Tell me what I am missing here. By the logic displayed in your post, if playing sports has enough affect on the educational process to elevate it beyond privilege status, then every child who tries out for any sport should be allowed on the team and allowed to play. That applies to all levels, NO EXCEPTIONS. Preventing those who wish to play sports from doing so would bar them from an important part of the educational process, wouldn't it?

 

Is the client list down, Counselor?

 

Client list is fine. It will be another 12 day in the office for your's truly.

 

Even if participation was in fact a constitutional right (and I didn't say it was, just that it was more than a privilege), that doesn't mean reasonable rules curtailing or limiting that right are invalid. For example, you have a right to vote; but you have to vote in accordance with the voting laws (rules) of the state: you have to register, you have to show an ID, you have to be there to vote at certain times, you can't politic within a certain distance of the voting booth, etc. You have the right of free speech but you can't yell fire in the theatre and you can't defame or libel someone without liability. You have property rights but those property rights can be limited by zoning laws. Yes, even rights have rules which will be upheld by the courts if the rules are reasonable and necessary.

 

A rule limiting the number of kids on a team is a reasonable one, at least to me. There are cost limitations, coaching limitations, space limitations, and travel limitations which make allowing every one that wants to be on the team to be on the team completely unworkable. So a rule limiting the number of kids on a team is to this person, a reasonable one.

 

If a coach required every kid on the team to sport a mullet because he likes mullets or to get a tattoo of the team logo, you'd be fine with throwing the kid off the team because he didn't get a mullet or tattoo?

 

 

What do hair rules have to do with being part of the team any way? How does everyone sporting basically the same style of hair somehow develop team unity? Good golly, if a coach has to have everyone sport the same type of hair style to develop team unity, he's probably a pretty crappy coach these days.

 

Look, I'm as rule oriented as any one. I couldn't have made it through the Corps if I wasn't into rules, the need for rules and complying with rules. I get rules. Society needs rules. It would be anarchy if we didn't have rules. But rules limiting the rights of people should only be valid if there is a compelling need for the rules. What every one sporting the same style of hair cut has to do with developing a team is just a mystery to me. And I hate long hair by the way; just detest it. Got my whitewalls again this morning. Every time I see long hair hanging out of some football helmet I wish some one would pull the living heck out of it.

 

But if we're going to deny a kid the opportunity to participate in sports; to not get the values and benefits that participation supposedly brings to the educational process, we sure as heck should have a much stronger reason than his hair was too long.

 

Feel free to continue to disagree. I'm good with that.

I think that any successful lawsuit that creates case law that declares that students have a rigth to play school sponsered athletics would open a big can of worms. If students have a right to participate in athletics, than I am going to file suit agaisnt Chuck Broughton, Apollo High School, the Daviess Co. Board of Education and the KHSAAA. You see, Coach Broughton cut me from the basketball team my sophmore year, and I now feel that I need to be compensated for for having been denied my right to participate in athletics.

 

We should find everyone ever cut from a sports team in ky and file a class action suit against KHSAA and the Commonwealth.

Client list is fine. It will be another 12 day in the office for your's truly.

 

Even if participation was in fact a constitutional right (and I didn't say it was, just that it was more than a privilege), that doesn't mean reasonable rules curtailing or limiting that right are invalid. For example, you have a right to vote; but you have to vote in accordance with the voting laws (rules) of the state: you have to register, you have to show an ID, you have to be there to vote at certain times, you can't politic within a certain distance of the voting booth, etc. You have the right of free speech but you can't yell fire in the theatre and you can't defame or libel someone without liability. You have property rights but those property rights can be limited by zoning laws. Yes, even rights have rules which will be upheld by the courts if the rules are reasonable and necessary.

 

A rule limiting the number of kids on a team is a reasonable one, at least to me. There are cost limitations, coaching limitations, space limitations, and travel limitations which make allowing every one that wants to be on the team to be on the team completely unworkable. So a rule limiting the number of kids on a team is to this person, a reasonable one.

 

If a coach required every kid on the team to sport a mullet because he likes mullets or to get a tattoo of the team logo, you'd be fine with throwing the kid off the team because he didn't get a mullet or tattoo?

 

 

What do hair rules have to do with being part of the team any way? How does everyone sporting basically the same style of hair somehow develop team unity? Good golly, if a coach has to have everyone sport the same type of hair style to develop team unity, he's probably a pretty crappy coach these days. Look, I'm as rule oriented as any one. I couldn't have made it through the Corps if I wasn't into rules, the need for rules and complying with rules. I get rules. Society needs rules. It would be anarchy if we didn't have rules. But rules limiting the rights of people should only be valid if there is a compelling need for the rules. What every one sporting the same style of hair cut has to do with developing a team is just a mystery to me. And I hate long hair by the way; just detest it. Got my whitewalls again this morning. Every time I see long hair hanging out of some football helmet I wish some one would pull the living heck out of it.

