Hairstyle keeps girl out of Whitefish High School

Kisteesha Lanegan says she simply was tired of her long, straight hair, so decided to try dreadlocks.

Whitefish Superintendent Jerry House says the sophomore knew the rule and made her choice, so officials had no option but to ask her to leave school until she got rid of the "outlandish" hairstyle.

"It's not really my hair," the 15-year-old Lanegan said from her home last week on a day when her peers were in class at Whitefish High School. "It's just the principle of the matter. They're trying to mold me into a person that I'm not. My hair is totally irrelevant to education at the school."

"We're here for education. That's our paramount duty," he said. "We're not here as a fashion store or fashion occasion. If you want to dress in an outlandish way in your own time, that's your business. That's not our business."

Lanegan, a C and D student who admits she does not particularly enjoy school but still wants to return, says she's as good as expelled.

"She was asked to go home and change her hair on opening day of school this year," House said. "She is welcome back any time when she changes her hair. She's chosen not to come back. We say, as a student she left campus, went home and chose not to return."

Today, two weeks past the 10-day absence limit that automatically drops a student from public school rolls, Lanegan officially is "not currently enrolled" at Whitefish High School.

While Kisteesha Lanegan's remaining high school career may come down to an issue of semantics, the underlying issues pit individual freedom of expression against a public school's right to set rules to accomplish its goals.

It started a year ago, a couple of weeks before the first day of her freshman year.

"I just thought it would be a cool thing to do," said Lanegan, who has been in Whitefish schools since third grade. "I was tired of how my hair had been forever, straight and highlighted, and if I'd kept it that way I'd have to curl it every day."

So she started twisting and rubbing segments of her hair until, two months later, it was matted enough for the dreadlocks to hold their form.

Teachers would ask her how she accomplished the look, she said, but none objected to the style.

None, at least, until two weeks before the end of the year. That's when she was called into Assistant Principal Kent Paulson's office.

"He told me ‘I have two things to talk to you about,’" she said. "‘One of them is that you can't wear your hat in the building.’" She wore a wool snow cap to school, and he had indeed told her to remove it several times.

"‘The second thing is dreadlocks,’" Paulson told her. "He told me I had to alter my hair in some way so it wasn't dreadlocked. I told him the only way I can do that is to cut my hair off, and he said, ‘I guess that's what you're going to have to do, then.’"

She asked Paulson why she had not been told earlier while it was still possible to remove the dreadlocks without shaving her head. They had been overlooked, he replied.

"How could he ask me to remove my cap and not notice my hair? Obviously, he had been paying some attention to me," she said.

Paulson also said another student's mother had seen Lanegan at prom last spring and reminded Paulson that her own son complied when told not to wear dreadlocks.

"I asked Mr. Paulson, ‘Why, what's the reasoning behind making me cut my dreadlocks?’" Lanegan said. "He told me it was an abnormality in that no one else had dreads and I couldn't. I said, ‘No one else wants to dread their hair.’ I also made the point that I'm still in school and I'm still learning. It doesn't have anything to do with school. How is this affecting it?"

House said the school is trying to prevent the potential ridicule, bullying and attention being drawn to a student with outlandish hair.

"We have standards, we have expectations," the superintendent said. "We're not singling out any one student. You set standards, you set your expectations for people to meet them and you do it for a reason. Our reason is that we're a learning institution, we're not a fashion school.

"We want all children when they come here to have the opportunity to learn with no distractions."

"Last spring, we allowed her to stay in school so she didn't have to shave her head," he said. "We didn't want to embarrass the child." At that time, he talked with her mother, PeTina Lanegan, to let her know Kisteesha would have to get rid of the dreadlocks before August.

"She thanked me and said certainly they could do something over the summer," House said. Later, PeTina Lanegan contacted House and board chair Linda Maetzold, who both told her the dreadlocks would have to go.

"What kind of bothered me about it is she knew this was the policy last year and had all summer to work with it. She knew it and didn't change it," House said.

Lanegan does not claim to be a star student but doesn't think she's a problem child, either.

In fifth and sixth grades, she said, she was the class clown who irritated teachers but drew no suspensions.

In eighth grade, she got her tongue pierced. Administrators told her it was against school policy and asked her to remove the barbell in her tongue. She had checked the handbook previously and found no specific prohibition on tongue piercing, so refused. The next day, she was put into two weeks of in-school suspension. A few days before suspension was over, she and her mother met with House and Kisteesha was released.

"My attitude really wasn't very good," Lanegan said. "I was offensive, I got really frustrated. But now everything's fine.

"I don't demand respect from teachers and administrators. I just pretty much go to class. I regularly attend class, but I did run up against the maximum absence limit at the end of last year."

She thought about Paulson's directive during the summer, and decided "if I cut my hair off I would be totally conforming to these totally ridiculous rules," and returned to school this fall with a full head of dreads.

Eight minutes into first period, she was called to Principal Dorothy Schmautz's office and soon left campus for home.

"I think it's ridiculous that they would deny me an education because of my hair," she said.

Beth Brenneman, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, tends to agree.

