Court reasoned that if the child did not reach home when scheduled, his parents would be put on notice and would go looking for him or her, thereby affording greater protection for the safety and well-being of the child.
In Nigeria, there are not very many court cases relating to primary and secondary school education, particularly those getting to the Supreme Court level. Nwagwu (1987) has identified reasons for this state of affairs:
(a) (b)
the country s educational system is still relatively young and developing;
many parents are either illiterate or ignorant of their constitutional rights and so government officials and school authorities get away with many infringements of the rights of parents and students. It needs to be pointed out here that the Nigeria of the 1990 s, particularly of the twenty-first century, may not be the same as that of the 1960 s, 70 s and 80 s. As the literacy rate increases and the awareness of individual fundamental rights increases in the future, Nigerians will become more legalistic in terms of the violation of their children s and wards rights in the school system.
(c) legal action in court takes time and money and many think it is most often not worthwhile.
These factors, especially finance, are the major reasons why most parents do not pursue cases on infringement of the rights of students or wards to their logical conclusion the Supreme Court, which is the highest court of the land (Peretomode, 1992). However, we shall rely on cases from other parts of the world United States of America and Britain as the basis of making inferences on the subject matter.
The father of the boy appealed. The higher court at first refused, holding the applicant to be frivolous, but in due course, they had to comply.
The Lord Chief Justice, said at the hearing:
There was at the school a school rule forbidding smoking by pupils at the school during the school term and on the school premises and in public. That was reasonable rule.
The boy deliberately broke the rule, being aware of it, such punishment was a reasonable punishment for the breach of the school rule, and the father s application to court must be dismissed.
The court was quite clearly upholding a school rule, whether the members of that court or indeed the boy s father approved of smoking or not.
(b) School Rules and Regulations and Disciplinary Actions that are reasonable have the Force of Law (Spiers vs. Warrington Corporation)
Facts: A 13-year-old girl name Eva Spiers was a pupil at a Secondary School in
Warrington and turned up at school in clothing which the headmistress considered as unsuitable. She came, in fact, in jeans.
There was a school rule relating to the suitability of clothing in the school. The mother s excuse was that the girl had had two bouts of rheumatic fever. She had been advised by a doctor that the girl s kidney should be kept warm, and believed that jeans keep kidneys warmer than skirts. The headmistress thereupon asked the mother to produce a medical certificate to this effect.
No such certificate was forthcoming, and the Headmistress entered her repeatedly for medical examinations in school, but Eva failed to turn up. The headmistress then decided
to take a well-charted, but fairly exceptional course. Every time Eva came to school in slacks, the headmistress said to her, in effect, Now run along home dear and come back properly dressed. As soon as you do, you can come into school . But Eva stayed at home for the morning and arrived at school again in the afternoon. The same
conversation would take place and Eva would return the next morning. This went on for some months until the county Borough of Warrington decided to prosecute the father for failing to send his child to school as was his duty. The Magistrate found him guilty and fined him.
Mr. Spiers appealed, maintaining that the magistrates were wrong in law, that he had sent his child to school; and that it was the perversity of the headmistress who was preventing Eva from receiving her education, the education to which she was entitled.
The west Derby Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee quashed the convicting believing that the parents were acting reasonably in the interest of their child. The local education
authority thereupon appealed to the Queen s Bench Division which did not agree. Lord Chief Justice Goddard considered the clause in the Articles of Government which said:
The Headmistress shall control the internal organisation, management and discipline of the school. He commented; The head- mistress obviously has the right and power to prescribe the discipline for the school . There must be somebody to keep discipline, and of course that person is the headmistress
The question is, was the Headmistress communicating her refusal to allow the girl to come to school in this manner acting within her rights? We hold that she was not only within her rights, but that it was her duty, and the parents, knowing that the child would not be admitted, and insisting on her being dressed in this way committed an offence .
Once again, the court upheld the school rule, and said that for Eva Spiers, the rule relating to dress was part of the law of the land and justifiable before the courts.
(c) Court is not concerned with Wisdom of Regulation but whether it was Reasonable: Reasonable School Rules have the Force of Law (Flory v. Smith) Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1926, 145 Va. 164, 134 S. E. 360.
CAMPBELL, J. The object of this Suit is to test the legality of a rule promulgated by the School Board of Gloucester County. This rule is as follows:
Student Regulation Leaving the Campus between the hours of 9 a.m. and 3.35 p.m. is strictly prohibited, unless students are accompanied by a teacher.
It was the desire of the appellees that their children be relieved of the restriction placed upon them by the rule stated, supra, and that the children be permitted to eat their mid- day meal, either in the home, situated about a mile distant from the school, or to eat same with their father at the hotel in the town. The special privilege was denied by the principal of the school.
The court, on final hearing, overruled the demurrer and entered a decree enjoining and restraining E.D. Flory, Principal of the school, from prohibiting and preventing the children of appellees from eating their mid-day meals either in the home of their parents or with their father in Botecourt Hotel.
In the conduct of the public schools it is essential that power be vested in some legalized agency in order to maintain discipline and promote efficiency. In considering the
exercise of this power, the courts are not concerned with the wisdom or unwisdom of the
act done. The only concern of the court is the reasonableness of the regulation promulgated. To hold otherwise would be to substitute judicial opinion for the legislative will.
While appellees allege in their bill that it is their right to select and provide the best and most suitable food for the nourishment of their children and to select the mode and manner by which such food shall be received by their children, to the end that their children may be best nourished and their physical development may be best promoted , it
is nowhere alleged that the physical condition of the children is such that results detrimental to their physical wellbeing will follow if the right alleged is denied.
