PHILIPSBURG--A 13-year-old boy, whose parents filed a court case against Learning Unlimited (LU) over a dispute as to whether the boy should shave off his moustache, has been ordered to follow the regulations set by the school. His parents lost the court case they filed against the school, and were ordered to pay NAf. 1,000 in costs.

 

The boy is the son of a Dutch father and an Indian mother. Since last school year, the boy was wearing a small, fuzzy moustache. This is customary in the Indian Sindhi culture, which prescribes that boys are only allowed to shave after they have reached the age of 16.

 

However, on October 3, the student was ordered by the LU headmaster to shave off his small moustache. A day later the boy was sent home for violation of the school's rules on facial hair.

 

The boy's parents cited religious and cultural reasons for their refusal to have their son's moustache shaved off. They further pointed out that schoolboys older than 16 are allowed to have moustaches.

 

LU is a private school which does not receive government funding. Prior to each school year, the parents of students sign a learning agreement, which includes a mission statement as well as rules and regulations regarding behaviour and dress code. The agreement specifically states "Boys must be clean cut and clean shaven. If you are found with facial hair you will have to shave upon request. Clean cut and clean shaven is to be deemed appropriate by the Dean of Students, and the Headmaster. Senior boys are authorised to be allowed to have facial hair, however, it must be neat, clean and trimmed as deemed appropriate by the Dean of Students and the Headmaster."

 

The question to be dealt with in the court case was whether the signing of the learning agreement by the parents was legally binding in this case.

 

The parents of the boy argued that this was not the case, and felt that their son's treatment was in breach of the right to equal treatment, the right to freedom of expression, the right to a personal life atmosphere and the right to integrity and freedom of education.

 

The court came to the conclusion, that on closer examination, there is a "purposeful meaning" to the regulation made by the school, namely to mimic realistic restrictions that may also be encountered in adult life and to increase uniformity in students, and that LU's application of the regulation in this case is not unreasonable. The court stated that the learning agreement is therefore legally binding.

 

The court stated that, although opinions may differ on the right or wrong of the regulations, LU has the right to express its vision and its values by means of a learning agreement and parents have a choice either to accept the agreement or reject it and choose another school for their children. The leaning agreement can be accepted or rejected in its entirety. Parents are not at liberty to pick and choose which of the regulations they wish to adhere to, as this may lead to other students also wishing to break specific rules.

 

The court concluded that to rule against LU in this case would be against the freedom of contracts between persons, which is characteristic for St. Maarten's Civil law.

 

The boy's father is disappointed with the ruling. He said "The court completely misunderstands how human rights and higher constitution works. The decision taken is against the principles of my wife's religion. I find that disrespectful." The religious implication on this case was not mentioned by the court in its ruling.

 

The parents will be appealing the court's decision and will be looking for a different school for their son.

 

Willem Nelissen, the attorney for LU states that the school regrets that it has come to this, especially since a child is involved, however, it fully supports the verdict of the court.

 

(The Daily Herald)