School Dress Codes and Religious Liberty

            When Cesar Gonzales was an infant, he contracted meningitis. His parents made a pact with God that if Cesar got better and lived, they would keep a strand of his hair growing forever as a sign of faith and gratitude. Cesar did in fact get better, and, as promised, kept a strand of his hair growing out. When Cesar’s parents had another son, Diego, they made the same promise to God.

            From kindergarten through sixth grade, they were permitted to keep their hair long, despite a dress code that requires boys to have short hair, because they respected his religious promise. They could participate in any and all extra-curricular activities.

            In August 2017, when the Gonzales brothers were going into seventh grade, they were told they would not be allowed to keep their strand of hair uncut. The boys were banned from all extra-curricular sports and clubs. The Texas Association of School Boards instructs school districts they “must accommodate requests for exceptions based on a student or parent’s sincerely held religious belief,” but the district has ignored this recommendation.

            On May 30th, 2018, the Gonzales family sued the Mathis Independent School District, arguing the dress code imposed a burden on the family’s religious practice.

            On September 5th, 2019, the federal court granted the family’s request for a religious accommodation, allowing the Gonzales boys to freely participate in school-related extracurricular activities.

            In 2000, President George Bush signed into law the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (TRFRA), which bars the government from “substantially” infringing on religious practices.

The question is: Is the school district violating TRFRA, and thus the Free Exercise Clause, by requiring them to cut their hair?

I believe the answer is quite obviously yes, the school district is infringing upon the Gonzales brothers religious practices. TRFRA bars government from substantially infringing upon religious practices, and the school district is doing the most they can, shy of outright banning them from school, to burden the Gonzales brothers by not permitting them to participate in extracurricular activities. This includes Cesar being unable to join the school’s football team or any clubs. Bear in mind, this is a public school and is thus run by the government. If this were a private school, the school could enforce any type of dress code it wants, but public schools do not have that prerogative.

In addition, there is no compelling government interest to prohibit the Gonzales brothers from growing out their hair, and there is in fact a very compelling reason to do so - it is in the boys’ best interests. To not let them participate in extracurricular activities is to deny them a large part of their childhood where personal growth takes place, education outside the classroom, and preparing them for the world ahead - in short, what school is meant to instill in children. To impose these burdens on them is doing the boys s disservice.

Though this act may not be a normal observance of an established religion such as Christianity, growing out their hair is still in the name of religion, which is protected by the first amendment. I expect from the schools point of view they do not want to open a potentially slippery slope where other students can get exemptions claiming religious practice, and that is why they do not want to permit it. To that argument I have three responses.

First, there is a documented track record of the Gonzales brothers growing out their hair. They have both been doing it since kindergarten, so any objective school official would easily rule that they are not fraudulent.

Second, barring a slippery slope, where is the incentive to interfere on the schools part? Is growing out their hair adversely affecting the Gonzales brothers or their peers? I would have a hard time being convinced of that.

Third, even if we were to assume that giving the Gonzales brothers an exemption would result in a slippery slope in which other students would do the same, is that reason good enough for the government to restrict people’s religious liberty? This is the tradeoff we have to make. It is known that when given freedom there are people who will try to take advantage of it, and that is why we have systems to seek out fraudulent claims and stop them. And even if school officials failed at their jobs and did allow fraudulent exemptions to the dress code, that is a small price to pay for respecting citizens’ religious liberty.