Christian school loses legal battle to force student to cut his hair
A Christian school has lost its legal battle to force a young student to cut his long hair.
The Australian Christian College Moreton (ACC) in Brisbane has spent the past two years desperately trying to expel the child.
A tribunal found the school discriminated against the Islander boy on the basis of race.
Christian school loses legal battle
The case started in 2020 when the ACC threatened to expel then five old-old prep student Cyrus Taniela unless he cut his hair.
The school’s policy requires male students to keep their hair short.
However, his mother Wendy refused.
She argued the policy was discriminatory because Islander tradition dictates that Cyrus could not cut his hair until he turned seven at a special ceremony.
Cyrus wore his hair in a neat bun, however the school still considered this a breach of its uniform policy.
The family took the case to the Queensland Human Rights Commission claiming race discrimination.
When the matter failed to resolve during the conciliation process, the Commission referred it to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).
The tribunal hearing
During the tribunal hearing in July 2020, barrister Chris McGrath for the Taniela family argued that:
“Cyrus could not comply with the requirement due to his race, as it would require him to reject and not observe a fundamental practice associated with is Cook Islands/Niuean heritage.”
In response, the school denied discriminating against the boy.
Instead, it argued that Cyrus failed to comply with the uniform policy “because of a choice made by one or both parents as to the timing of the cutting of the hair.”
School breached anti-discrimination laws
In July 2020, the tribunal ruled in favour of Cyrus, finding the ACC’s hardline uniform policy breached anti-discrimination laws.
It restrained the school from expelling him and also ordered it to write him a formal apology for threatening to expel him.
QCAT Member Samantha Travers said the school engaged in direct and indirect discrimination against the boy.
She described threats to unenroll him as “excluding” him.
“The question then is whether the educational authority would have purported to deny another student the benefits of their education in the same or similar circumstances. The answer seems plain. The educational authority would not have denied those benefits to, or imposed those detriments on, another student who complied with the uniform policy.
“Accordingly, I find that there was direct discrimination on the basis of race.”
QCAT also found the school’s uniform policy was “not reasonable”.
LEARN MORE
School appeal
Bizarrely, the school appealed the decision on six grounds.
It argued, in part, that QCAT erred in law, or in fact, by accepting Cook Island/Niue tradition was that haircutting ceremonies should take place at a time of choosing by parents.
“There was no evidence it was part of the said cultural practice…” the appeal document stated.
It also said the ruling would impact an exception to the uniform policy would have on discipline.
In the end, QCAT upheld the original ruling that the school discriminated against Cyrus.
“In our view, no material error in the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion is demonstrated,” the ruling stated.
It went on to say that any impact on discipline at the school would not be “extensive”.
Finally, the tribunal said the uniform policy is not exempt from discrimination laws.
“Further, the Tribunal considered the policy could not be applied without exception, and requiring compliance failed to acknowledge the protections afforded by the Anti-Discrimination Act.”
Australian Christian College argued making an exception to the uniform policy would affect discipline.
Christian school legal battle not very Christ-like
Discrimination law expert Miles Heffernan from Human Rights Claims said the school’s conduct was not very Christ-like.
“The Jesus Christ mentioned in the Bible was all about inclusion and not exclusion,” he said.
“I find it breathtaking that a Christian school would spend so much time and money fighting something so eye-wateringly trivial.
“A mature approach would have been to handle this matter discreetly and without any fuss. It is not as though little Cyrus wearing his hair in a bun for two years was going to create anarchy at the school.
“The case is a lesson for religious schools everywhere – you are not above the law.”
To contact our team at Human Rights Claims, please call
To connect with us, please follow us on
