‘Children’s Rights’ Up For Discussion
The subject of “children’s rights” came up recently during a conversation I was having with an esteemed, nationally-known jurist. With reference to a recent court case in which high school athletes in Washington State were claiming that random drug tests violated their constitutional rights, I asked his opinion. The Founding Fathers, he said, did not intend for children to have any rights at all, save those which were conferred upon them indirectly, through their parents.
His comment came to mind as I read a recent news article about two girls in New Milford, Conn., who were suspended from school for dying their hair bright pink. One of the offenders promptly restored her tresses to their original color, but the other refused to capitulate. The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) got involved - on the girl’s side, of course - notifying the New Milford School Board that it was in violation of the child’s First Amendment right to free expression.
The lawyers for the CCLU told school officials that a regulation concerning hair should bear some “rational relationship (to) … a legitimate educational purpose.” We can presume, therefore, that this same precept - supposedly grounded in the First Amendment - applies to any aspect of a student’s appearance.
I don’t claim to be a scholar of the law, but rather a lifelong student of American history. As such, I’ve concluded that the Founding Fathers were, generally speaking, men of consummate common sense. It seems to me in fact, that in the final analysis, common sense was the standard by which they judged their options. And for that reason, the United States Constitution is almost universally regarded as the most sensible covenant of government ever devised.
Unfortunately, while the CCLU lawyers are certainly legal scholars, they have not in this case demonstrated a firm grasp of common sense. I suppose their defense of pink hair would also extend to children coming to public schools wearing underwear on their heads, body paint or sequined leotards.
Is it possible to identify some legitimate educational rationale behind rules disallowing outrageous hair styles, clothing, and body adornments, and some “legitimate educational purpose?” Indeed, it is; the rationale being education itself. Rules of this sort serve to help keep students focused on the purpose behind their attendance: learning.
With that understanding, which is rooted in common sense, many parochial and private schools mandate uniform dress, and their students do not seem to suffer as a result. At least I know of no studies which would suggest that wearing navy blue bottoms and white tops depresses self-esteem or stifles expression.
The educational purpose is not just distracted from, but demeaned, cheapened and made a mockery of when students are allowed to turn schools into fashion shows of the bizarre, the sexually suggestive, the expensive or otherwise.
A truly liberal (in the classical sense of the term) education requires of the student not just adherence to academic standards, but adherence to standards concerning personal appearance and conduct. When standards become sloppy in one of those areas, it is only a matter of time before they become sloppy across the board.
It is impossible to legislate a proper attitude on the part of a child, but it is indeed possible to legislate the accoutrements that prop it up. And children have always needed propping up where their attitudes are concerned. Left to their own devices, they will wear what they will and act as they please. That, unbeknownst to certain CCLU lawyers, is why they require parents and teachers who set and enforce rules which, indeed, restrict “free expression.” xxxx