to this good post seems to be superb! Hence students do not have to create the dissertation or just thesis abstract by their own, they could use your support.
Dec 28th, 2009 at 12:39pm
I agree with both the sentiments in #2 and #4. While it is clearly unjust to make an exception to a rule based on a religious preference, it is equally unfair to force the child to cut his hair in violation of his religious rights.
These facts seem to lead to an impasse, but it is not so. We need to realize that preventing actions that do not infringe the rights of another is wrong (Jefferson's principle). A child wearing his hair long or short does not infringe on anyone's rights, therefore it should not be legislated.
This solution to the problem is ideal because it does not advocate an individual's preference while denying another's, while concurrently protecting the religious rights of the child in question.
Dec 29th, 2009 at 4:44pm
Let's face it: we're talking about Texas. I remember about 25-30 years ago it hit national news about a TX coach who PROVED (scripturally, of course) the Jesus Christ had short hair and no beard.
Jan 6th, 2010 at 1:50pm
anon #22. If your religion prohibited you from wearing green and you went to a public school that required you to wear green, the ACLU would defend your religious rights, even though it is unlikely the individuals helping you shared your belief system. Is the ACLU great or what?
Jan 12th, 2010 at 2:27pm
It shouldn't have to be your religion if you want to wear long hair. Any reason you like is okay according to the first amendment. Wear your hair like you want and disobey Texas' unconstitutional crap.