Back

ABA Journal

Home

Constitutional Law

7th Circuit nixes boys-only long-hair ban, says rule didn’t just target ‘Age of Aquarius’ styles

Feb 24, 2014, 11:35 pm CST

Comments

For those who missed it, the "long hair" thing was hotly debated in the 1950's and 1960's. It's just bloody silly now.

By B. McLeod on 2014 02 25, 8:11 am CST

Punk kids with their rocking and rolling music.

By NoleLaw on 2014 02 25, 4:08 pm CST

As an athlete in high school and college, I understand why a coach would require short hair. Long hair that's down gets in the way of vision. In contact sports it's just another thing for an opponent to grab and pull. NFL players readily admit that long locks get pulled hard in the bottom of the piles. Female athletes aren't required to have short hair, but every coach I ever had required me to pull my long hair back into a ponytail, bun, or something else that would keep it out of my face. Long hair also gets caught in things you wouldn't expect. Let's look at this from a safety issue. The boys can have long hair when they are not in season. In the alternative, coaches of boys' sports must be requiring the boys to pull their hair up and/or out of their face when playing and practicing. I've had my hair get caught in the gym on weight machines, benches, etc. I really see this as a safety issue more than a consitutional one.

By Safety on 2014 02 25, 5:01 pm CST

Make the fellow wearing the long tresses also wear a hairnet - just like in restaurant kitchens. There ARE ways around idiotic court rulings like this one.

By Publicus on 2014 02 25, 5:21 pm CST

Samson learned about long hair the hard way .

By Docile Jim Brady – Columbus OH 43209 on 2014 02 25, 7:47 pm CST

Right on McLeod. This is foolishness. I have proudly worn long hair since my teens and never once got it caught on a weight machine or other risk (including heavy machinery that I have worked around), nor has it impacted my vision because I have a modicum of common sense and keep it tied back. As for it getting pulled in sports, I see an increasing number of NFL players with longer and longer hair every year, so me thinks this malarkey.

By pubintatty on 2014 02 25, 9:33 pm CST

Jim, I think Samson always knew about long hair (he learned about romance the hard way).

By B. McLeod on 2014 02 26, 12:21 am CST

@ #7 B. McLeod re Samson

I reverse myself ; YOU are correct .

By Docile Jim Brady – Columbus OH 43209 on 2014 02 26, 4:17 am CST

@4

And in the part of the world where I live there are large American Indian populations, many of which, culturally, have men with long hair. So I ask, which is more idiotic, this court ruling, or having a requirement that people have short hair? If it's clean, why should you even care?

By OKBankLaw on 2014 02 27, 2:13 pm CST

Such a first world problem.

But here the real story was not prohibiting long hair; it was requiring very short hair. There's a difference, determined by common sense (which isn't very common these days).

In addition to American Indians, there are certain Jews, Sikhs, Rastafarians, and others whose religion or culture requires long hair.

But bringing the girls into it is just silly. Brings up the shaved-heads for all plebes, rats and grunts, shirts and skins, bra requirements--skirt uniforms for male filed hockey players? Speedos for girl swimmers or tanks for guys? C'mon.

By Hadley V. baxendale on 2014 02 28, 7:10 pm CST

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.