 

But if we're going to deny a kid the opportunity to participate in sports; to not get the values and benefits that participation supposedly brings to the educational process, we sure as heck should have a much stronger reason than his hair was too long.

 

Feel free to continue to disagree. I'm good with that.

 

I presume that since schools have a limited consititutional right to step into parents' shoes in disciplining kids , that this could fall into that. However, I agree mostly with the MO. courts interpretation. The child has a property right in education where education is mandatory, this falls into his liberty rights. If the child does not receive credit hours for playing a varsity sports, as many DIII athletes do, then athletics are not part of his education. They are collateral education, in terms of enriching life experience, but they are not w/in the term "education."

 

In order for the kid to win, he must show that high school athletics are a benefit under state law and that he has a legitimate claim, or entitlement to it. It will be hard to show, especially with precedent, while not binding, already set.

I presume that since schools have a limited consititutional right to step into parents' shoes in disciplining kids , that this could fall into that. However, I agree mostly with the MO. courts interpretation. The child has a property right in education where education is mandatory, this falls into his liberty rights. If the child does not receive credit hours for playing a varsity sports, as many DIII athletes do, then athletics are not part of his education. They are collateral education, in terms of enriching life experience, but they are not w/in the term "education."

 

In order for the kid to win, he must show that high school athletics are a benefit under state law and that he has a legitimate claim, or entitlement to it. It will be hard to show, especially with precedent, while not binding, already set.

 

Oh don't get me wrong; I don't think the parents will win the lawsuit either because of the belief (and prior court rulings) that participation in athletics is a privilege. I just think there are a whole lot of hypocritical folks out there that make a big deal about how important athletics are to the educational process and then quickly use the privilege tag to deny participation when it's convenient for them to do so.

 

If I as a parent think it's fine for my son to have long hair, the school should not have any right or ability to discipline my son for having long hair unless the school can reasonably establish that the long hair is disruptive of the educational process of others. Think dress code rules here. I'm fine with rules that are germane to the educational process; I'm fine with rules that are germane to a team sport; I'm not fine with denying a kid's ability to participate in athletics for a reason or rule that has little if anything to do with the sport or performance of the sport. No one has answered my question: perhaps you will. If the coach required every kid to sport a mullet, a pony tail or some other unusual hair style, would you be fine with that rule? What about a tatoo of the team mascot? The justification for the coach's decision on here seems to be team unity. How far does that justification go?

We should find everyone ever cut from a sports team in ky and file a class action suit against KHSAA and the Commonwealth.

 

 

I'm sorry but this way of thinking is so illogical it's embarrassing in my opinion. There are solid reasons and needs for having rules permitting kids to be cut. There is no strong reason for having a rule banning long hair. The only reasons I've heard or read for supporting the rule are: 1. a rule is a rule; and 2. team unity. Those are not strong enough reasons to deny a kid to participate in athletics and receive the benefits athletics brings to education in my opinion. The first one is simply silly. Yes I fully understand the life lesson kids can get from understanding that they need to learn to respect authority. Then again if authority abuses it's power and enacts totally irrational and arbitrary rules not tied to the mission and goals of authority, rather than respect for authority being learned, it's contempt for authority that is the lesson. The second reason likewise does not hold water with me. If the coach wants all to wear an earing to establish team unity, you in support of that? How far does the quest for team unity go? Hair cut styles can't be too important to team unity if you look at what happens in the colleges and pros and at a lot of very, very successful high school programs. Think those coaches would permit long hair if it undermined team unity?

 

If you can't see the difference between a school's reason to limit squad sizes and a totally arbitrary hair cut rule, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Highlands, a long time ago, used to have a burr haircut rule for it's football players. I played under that rule. It went away when Mueller (or was it Duffy?) took over. At the time, I thought getting rid of the rule was a mistake for the team unity reason (and because I despise long hair). Having seen the performance of Highlands since then, I realized that having such a arbitrary rule to try and develop team unity was pretty shallow thinking. A lot of the football players still get burrs which I think is neat. Both of my sons did. But I can't see throwing them off the team if they didn't want to get one. Mueller focuses on making the kids better football players and developing a better team. Team unity is developed by having everyone in the weight room; every one at the conditioning sessons; every one at practices. He teaches compliance with the rules, but the rules are pertinent to improvement as a football player and football team. Having short hair does not make one a better football player. If it did, every coach at every level would have such a rule.

 

Again, I was in the Marines. I lived in the world of a rule is a rule. It was necessary there. But even there, we were taught not to follow an illegal rule or command. Rules have to have a rational basis supporting the objective. If they don't, people develop contempt for rules making it much more difficult to develop compliance and obediance to rules that are rational.

