Cameron Smith writes: “Obviously, the player and his parents decided to fight for his rights rather than acquiesce to the extracurricular policy’s claim that a player’s hair be above his eyebrows, collars and ears.”
“Obviously???” Am I missing something here, other than the clueless myopia of the author? Why is it “obvious” that the player and his family would fight for his “rights” rather than comply with a rule? It would also help if Smith would specify exactly what “rights” were violated by the rule.
At my HS, a student’s hair could not touch his collar. That rule applied whether or not a student publicly represented the school in extracurricular activities. There was no more a “right” to longer hair than there was a “right” to show up at noon every day.
It doesn’t sound like this kid wants to be part of any team.
*************************
Exactly. There's a saying regarding sports "There's no "I" in "team". "Narcissist", however, is another matter.