I double-checked the date and this New York Times story was indeed written yesterday, and not in 1961:
A suburban Dallas school district has suspended a 4-year-old from his prekindergarten class because he wears his hair too long and does not want his parents to cut it.
The boy, Taylor Pugh, says he likes his hair long and curly. But on Monday night, the school board in Mesquite voted unanimously to enforce its ban on Beatles haircuts, much less anything approaching coiffures of bands like Led Zeppelin. School officials say the district’s dress code serves to limit distractions in the classroom.
“It’s a trade-off,” said one board member, Gary Bingham, an insurance agent, in an interview. “Do the parents value his education more than they value a 4-year-old’s decision to make his own grooming choices?”
The boy’s parents, Delton Pugh and Elizabeth Taylor, have argued that it is unfair to punish Taylor for his longish locks; it suggests, they say, that the district cares more about appearances than education.
“I don’t think it’s right to hold a child down and force him to do something,” Mr. Pugh, a tattoo artist, told The Associated Press. “It’s not hurting him or affecting his education.”
The parents rejected a compromise proposed by the board under which they would braid his hair and pin it up.
I was tempted to dismiss this story as much ado about nothing (because it is) but then I realized it raises some interesting questions about what Catholics call subsidiarity and neocalvinists (like me) refer to as sphere sovereignty .
In its most basic sense, sphere sovereignty is the concept that each sphere (or sector) of life has its own distinct responsibilities and authority or competence, and stands equal to other spheres of life. A teacher, for example, has both the authority over her classroom and the responsibility to ensure that her pupils receive an education. Both authority and responsibility as a teacher, however, are limited to the school and cannot legitimately be extended outside that particular sphere (other spheres, however, such as the role of a parent or church member, could overlap with this role as teacher).
The tasks and requirements for living will also lead to the formation of such institutions as churches, schools, businesses, and civic organizations, each possessing and retaining its own autonomy and area of responsibility. Each also has its locus of sovereignty which is derived not from another structure by from God alone. Schools, for example, may be overseen by state or federal agencies but their true authority is not derived from the government. Societal sovereignty maintains that such institutions are non-hierarchical structures whose authority is ultimately derived from our Creator.
Naturally, this leads directly to questions about how we determine the authority and responsibility of each sphere. Thinking about the issue from this perspective leads me to reevaluate my initial reaction. Normally, I’d side with the school board over a four-year-old hippie. But not I’m no so sure. While school boards should have standards for dress and grooming, how far should they be allowed to go in setting and enforcing those norms? Who should have the ultimate authority to decide such matters, the school or the parents?
Subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty are often used to address concerns about larger areas of governance (e.g., state, federal) but since we live on the local level, most of the application should begin there.
I’d be interested in hearing any thoughts on how this particular issue should be resolved. I started out knowing where I stood (“Cut it off, ya longhair!”) but I’m not convinced my gut reaction was the right one. What do you think?
(Note: If you didn’t catch the reference in the title, it’s from Five Man Electric Band’s 1971 hit ” Signs .” I was only three-years-old when the song came out, but its a favorite of mine from that era.)
