Yes! Yes! Yes! Here's the decision
Posted by Bill on October 25, 2002 at 00:59:10: Previous Next
In Reply to: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR... posted by lUCKSkIND on October 25, 2002 at 00:38:14:
Here's the newspaper article about it, and from that article, there is a link to see the actual judge's decision!
http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20021025_hair25.7aecd.html
This is one of the first American decisions supporting us against discrimination in the non-public sector, so it should be celebrated!
Re: Yes! Yes! Yes! Here's the decision
Posted by T a r i k h on October 25, 2002 at 04:42:34: Previous NextIn Reply to: Yes! Yes! Yes! Here's the decision posted by Bill on October 25, 2002 at 00:59:10:
Great judgement.
they're 'fortunato' ...
Posted by j.s. on October 25, 2002 at 06:01:39: Previous NextIn Reply to: Yes! Yes! Yes! Here's the decision posted by Bill on October 25, 2002 at 00:59:10:
...to have that judge preside! :-)
frankly i'm surprised- pleasantly so. i didn't expect that decision. i wonder if it will set a precedent for challenging grooming codes in all state licensed private schools.
WOW!
Posted by Zorba on October 25, 2002 at 11:08:59: Previous NextIn Reply to: Yes! Yes! Yes! Here's the decision posted by Bill on October 25, 2002 at 00:59:10:
This is GREAT!!! I especially like the judge's references to 'arbitrary authority' - this has been a pet peeve of mine for years!
This is WONDERFUL news! Let's hope it sticks and grows, no pun intended!
-Zorba
Those with problems with like this......
Posted by HairGarden on October 25, 2002 at 11:21:31: Previous NextIn Reply to: Yes! Yes! Yes! Here's the decision posted by Bill on October 25, 2002 at 00:59:10:
should print out some copies and keep them handy. The next time you get hassled just hand them one. It should definitely make them think.
I have seen many a post on this board from people with similar problems
: http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20021025_hair25.7aecd.html
Re: Yes! Yes! Yes! Here's the decision
Posted by 4everlong on October 25, 2002 at 12:31:26: Previous NextIn Reply to: Yes! Yes! Yes! Here's the decision posted by Bill on October 25, 2002 at 00:59:10:
: Here's the newspaper article about it, and from that article, there is a link to see the actual judge's decision!
: http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20021025_hair25.7aecd.html
: This is one of the first American decisions supporting us against discrimination in the non-public sector, so it should be celebrated!
FINALLY!!!! A court ruling of the 21st Century!!! Maybe the outdated thinking of regulating hair length on men and boys only (It's amazing we don't do the same thing to women and girls) is finally changing. I thought I'd never see the day this would happen!!!!
Analysis - very positive
Posted by Bill on October 25, 2002 at 16:07:07: Previous NextIn Reply to: Yes! Yes! Yes! Here's the decision posted by Bill on October 25, 2002 at 00:59:10:
These points we have cried to make are supported and recognized in the judge's decision:
1. Demands to cut hair are almost always about power. We have found that to be a consistent thread, and the judge notes that in his decision: Preliminarily, it must be emphasized this case is not about fashion or fashion preferences; it is about the exercise of power and whether that exercise is arbitrary and capricious. I found it interesting that the copy obtained by the newspaper of the decision had few marks on it, but someone had highlighted this very paragraph with angle brackets. What we have been crying out all along has been noticed!
2. The judge could have made his ruling based only on breach of contract grounds. This would have protected the complainant, who was in effect double-crossed by the school's changing the rules in the middle of the game. However, the judge went further and in certain settings, including this one, he outlawed longhair discrimination altogether.
3. The judge recognized that hair codes are in a different league than dress codes because hair, unlike clothing, cannot be changed when you leave the place where the code is in place. For this reason, he ruled hair codes constitute an arbitrary exercise of power.
He also pointed out that children should be taught as good citizens to resist arbitrary exercise of power, and he added, to emphasize the arbitrariness of this particular rule, that Jesus and his disciples would have not been allowed to enroll at this Christian school.
This case constitutes a very important milestone. It is from a court on the lowest rung on the judicial ladder, which means there is no strong legal compulsion for other courts to follow it or even to take notice of it, but they will. It lays out the issues surrounding long hair discrimination like no other case we've seen ever has, and in very human terms.
