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.
3 comments:
Yes, I also I believe the school district is infringing upon the Gonzales brothers religious practices. TRFRA blocks the government from substantially infringing upon religious practices which burden the Gonzales brothers by not permitting them to participate in extracurricular activities. By the school district infringing on their religious beliefs, it cuts the wall from the separation from religion and state.
I agree in this instance; the school's dress code interferes with the Gonzales family's free exercise due to the fact that the school is imposing on the sons to cut their hair, despite the fact that they made a promise to God in their youth that they would not cut a strand of hair. The issue with TRFRA is that it is allowing state legislature to decide what is "substantial" infringement on a citizen's free exercise, which could allow the court to rule that cutting a strand of hair is an insubstantial infringement to religion; the government is ultimately deciding the legitimacy, along with the sincerity, of religious practices. I agree with Michael that a great deal of personal growth happens outside of the classroom, and that preventing a student from engaging in these activities is limiting their growth as students, and is simultaneously an affront to their religion.
The school district is definitely infringing upon the Gonzalez brothers' right to free exercise. I agree with the author in that the state has no compelling interest to make the boys cut their hair. The author also addresses the sincerity of the Gonzalez brothers' religious beliefs.
Post a Comment