The Lanegans asked for the ACLU's help. In a letter to House, Brenneman cited the Montana Constitution's provision guaranteeing "equality of educational opportunity ... to each person of the state."

"This constitutional guarantee establishes a right to attend public school that the government cannot take away without an important or compelling reason to do so," she wrote.

After reviewing the handbook that the district mailed her, she focused on punishment outlined in the dress-code policy — ranging from a warning for first offense to one-day suspension for fourth offense.

"The school policy does not lend itself very well to some sort of status offense," she told the Inter Lake. "It never lists expulsion."

However, the ACLU litigation committee decided last week not to take on the case.

"Our decision to take or not take cases is based almost entirely on our resources," Brenneman said. She's the only attorney for the ACLU in Montana, and already has a full plate.

"It's an open question on whether the Constitution allows schools to dictate policy on appearance," she said. "There's not enough case law.

"Equality of educational opportunity is guaranteed to every person by the Montana Constitution. That is not in the U.S. Constitution. They have to have a good reason to deprive her of that access. Is her hair sufficient reason to deprive her?"

Whitefish school trustees revised the student handbook's dress code this summer.

A section that had read "Unnatural hair color and outlandish styles detract from the educational settings and will not be allowed," was altered to add "such as mohawks and dreadlocks" after "outlandish styles." The word "not" was changed to capital letters.

A copy of the revision was mailed to Lanegan shortly before school started Aug. 28.

"We really haven't added anything, with the exception of adding words to be specific," House said. "Were we targeting Kisteesha? Heck no. Were we targeting any other students? Heck no. We were not looking at any group, religious set, cultural set."

He cited the athletic training policy, also changed this summer, that now allows students to be near and to consume alcohol.

"A lot of our kids are waiters and waitresses in local restaurants," House said, "so being around that would be a problem to them.

"Also, some families have a tradition of having a glass of wine at Thanksgiving."

The next step for PeTina Lanegan is an appointment today with House. If they reach no solution, the case can be appealed to the Whitefish school board, then to County Superintendent Donna Maddux.

"We've talked to some lawyers," Kisteesha Lanegan said. "One of my mom's friends has a lawyer in Chicago, but that's expensive and we don't have much money to spend on a lawyer.

"I really don't know yet what to do at this point because we've tried so many things and they're all dead-ends. My mom is looking into home schooling now.

"I miss seeing all the people I used to see at school, and just having something to do and being there. I don't miss all the teachers and the system, but I do want to go back. I want them to say I can come back to school."

Reporter Nancy Kimball may be reached at 758-4483 or by e-mail at nkimball@dailyinterlake.com

A focus on educational benefits guides decisions regarding student appearance in Kalispell, Columbia Falls and Bigfork high schools.

• "What we look at is that whatever the student is doing has got to be appropriate for school and school activities," said Flathead High School Principal Callie Langohr. School policy, she said, requires that student behavior and appearance not be disruptive, distracting, harmful or incompatible with the school mission.

"We really try to work with students. We want students to be in school and enjoy coming to Flathead High School," she said. "We develop relationships with them so things like this aren't an issue."

She would not be concerned about a student with dreadlocks, she said, adding that similar situations have "not really" surfaced at the high school.

"We try to head problems off, look at students as individuals and see where they are in life," she said. "We don't overreact or underreact. We don't put ourselves in a position where this would be an issue.

"We are pretty tolerant. We want students to attend Flathead High School. We want them to feel good about being in school here and (have them) get in here and get the job done."

• In Columbia Falls, the student handbook says personal appearance of students is respected provided it does not interfere with health and safety of the student or others, nor materially interfere with the educational process.

There is no district policy specifically governing hair. A high school administrator did not want to comment on whether dreadlocks would cause concern.

The administrator said current fashion trends have been the biggest block to students cooperating with the dress code.

Students who refuse to adhere to the rules of appearance get an in-school detention for one lunch period. Further infractions bring more detention.

• Bigfork High School's policy on hairstyles "is pretty vague and open," principal Thom Peck said, and takes a hands-off approach, "as long as it doesn't distract from the educational setting."

"If it were something different as far as dyed or colored hair, or the way it was shaved, or dreadlocks," he said, "if we felt it was becoming an issue as far as denying the student (benefits) from the educational process," the school would take action.

Students, he said, could get a hard time from their peers who teased, left notes or put something on the student's car, making them "feel uncomfortable so that they couldn't reach their full potential."

It's never happened in his experience, Peck said. This is his first year at Bigfork, but he has been an assistant principal and teacher in other districts.

Clothing, however, has been an issue. Because students usually go home and change or put on the T-shirt the school offers, Peck said, it's never gotten to the point of expulsion.

We are not talking about sexual behavior here.We are talking about a person's right to look how they want to look.Who is she hurting? I don't care to wear my hair in this fashion,but I'm not going to tell someone they must look or think the same way I do. The freedom to look and eat the way we choose to is one of the freedoms we have left.I sure would not encourage anyone to adopt this hairstyle,just like I don't want anyone telling me I can't wear a certain tie to a meeting because it's offensive and disruptive.