While it may be argued with force that a warm meal at mid-day is preferable to a cold
lunch, it is not conclusive that the latter is destructive of health. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the towns and rural sections the vast majority of school children partake of a cold lunch at mid-day. In the larger cities, where paternalism is further
advanced, children are encouraged to partake of hot food furnished them for a consideration.
Considering the regulation from the viewpoint afforded us by the bill of complaint, demurrer, and answer, we are unable to say that the regulation is an unreasonable one.
However, while a rule may be legally reasonable, it should not be without elasticity. In the enforcement of every law, there should be brought into play the element of common sense.
We have no serious trouble in disposing of the contention that appellees have a property right in the public schools of the Commonwealth.
The last contention of appellees is that they have been penalized without notice and deprived of their right to seek redress by appeal.
Immediately upon the suspension of appellees child, notice of such suspension was given to the father. We are of the opinion that this was sufficient notice; that upon the
receipt thereof he had the absolute right to have the matter reviewed by the county school board within a reasonable time from the date of the receipt of such notice.
For the reasons stated, the decree of the circuit must be reversed, and this court will enter a decree dismissing the bill of complaint.
Reversed.
(d) Grooming Haircut Regulation is Constitutionally Permissible The Classroom is not a Beauty Parlour Jackson vs. Dorrier (United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1970 424 F.2d 213)
PER CURIAM. This case involves the timely subject of long hair worn by teenage male high school students.
The Metropolitan Board of Education of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, adopted the following regulation in 1961:
Pupils shall observe modesty, appropriateness, and neatness in clothing and personal appearance. A student is not appro- priately dressed if he is a disturbing influence in class or school because of his mode of dress. The Principal may suspend a student who does not meet this requirement.
Under this regulation, the students at Donelson High School were told, as to hair on male students, that hair in the front may not come below the eyebrows, ears must show clear of hair and hair in the back is to be tapered and not to be long enough to turn up.
Two male students, Michael Jackson and Barry Steven Barnes, who were members of a combo band known as The Purple Haze , permitted their hair to grow longer than prescribed by school officials. After conferences with the students and their parents, the students were suspended by the principal and sent home for violation of the regulation.
After additional conferences, a hearing was conducted before the Board of Education.
The Board sustained the action of the principal.
The complain charges that the student plaintiffs have been deprived of certain rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, that the defendant school officials, having the authority and duty to promulgate plans, rules and regulations for the administration and operation of the public school system, wrongfully refused to enroll these two students at Donelson High School for the school year beginning September, 1968 on the ground that their hair was too long, that they wore mustaches, and in the case of Barnes, a beard; and that the two students were informed that their appearance constituted improper grooming which amounted to distracting attire .
The complaint sought a declaration that the above quoted regulation is invalid. It prayed that defendants be compelled to readmit these two students to Donelson High School and that defendants must be enjoined from conditioning attendance at school on the length of hair or the presence of a beard or mustaches.
There is evidence to support the conclusion that the wearing of excessively long hair by
male students at Donelson High School disrupted classroom atmosphere and decorum, caused disturbances and distractions among other students interfered with the educational process. Members of faculty of Donelson High School testified that the wearing of long hair by Jackson and Barnes was an obstructing and distracting influence to a wholesome
academic environment. A teacher of history and social studies stated that the boys with long hair were a distracting influence in her class; that they were constantly combing, flipping, looking in mirrors and rearranging their hair , attracting the attention of other students and interfering with classroom teaching; and that the train of thought of both the students and teachers was interrupted. An English teacher testified that she often asked a boy to put away his comb and refrain from combing his hair in class. She described long hair on male students as a disturbing and distracting influence on educational processes in her classes and other school activities at Donelson High School. A teacher of Industrial Arts testified that girls with long hair were required to wear hair nets as a safety
precaution and that long hair on boys was a safety hazard in shop work. One teacher said that other students pay more attention to a boy with long hair than to what the teacher is trying to teach. Another teacher testified that when her class was attended by the boys with long hair hardly a day would go by that she would not have to interrupt her teaching and say: Put your combs away. This is not a beauty parlour. This is a school classroom .
The record established that the deliberate flouting by Jackson and Barnes of this well- publicised school regulation created problems of school discipline. It is contended that
enforcement of the regulation deprived the two students of freedom of speech and expression in violation of the First Amendment. Neither of the students testified that his hair style was intended as an expression of any idea or point of view.
The record supports the finding of the District Judge and Jackson and Barnes pursued their course of personal grooming for the purpose of enhancing the popularity of the musical group in which they performed. We agree with Judge Gray that the growing of hair for purely commercial purposes is not protected by the First Amendment s guarantee of freedom of speech .
It is further contended that the action of school officials did not violate the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The evidence shows that the two students were afforded ample opportunity to be heard and that the procedural and substantive
requirements of due process were met by conferences conducted by the school principal and by the hearing before the Board of Education.
We also agree with the District Court that the regulation enforced in this case is not void
for vagueness and over-breadth, but to the contrary, as applied to these two students, was quite specific. The record shows that the principal of Donelson High School interpreted
and administered the regulation in such a way as clearly to inform all students, including the two involved in this case, as to what was required of them with regard to personal grooming. There can be no doubt that Jackson and Barnes had adequate notice of what was expected of them and deliberately chose not to comply with the regulation.
The regulation has a real and reasonable connection with the successful operation of the educational system and with the maintenance of school discipline.
In the absence of infringement of constitutional rights, the responsibility for maintaining proper standards of decorum and discipline and a wholesome academic environment at Donelson High School is not vested in the Federal Courts, but in the principal and faculty
of the school and the Metropolitan Board of Education of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.
We follow Ferrell V. Dallas Independent School District, supra, in holding that the District Court committed no error in dismissing the present case.
Affirmed.