And guys, we owe this young longhair a world of gratitude:
Russell Gorman III
Re: Analysis - very positive
Posted by Jazbrd on October 25, 2002 at 18:18:28: Previous NextIn Reply to: Analysis - very positive posted by Bill on October 25, 2002 at 16:07:07:
: These points we have cried to make are supported and recognized in the judge's decision:
: 1. Demands to cut hair are almost always about power. We have found that to be a consistent thread, and the judge notes that in his decision: Preliminarily, it must be emphasized this case is not about fashion or fashion preferences; it is about the exercise of power and whether that exercise is arbitrary and capricious. I found it interesting that the copy obtained by the newspaper of the decision had few marks on it, but someone had highlighted this very paragraph with angle brackets. What we have been crying out all along has been noticed!
: 2. The judge could have made his ruling based only on breach of contract grounds. This would have protected the complainant, who was in effect double-crossed by the school's changing the rules in the middle of the game. However, the judge went further and in certain settings, including this one, he outlawed longhair discrimination altogether.
: 3. The judge recognized that hair codes are in a different league than dress codes because hair, unlike clothing, cannot be changed when you leave the place where the code is in place. For this reason, he ruled hair codes constitute an arbitrary exercise of power.
: He also pointed out that children should be taught as good citizens to resist arbitrary exercise of power, and he added, to emphasize the arbitrariness of this particular rule, that Jesus and his disciples would have not been allowed to enroll at this Christian school.
: This case constitutes a very important milestone. It is from a court on the lowest rung on the judicial ladder, which means there is no strong legal compulsion for other courts to follow it or even to take notice of it, but they will. It lays out the issues surrounding long hair discrimination like no other case we've seen ever has, and in very human terms.
: And guys, we owe this young longhair a world of gratitude:
I imagine that a lot of people may seem confused by whether or not this guy is or is not a true longhair, as obviously all of his hair is not long. However, he IS "doing his own thing," and that is having any long hair at all.
A lot of religious authorities of recent, are or seem to be struggling to prove that Jesus actually had short hair. Even that being said, how many years and years and years have people accepted the Jesus with long hair, and all those buzz cut men kneeling and praying to him? I did ask one priest that question, and he said "because he is Jesus, and he can look any way he wants to, including having long hair." I said, wouldn't you think that Jesus would be absolutely delighted to see men who followed his positive and loving admonitions, also want to appear like him? He said, you are not God. I said, I thought we were madeLong hair on men is NOT an "elected" minority per say. Sure, we could cut it off, but then we are in essence cutting out our identity, who we are inside. Being a closet Longhair ain't my thang. ;-)
Re: Analysis - very positive 2nd try
Posted by Jazbrd on October 25, 2002 at 18:29:39: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: Analysis - very positive posted by Jazbrd on October 25, 2002 at 18:18:28:
: : These points we have cried to make are supported and recognized in the judge's decision:
: : 1. Demands to cut hair are almost always about power. We have found that to be a consistent thread, and the judge notes that in his decision: Preliminarily, it must be emphasized this case is not about fashion or fashion preferences; it is about the exercise of power and whether that exercise is arbitrary and capricious. I found it interesting that the copy obtained by the newspaper of the decision had few marks on it, but someone had highlighted this very paragraph with angle brackets. What we have been crying out all along has been noticed!
: : 2. The judge could have made his ruling based only on breach of contract grounds. This would have protected the complainant, who was in effect double-crossed by the school's changing the rules in the middle of the game. However, the judge went further and in certain settings, including this one, he outlawed longhair discrimination altogether.
: : 3. The judge recognized that hair codes are in a different league than dress codes because hair, unlike clothing, cannot be changed when you leave the place where the code is in place. For this reason, he ruled hair codes constitute an arbitrary exercise of power.
: : He also pointed out that children should be taught as good citizens to resist arbitrary exercise of power, and he added, to emphasize the arbitrariness of this particular rule, that Jesus and his disciples would have not been allowed to enroll at this Christian school.
: : This case constitutes a very important milestone. It is from a court on the lowest rung on the judicial ladder, which means there is no strong legal compulsion for other courts to follow it or even to take notice of it, but they will. It lays out the issues surrounding long hair discrimination like no other case we've seen ever has, and in very human terms.
