Legal News

Privilege vs Right

S.S v. Detroit ISD

Participation in athletics, band and other extracurricular activities is a "privilege" and not a right.  That means that the school is not required to provide constitutional levle of "due process" when suspending a student from such activities.  But when a student alleges that the decision was marred by some form of discrimination, all bets are off.  Now that privilege/right distinction doesn't matter.  This means that complaints of racial, sexual, religious or disability discrimination are going to get a fair hearing in court.  

The case:

This case is about who gets to travel with the team for the game against Yantis.  The coach made a decision about that based on an assessment of the student's volleyball skills.  The parent alleged racial discrimination in violation of Title VI, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.  The court found insufficient evidence to support any of those theories, and the case was dismissed.  Decided December 27, 2023, by the federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas-2023WL8924962.

Lesson:

Any claim of racial discrimination is a serious matter and needs to be investigated and acted upon.  As this case illustrates, such a case can generate a lot of legal work, even when the only injury reported by the student is not getting to play in only one game.  Even "privileges" are protected by our anti-discrimination laws. 

The CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open Word for Natural Hair)

This act was passed last year, and it prohibits discrimination based on "a hair texture or protective hairstyle commonly or historically associated with race." The act defines a "protective hairstyle" as including "braids, locks, and twists."

This case:

An African American student in Barbers Hill ISD has such a hairstyle, but it is longer than is allowed under the school's dress code.  The school district emphasizes the absence of the word "length" in the statute and so the school's dress code does not violate the act.  The judge agreed.  The judge based his decision on the fact that the law mentions texture and style, but says nothing about length.  The reasoning is "if the legislature meant to say something about hair length, it could have said so, and it should have said so."