It is the allowance of her non attendance that irritates me. The parents should insist she change her hairdo pending the outcome of whatever legal or other action they wish to take. I ain't changing my mind on this one. Education comes first. The rest is all noise. And by the way, I hope she loses her "case."

Well, I ain't changing MY mind on this one either. THE STATE has NO BUISNESS making education mandatory, and even less buisness providing it, and even LESS buisness dictating appearance rules in their little quasi-slavery, anti-parent concentration camps.

Some would prefer little Hitler youth all standing in a row rather than training free Americans.

As opposed to those free thinkers who "express themselves" through something as deep and thoughtful as their clothing. I'm sure teens in high school learn valuable lessons in independence and individualism when they're shopping for baggy jeans at the mall.

Dress codes are one thing, uniforms another. Uniforms are crutches that deal with symptoms, not problems.

Uniforms I associate with Catholic schools, military academies, and The Facts of Life. Unis and public schools, to me, do not compute.

OTHO, I remember with joy (nowadays, at least) how my private Christian HS would require the wearing of ties by guys on Thursdays (for chapel, and now I wish we had to wear nooses on M, TU, W and F as well). Girls had to wear skirts every day (although during one brutally cold winter they could wear pants, but once the weather warmed up, skirts became a requirement again). Absolutely no denim for either sex!

However, it's not a problem I have to deal with in this school district.

It's not a problem I have to deal with, period. I have no kids.

foreverfree

Do dreadlocks actually smell after awhile? If they do, then I will certainly agree with the school. I hate smelly hair!

Unwashed dreads will smell just like any other unwashed hair will.

Dreads, like braids, are washed "inside out." This means you lather the hair first, and you squeeze (or "press" as is the case with me) the shampoo and water out.

It's really very simple. I wash my braids every other day. Like clockwork.

Please go back and re-read my entire post, for I'm not the monster you think I am. I was only trying to be as outrageous as some of other posters were in their conDAMNation of this girl and her parent(s). My comments were satirical in nature as they often are. However, I refuse to end satirical comments with an 'end tag', I hope my words would reflect satire without stating so.

That said, in my opinion the girl looks clean and well dressed. Would my daughter to go to school like that? No, not her style. Would I permit it? No, not her style.
But again I see nothing in the story that tells me that this is nothing but one more person that the government is trying to run. That simple. If she were wanting to wear shirt with a Star of David or the Stars and Bars freepers would heap support on her right to do so.

I think many of us tend to jump to judgment based on what the media tells us in a few paragraphs and a single photograph.

Since this won't happen soon, plan B is to auction off the schools after school lets out for the summer and give everyone vouchers or tax-credits for homeschooling supplies.

Wow... I think I should stop Posting, if everyone else is gonna beat me to the punch. (grin)

FWIW, I will point out again that the Government Schools were instituted (in part) as a Protestant ploy to De-Catholicize Roman Catholic children... either you send your child to an Anti-Catholic publik skool, or you get to pay twice -- once to the publik skool (in taxes), and once to the Parochial School (in tuition).

Well, the "ploy" succeeded in part... publik skoolz have certainly de-Catholicized Roman Youth ("Hey... it's the Lenten season, we have to abstain from Meat and Sex on fridays!!" "Oh, yeah, that's right... Bummer!!")... but they have also de-Protestantized the Protestant Youth!!

Law of Unintended Consequences....

I'll close by saying that the land, buildings, and equipment Auction Value of the 90,000 Public Schools nationwide would add up to an un-freakin'-believable "School Voucher" or "Rebate" program if we had the Political Will to return Children (and tax dollars) to their Parents.

Do you believe that welfare recipients should be able to buy anything they want with their food stamps?

You are asking the wrong person that question. I do not believe there should be any such thing as "food stamps".

You wouldn't last two minutes in a modern school.

Wouldn't want to, and wouldn't send my kids to these hellholes.

And the worst part is, you would sabotage the chance of the few kids that actually have to be there to learn anything.

Nobody deserves to learn ANYTHING at taxpayer expense.

You honestly believe that a school can be run and not contradict the wishes of ANY parent of a child there?

Simply, DON'T MAKE IT COMPULSORY!!!!

Every person has a God-given right to free speech.

There's a difference between being able to speak and forcing others to listen. It's the difference between a Constitutional government and a Socialist one. And you are arguing the Socialist's interpretation.

Oh, and kids don't have full rights. That's also a Supreme Court ruling (which I'm sure you will support with equal vigor as the rulings you like). In fact, children have very limited rights in schools, especially where free speech is concerned. Explain how dreadlocks are "political speech," as that is all the Warren Court ruled was protected (hence the favorable ruling on the Op Enduring Freedom poster by later courts).

And the government can search you in a courthouse or an airport, just like it can search kids in a school.

You are arguing for policies in schools that would make them even less educational, less safe, and less regulated than they are now (which is pretty hard to do). Not that you would last five minutes in a modern public school, yourself. Nope, you can just preach from a distance, ruin as many kids' chances as your delusionary mantras require, and go home telling yourself how wonderful you are for trying to warp the Constitution into saying things it doesn't about an institution that isn't even constitutional itself...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.