: : And guys, we owe this young longhair a world of gratitude:
: I imagine that a lot of people may seem confused by whether or not this guy is or is not a true longhair, as obviously all of his hair is not long. However, he IS "doing his own thing," and that is having any long hair at all.
: A lot of religious authorities of recent, are or seem to be struggling to prove that Jesus actually had short hair. Even that being said, how many years and years and years have people accepted the Jesus with long hair, and all those buzz cut men kneeling and praying to him? I did ask one priest that question, and he said "because he is Jesus, and he can look any way he wants to, including having long hair." I said, wouldn't you think that Jesus would be absolutely delighted to see men who followed his positive and loving admonitions, also want to appear like him? He said, you are not God. I said, I thought we were made in God's image. Why would I want to, or think I could improve on how God made me? He said then if you are keeping true to the Ten Commandments, like Jesus, then you can have long hair. I said that I am not religious, nor am I Athiest. I simply believe in the positive admonitions of what Jesus says. What does anyone else have to say about this?
: Long hair on men is NOT an "elected" minority per say. Sure, we could cut it off, but then we are in essence cutting out our identity, who we are inside. Being a closet Longhair ain't my thang. ;-)
Re: Yes! Yes! Yes! Here's the decision
Posted by Zapper on October 25, 2002 at 20:34:57: Previous NextIn Reply to: Yes! Yes! Yes! Here's the decision posted by Bill on October 25, 2002 at 00:59:10:
The judge should have mentioned Hitler's and Himmler's short hair.
Re: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR...
Posted by The Rev on October 25, 2002 at 10:02:35: Previous Next
In Reply to: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR... posted by lUCKSkIND on October 25, 2002 at 00:38:14:
Did anyone walk behind the bench and check the judge for a ponytail?
:)
The Rev
Actually...
Posted by LucksKind on October 25, 2002 at 20:06:59: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR... posted by The Rev on October 25, 2002 at 10:02:35:
"Did anyone walk behind the bench and check the judge for a ponytail?" ~The Rev
Actually, a reporter did ask the judge if HE would grow his hair long.
The judge replied: "What do you think?"
Now, If only employers
Posted by tommy turbo on October 25, 2002 at 11:03:46: Previous Next
In Reply to: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR... posted by lUCKSkIND on October 25, 2002 at 00:38:14:
Had to do the same, then I think I would die. But I am still glad to see things moving in the right direction. I am glad they stood up for their rights and didn't just give in about the hair.
If only my family could be so supportive of my hair.
Re: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR...
Posted by Ken on October 25, 2002 at 13:54:46: Previous Next
In Reply to: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR... posted by lUCKSkIND on October 25, 2002 at 00:38:14:
It's just a pity the kid has such a very ugly mullet. It would be much easier to take if it were all one length. In one article, his father said that he has never cut his hair, but someone sure got to the top. The hair itself really does seem quite nice. One only wishes he would let it all grow out.
Re: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR...
Posted by Jazbrd on October 25, 2002 at 15:32:19: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR... posted by Ken on October 25, 2002 at 13:54:46:
: It's just a pity the kid has such a very ugly mullet. It would be much easier to take if it were all one length. In one article, his father said that he has never cut his hair, but someone sure got to the top. The hair itself really does seem quite nice. One only wishes he would let it all grow out.
Here's a picture of him.
Re: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR...
Posted by Chris on October 25, 2002 at 15:53:05: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR... posted by Jazbrd on October 25, 2002 at 15:32:19:
Wow. I have to say that is pretty damn ugly. But to each his own.
: : It's just a pity the kid has such a very ugly mullet. It would be much easier to take if it were all one length. In one article, his father said that he has never cut his hair, but someone sure got to the top. The hair itself really does seem quite nice. One only wishes he would let it all grow out.
: Here's a picture of him.
yes too bad it's a MULLET...
Posted by LucksKind on October 25, 2002 at 20:09:20: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR... posted by Ken on October 25, 2002 at 13:54:46:
because the hair itself seems to be of a nice quality, quantity & texture...Do you think he would have lost if his hair had been hanging in his face?
Re: yes too bad it's a MULLET...
Posted by Ken on October 25, 2002 at 20:12:46: Previous NextIn Reply to: yes too bad it's a MULLET... posted by LucksKind on October 25, 2002 at 20:09:20:
:
: because the hair itself seems to be of a nice quality, quantity & texture...: Do you think he would have lost if his hair had been hanging in his face?
