In last week’s article, I mentioned that the decision of the Superior Court of Rhode Island in Russell Gorman Jr vs St Raphael Academy (2002), which found that a school policy which prescribed hair length for male students was arbitrary and capricious, was overturned by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Russell Gorman III, an exemplary student of St Raphael Academy, refused to trim his locks to comply with the school’s regulations. He faced expulsion. Russell and his parents filed a breach of contract action against St Raphael.
The Superior Court granted a preliminary injunction, and eventually a permanent injunction, restraining the school from suspending, expelling or otherwise disciplining Russell for non-compliance in the matter. But the state’s Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court.
The hair length regulation for boys was changed towards the end of Russell’s freshman year. It stipulated in part: “All students must keep their hair clean and well groomed. Outlandish hairstyles (for example, any designs, lettering, mohawks, ponytails, etc. engraved/cut into their hair; spiked, hair dye can only be of natural colours [reds, blues, greens, etc. are not natural colours] are not in keeping with the school’s educational mission and will not be tolerated. A boy’s hair may not be longer than the bottom of his shirt collar. Hair should be neat and not flamboyant for all students. Students who do not conform to these regulations are subject to disciplinary action and possible dismissal if the problem persists.”
Officials of the school testified that Russell’s parents were notified of the intended rule change before the end of the school year. The parents had denied they knew of the rule change until the summer and they filed a complaint for breach of contract.
The trial judge, relying on a case involving a public school, held that the rule was arbitrary and capricious and that there was no relation between the rule and the mission of the school.
Groundbreaking case
The Supreme Court said it was unable to find any published cases that dealt with hair-length rules in private educational institutions. The case was therefore groundbreaking.
The court said: “Because contracts for private education have unique qualities, we must construe them in a manner that leaves the school administration broad discretion to meet its educational and doctrinal responsibilities.”
It continued: “In Rhode Island, it is firmly established that a contract term is unenforceable only if it violates public policy. As discussed above, the student/school relationship is a contractual one, and thus we find this rule applicable.
“We extend this rule to hold that a contractual rule or regulation of a private school is lawful and enforceable as long as it is not against public policy or law. It is well established that in Rhode Island a contract violates public policy only if it is: [1] injurious to the interests of the public, [2] interferes with the public welfare or safety, [3] is unconscionable; or [4] tends to injustice or oppression.” We opt the same standard to private school contracts to determine whether a promulgated rule or regulation is lawful.
“The Gormans did not offer any evidence that a private school rule regulating the length of a student’s hair is injurious to the interests of the public, nor that it interferes with the public welfare or safety. This rule clearly does not rise to the level of ‘unconscionable’, nor does it tend to injustice or oppression. The Gormans failed to adduce evidence of a violated contractual right or evidence that the hair-length rule is contrary to public policy of the State of Rhode Island. We hold, therefore, that St Raphael’s adoption of a regulation concerning the length of hair of male students was a valid exercise of its discretionary authority and an enforceable provision of its educational contract with students.”
The Supreme Court essentially upheld the right of the Catholic private schools to make reasonable disciplinary rules and regulations. Those rules would be enforceable unless they violate law or public policy.
It is my opinion that in respect of the hairstyle issue at Harrison College, the right of the principal to make reasonable rules would be upheld. Attractive as some of the arguments of the trial judge were, the relevant law in Barbados, even in the case of a public school, is likely to be more in tune with the decision of the Supreme Court.
• Cecil McCarthy is a Queen’s Counsel. Send your letters to Everyday Law, Nation House, Fontabelle, St Michael. Send your email to [email protected].
