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.

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

Read my previous posts. I've said the same thing (I am completely against government-run schools, and I'm doing my part to change them from the inside. What are you doing other than bitching on a webpage?). But since your welfare schooling exists, then whoever pays makes the rules...

Listen, public schooling is not a "handout". I can't believe that someone on this board could equate welfare with public education.

Oh, I can! Well, let me clarify. It wasn't referred to as a "handout" in the status quo. But when school vouchers are thrown in for blacks to move their children out of the public school system to private schools, THEN you had some here who referred to it as a "handout."

But, don't get me started. That was a while ago.

I don't know, it sounds like you are ending up with my tax money on your paycheck rather than the other way around.

Listen, public schooling is not a "handout". I can't believe that someone on this board could equate welfare with public education.

I equate Public Schooling with Welfare.

Lemme 'splain...

And if you don't like it, all I ask is that you don't steal our money. Let the Parents of my Church keep their Tax Monies, and you can keep your Gubmint Skoolz.

But lemme guess -- you still want your Gubmint Skoolz, and you want US to pay for it... right?

In short, you want to TAKE the money of Orthodox Presbyterian parents who have no desire for nor interest in the Publik Skool system, and you want to HAND IT OUT to folks who do want to suckle at the Publik Skool trough.

"Take"; "Hand-out". Quod Erat Demonstrandum..... Is that about right?

Parents pay through the nose for these crappy schools!

Wrong. Look who pays the majority of state, federal, and local taxes. In all three, the tax rates are skewed towards the wealthy. At the local level, property taxes pay the lion's share of the local budget, and these come disproportionately from the very wealth and the local businesses. A middle class family pays far less in total local and state taxes than the $6,000 per year spent on their child in my school district. If this wasn't the case, why wouldn't everyone be in private schools?

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).

And neither did Dred Scott, and neither do "fetuses". You got me there, I do indeed find that the Supreme Court is not infallible. When they interpret the Bill of Rights broadly and the restrictions on government narrowly they do ok. trying to warp the Constitution into saying things it doesn't about an institution that isn't even constitutional itself...

The Constitution says a great deal about individual rights and governmental limitations even if it doesn't specifically mention Whitefish High or this girl by name. You argument is the one that is delusional, preferring to pretend that since the school is not Constitutional that the Bill of Rights does not apply to those attending it. Quit your unconstitutional and illegal job and then perhaps I will take another gander at your position.

Listen, public schooling is not a "handout". I can't believe that someone on this board could equate welfare with public education.

Take your tax return from last year. Check the total amount you paid in state taxes. Then call the local school board and ask how much they spent per child last year. For the average parent, the amount spent will dwarf the total state tax paid, not to mention the percentage of that money that actually gets sent to education. So someone else's money is getting taken from them in order to pay for your child's education. That's the definition of a "handout."

I'm taking a fify-percent pay cut from what I could be earning in the corporate sector to try and salvage the next generation, while also trying to change the system from the inside. What are you doing, other than whining on a web-based bulletin board?

I find it hard to reconcile that you can claim to be doing good by being the paid agent of a government institution that you believe is unconstitutional. What changes can you make from the inside that will make this institution Constitutional (point me to the exact spot in the Constitution that your efforts will cause to apply).

If you believe its unconstitutional government agency then you should probably not be carrying out its functions.

Quit your unconstitutional and illegal job and then perhaps I will take another gander at your position.

Step out of your armchair and make the public schools work better yourself, and I'll think you are anything but a ignoramus on the issue at hand.

Step out of your armchair and make the public schools work better yourself, and I'll think you are anything but a ignoramus on the issue at hand.

Perhaps you can explain why you would be interested in me (or you) making an unconstitutional institution function more efficiently? Weird logic.

A middle class family pays far less in total local and state taxes than the $6,000 per year spent on their child in my school district. If this wasn't the case, why wouldn't everyone be in private schools?

Good question.

My kid brother received a Classical-curricula Education (that is, it included Latin, Greek, Logic, Rhetoric, and Theology, in addition to the more mundane studies) at a Calvinist Episcopalian Academy for $3,600 per year. No "scholarships"; that was Full Tuition (natch, his Mother paid all of her Publik Skool Taxes also, of course).

This is HALF the cost of the combined $7,000 per-child, per-year that the Federal, State, and Local gubmints spend on education -- and a vastly superior curriculum. (I won't even go into his home-schooling years, which were even cheaper, and even better).

But Publik Skooling (and the taxes to pay for it) are compulsory.

Publik Skooling is the educational equivalent of a Mafia Extortion Racket.

My state pays about $12,000 per year per student and it's a total waste. My mother pays $8,000 a year in property taxes -- $4,000 of which goes to the public schools. She could take that $4,000 and pay some kid's tuition at the local Catholic school that does a much better job. She would probably prefer doing that then letting the government schools get it.

If you believe its unconstitutional government agency then you should probably not be carrying out its functions.

You are the one that insisted that we must deal with the reality of the situation and not the hypothetical (would you like me to find the quote?). The reality is, until my consistent votes to defund and rebuild the public education system are joined by enough other people to make it happen, the vast majority of kids will receive their education in public schools. So that is where I am needed most. I do more to help restore good, conservative moral values and constitutional priciples to our society every day I teach than you will do in your entire life on Free Republic. But I guess actual effort isn't equivalent to the right "sentiments."

Unless, of course, your position is that we should just abandon all those kids out of principle? Just give up on an entire generation? How noble of you to sacrifice their lives and education for your own ideas!

Some places uniforms exist to prevent class differences. Competition over who has the most expensive clothes becomes more important that the schoolwork. I never wanted to attend a school where uniforms were worn. Reminds me too much of Hitler Youth and forced conformity. We are all entitled to our own opinions on this though,and I respect yours.

And I would prefer she did it, too! But until then, those who pay the piper call the tunes...

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.