I think it could look quite nice in something more like an all-one-length style. Frankly, I think the mullet is more "outlandish" (to use language from one of the articles) than a style of an even length.
Re: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR...
Posted by Jazbrd on October 25, 2002 at 15:13:34: Previous Next
In Reply to: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR... posted by lUCKSkIND on October 25, 2002 at 00:38:14:
The fact that the judge is pro long hair for this boy is great, if not fantastic. However, were talking about a "religious" school, hello? What does anyone expect from this kind of an organization. So far as I can see, religion has caused nothing but pain and suffering to the world. It isn't about love and forgiveness; it is about CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL...
Among the early Celts and Germans, short hair was worn only by
The Germanic tribes dwelling along the middle and lower Rhine River were called the Franks. They appeared on the border of the Roman Empire in the 3rd-century. Emperor Flauvius Claudius in 358 subjected the Salian Franks who occupied the southern Rhine area. After Roman power waned, the Franks seized control of large areas of the Roman Empire. King Clovis who founded the Merovingian dynasty seized Gaul (France) from the last Roman Governor in 486 and subjugated many other German tribes (the Alamanni, the Bygundians, the Visagoths, the Ripuarian Franks). The Franks thus ruled much of what are now France and Germany and areas of central Europe. Clovis was converted to Christianity in 496.
As with other Germans, the Franks wore their hair long. To a 20th-century audience this story seems strange. Why should a queen choose to have her grandsons killed rather than submitting them to a haircut? In the world of Merovingian Gaul, however, the story had a potent resonance and hair itself was of the utmost importance. The Merovingian kings, who had established themselves in the ruins of Roman Gaul, were known as the Reges criniti, the long-haired kings. For them, their long hair symbolized not only their aristocratic status but also their status as kings. It was invested with a sacral quality and believed to contain magical properties. The Byzantine poet and historian Agathias (c. 532-582) wrote: "It is the rule for Frankish kings never to be shorn; indeed their hair is never cut from childhood on, and hangs down in abundance on their shoulders ... their subjects have their hair cut all round and are not permitted to grow it further."
Just beyond the Western Roman Empire’s reaches, in northern Europe lived the Goths, the Burgundians, the Lombards, the Angles, the Norsemen, the Vandals, the Franks and the Saxons, all tribes of barbarous warriors. Today the term “barbarous” insinuates that these Germanic tribes were quite primitive, a group of war-mongers with little more intelligence than the cavemen. But in reality, the word barbarous comes from the Latin barbarous, which means simply “strange” or “foreign,” and these tribes were home to very smart and strategic people. Although their outer appearance, with their un-shorn blond hair, rough animal skin shifts and crude branch huts may have been seemingly primitive when compared to the magnificence of Rome, these warriors fought ferociously for centuries and resisted take-over by the Roman Empire.
As such, the Romans, led by Caesar came upon the Longhaired Gaul, also know as Gallia Comata and were basically "freaked out" by their so called barbarous looks, (longhair, etc.). After finally conquering and turning them into slaves, they cut their hair off as a way to totally humiliate them. So I believe this is where the idea of cutting one's hair short has become an icon of power and control.
As a "forever" Longhair myself, I don't want to be a slave, I don't want to "look" like everyone else, I don't want to conform to rules that say I can't express myself the way I feel inside; and even though long hair is a sign of power, I choose to direct that power in a positive way.
Yeah for the him! But he has a mullet!
Posted by Edward on October 25, 2002 at 17:20:23: Previous Next
In Reply to: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR... posted by lUCKSkIND on October 25, 2002 at 00:38:14:
But this is America, so he should have a right to wear that ugly mullet with pride. I am happy for him.
Re: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR...
Posted by FITMUS on October 25, 2002 at 18:03:30: Previous Next
In Reply to: JUDGE SAYS: BOY CAN KEEP HAIR... posted by lUCKSkIND on October 25, 2002 at 00:38:14:
It's certainly a step in the right direction, but we still have a ways to go. The court's holding is pretty narrow and under the facts of the case, a school can't arbitrarily carve out a particular student after already admitting him with long hair. Also, it was a lower court the made the ruling. I actually hope it goes up on appeal because a higher court like the state Supreme Court, may expand the rule in favor of longhairs, where the higher court's decision would be binding on the state.
Great start, though...