National coalition joins the fight against one Texas ISD

A Texas school district is once again in the hot seat after it filed an appeal to a lower court's ruling involving religion and cultural rights. However, support from a diverse coalition emerges as they take up arms in support of all students of faith.

Nearly seven months following the federal court ruling that a Native American kindergarten student attending a Needville Independent School District school in Texas would be allowed to keep his hair length and return to the regular classroom setting, an outpouring of support continues to grow as the school district recently filed its appeal to the Fifth Circuit court. Adriel Arocha, 5, was placed in an isolated educational setting last year because his hair was in violation of the district's zero-tolerance hair policy for boys. Despite the Arocha family filing an exemption to the policy based on religious beliefprior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year, the young boy's first taste of the public school system was from an isolated classroom because he did not abide by their restricted accomodation.

Administrators told him he would have to wear his hair in one long braid, tucked into the back of his shirt at all times. When he came to school with two braids hanging outside his shirt, they made him attend classes in isolation from the other students

In the Apache culture, hair is considered sacred and for some, not to be cut except during major life events such as the death of a loved one. It is believed to be a recognition of how long one has "been here." Adriel's father's hair has remained uncut for about a dozen years and Adriel's has never been cut and is over a foot in length. However, in relation to Adriel's case, the Needville ISD Superintendent, Curtis Rhodes, was quoted as saying in a local ABC news report (see link above):

"I was trying to find out what recognized religion they are that discusses they cannot cut their hair and the information I received then was basically it's their choice"

In October of 2008, the ACLU got involved in the case and the Arocha family was successfully awarded a temporary injunction that allowed the kindergarten student to return to class with his cultural locks. In January of 2009, that decision was made permanent as Judge Keith P. Ellison found that NISD had indeed violated both the state law and the Constitution, citing a ruling made by the Supreme Court stating that “Courts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs because the believer admits that he is ’struggling’ with his position or because his beliefs are not articulated with the clarity and precision that a more sophisticated person might employ". Arocha was only required to show that he felt deeply about the cultural and religious belief. A press release by the ACLU last week revealed that the fight continues following the school district's filing of an appeal of Judge Ellison's decision as nearly a dozen culturally diverse groups came forward in support of Adriel Arocha. Indian tribes including Lipan Apache and Nansemond came together with the Anti-Defamation League, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance took part in the case by filing briefs supporting the lower court's ruling. Support which shows to be significant for all children attending public schools in the state no matter if they are Jewish, Hindu, Atheist or Christian. A total of five briefs have been filed in support of Adriel Arocha's case, according to the ACLU press release:

Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas

Indian scholars Mr. K. Tsianina Lomawaima and Ms. Suzanne L. Cross

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Anti-Defamation League

Nansemond Indian Tribal Association of Virginia

American Jewish Committee, Hindu American Foundation, Interfaith Alliance, Sikh Coalition and United Sikhs

In light of the pending decision to be determined by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, supporters are confident that the ruling will be in agreement with the lower court's decision. However, it brings to surface one question: Does "zero-tolerance" serve to balance or does it serve to harm? A question that remains controversial and without a definitive answer.