Edited January 8, 201115 yr by leatherneck

The answer to these type situations seems much easier to me. Rather than kick a player off a team or even suspend them, just tell the young man to have a seat at the end of the bench until he can follow the coaches rules. The coach still determines who plays in the games. Players are held out of games all the time for violation of team rules.

The answer to these type situations seems much easier to me. Rather than kick a player off a team or even suspend them, just tell the young man to have a seat at the end of the bench until he can follow the coaches rules. The coach still determines who plays in the games. Players are held out of games all the time for violation of team rules.

 

I was going to say the same thing. Bench the boy till he follows all the rules.

If I as a parent think it's fine for my son to have long hair, the school should not have any right or ability to discipline my son for having long hair unless the school can reasonably establish that the long hair is disruptive of the educational process of others. Think dress code rules here. I'm fine with rules that are germane to the educational process; I'm fine with rules that are germane to a team sport; I'm not fine with denying a kid's ability to participate in athletics for a reason or rule that has little if anything to do with the sport or performance of the sport. No one has answered my question: perhaps you will. If the coach required every kid to sport a mullet, a pony tail or some other unusual hair style, would you be fine with that rule? What about a tatoo of the team mascot? The justification for the coach's decision on here seems to be team unity. How far does that justification go?

 

Here's where I'm split. Last year, my twins made their first communion. At one of the meetings prior to the first communion, the teacher (parent) showed the parents the proper attire for the sacrament. She also made a comment that, "boys should look like boys," and when I stated that she was talking about one of my boys she stated that he could use a hair cut. (I am glad that my wife was unable to attend that meeting). See, I have twin boys, and for anyone w/ twins, they know that at a certain point the kids crave their own identity. One of the ways for my sons to have their's is by hair style. They both have curly hair, with long curls. It looks pretty cool when it is long, actually. My son received countless compliments on it, and it was a major part of who he was, which is a big deal for a little kid. When she said that, I told her that it was not going to happen. I was willing to take the punishment, which was for them to miss first communion, b/c they could attend CCD at another school and receive first communion the next year. So, in a way I'm in favor of the coach's rule. On the other hand, if it is arbitrary, then I am not,as was the case with the CCD teacher. What you said about mullets, or worse mandatory tatoos would not be acceptable. I believe that in either situation the proper action is to protest to the respective athletic association of your state. Once they have their ruling, then you go with it. If you can't get it heard fast enough, then your child has to decide which is more important, cutting the hair or playing.

 

This case is kind of easier, b/c by community standards, the haircuts are reasonable. It would be interesting to see if this has always been a policy for this coach or if he just implemented it.

Mexiticky, how does one woman, even if she is a teacher, have the power to ban your sons from First Communion? As someone who was raised Catholic, this seems to be another example of Catholics being judgmental. Wonder what Jesus would have done?? I apologize in advance for getting off topic.

The football, wrestling, and basketball teams all had this rule in place at my middle and high schools.

 

When I wrestled in junior high and high school, hair had to be cut above the ears. I don't think it was a school or team rule, but a county or state rule.

Great point. Couldn't this lead to a scenario where if wrestler A wins a wrestle off against wrestler B, A & B will still have to alternate matches so wrestler B would be participating?

 

Back in the day, any wrestler on our HS team that wasn't first-string (varsity) could be challenged for the varsity spot by someone not on the varsity and qualifying for the same weight class. "Challenge days" were once a week. Sometimes you had "wrestler B" challenging "wrestler A" several weeks in a row.

 

Made for an interesting and competitive atmosphere.:thumb:

Can I file suit against my parents because I no longer need haircuts?

I'm sorry, but I don't think this suit has any merit. I don't believe that it's a "right" to play sports. It is a privelage. It's a privelage that's extended to those who 1) keep their grades up at or above the minimum requirements 2) are willing and able to comply with the rules of the team or sport as set forth by the administration and coaches. The right to pursue the opportunity is inherent. The right to participate is not.

I'm sorry, but I don't think this suit has any merit. I don't believe that it's a "right" to play sports. It is a privelage. It's a privelage that's extended to those who 1) keep their grades up at or above the minimum requirements 2) are willing and able to comply with the rules of the team or sport as set forth by the administration and coaches. The right to pursue the opportunity is inherent. The right to participate is not.

 

Good point, RM. It seems as though it must be thought of as a privilege or the KHSAA would not have grade regulations in order to be able to participate.

When I wrestled in junior high and high school, hair had to be cut above the ears. I don't think it was a school or team rule, but a county or state rule.

In all honesty, I think the rules in place set by our wrestling coach may have actually been a statewide thing as well. I know the facial hair rules are a state rule.