Case Name: Peter TORVIK, a Minor, by His Mother, Eleanor M. Torvik; Kai Kaasa, a Minor, by His Father, Harris Kaasa, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Keith Uhlenhopp, a Minor, by His Mother, Geraldine Uhlenhopp, Not Appealing, v. DECORAH COMMUNITY SCHOOLS and Wayne W. Burns, Superintendent, Defendants-Appellants, and Applington Community Schools, and Clifford McKee, Superintendent, Not Appealing
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-01-05
Citations: 453 F.2d 779
Docket Number: No. 71-1350
Parties: Peter TORVIK, a Minor, by His Mother, Eleanor M. Torvik; Kai Kaasa, a Minor, by His Father, Harris Kaasa, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Keith Uhlenhopp, a Minor, by His Mother, Geraldine Uhlenhopp, Not Appealing, v. DECORAH COMMUNITY SCHOOLS and Wayne W. Burns, Superintendent, Defendants-Appellants, and Applington Community Schools, and Clifford McKee, Superintendent, Not Appealing.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 453
Pages: 779–783

Head Matter:
Peter TORVIK, a Minor, by His Mother, Eleanor M. Torvik; Kai Kaasa, a Minor, by His Father, Harris Kaasa, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Keith Uhlenhopp, a Minor, by His Mother, Geraldine Uhlenhopp, Not Appealing, v. DECORAH COMMUNITY SCHOOLS and Wayne W. Burns, Superintendent, Defendants-Appellants, and Applington Community Schools, and Clifford McKee, Superintendent, Not Appealing.
No. 71-1350.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Jan. 5, 1972.
Stephenson, Circuit Judge, dissented.
Miller, Pearson & Gloe, Decorah, Iowa, on briefs for appellants.
Melvin H. Wolf, and C. A. Frerichs, Waterloo, Iowa, on brief for appellees.
Before LAY, HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
School officials appeal the decision of the district court which found a school regulation requiring all male school students to conform their hair style to certain approved standards violative of an individual's constitutional rights. We affirm.
A regulation governing hair style of students cannot be sustained simply because it is promulgated by school authorities. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). This approach would otherwise condone prohibition of any recognized constitutional right. Every individual enjoys the liberty to wear the hair style he chooses. Before the state can intrude into recognized areas of privacy and freedom there must exist some rational basis to justify paternal control. This court recently found that no rational relation exists between a similar school regulation and the educational goals and processes of school administration. Bishop v. Colaw, 450 F.2d 1069 (8 Cir. 1971). We affirm the decision of the District Court under the analysis written in Bishop.
Judgment affirmed.