I always found the beginning of a new school year to be the most exciting. After a long summer break, everyone returned refreshed, the school had been thoroughly cleaned, and students wandered the corridors trying to make sense of their new schedules. Yet, within a few days, the confusion faded, routines took hold, and the real learning began.
At least, that was how things were supposed to unfold for 14-year-old Carl Towner. In September 1967, Carl entered ninth grade at North Olmsted Junior High School, located about 12 miles (19.3 km) southwest of Cleveland, Ohio.
But before the school year could truly get underway, Carl found himself at the center of a controversy that would turn his life upside down. On September 19th, Charles Sewell, the building principal, suspended him because his hair was not “an acceptable length.”
It’s not as though Carl’s hair was exceptionally long. His bangs rested just above his eyebrows, leaving his vision completely unobstructed. In the back, his hair covered the nape of his neck and ended just above his shirt collar. It was neatly trimmed, carefully combed, and well-maintained. By today’s standards, there was nothing remarkable about it. My 1981 high school yearbook photo shows that my hair was longer than Carl’s. Yet, in 1967, it was apparently enough to raise alarms, at least in the eyes of Principal Sewell.
In a letter to Sewell penned to Carl’s father, Ernest Towner, he wrote: “Carl was appraised of the fact during the first few days of this school year that he would have to get his hair cut if he plans to remain in school.”
In response, Towner told Cleveland’s Plain Dealer, “They won’t tell me what a reasonable length is. The letter is the only communication I’ve gotten. I went to see the board and they have no comment.”
Towner, who also wore his hair long and had a beard, explained that “It’s a family tradition, were not hippies. My grandfather was captain of a four-masted barque and my father sailed before the mast, and they wore ponytails.”
Ten years earlier, Ernest “Ernie” Towner had moved his family from London to the Cleveland area. Along with his wife, Elsie, and their two sons, Carl and ten-year-old Kurt, they settled into a home at 3356 Clague Road in North Olmsted. Over the next decade, Ernie worked diligently to build his Keystone Paper Products Corporation into a moderately successful stationery business, providing a comfortable life for his family.
Being in business also meant having to make difficult decisions, and one of those was to decide whether or not he should cut his son’s hair to comply with the school’s regulations. After giving the matter careful thought, he concluded that Carl had done nothing wrong. His hair had not disrupted his learning, nor had it interfered with the education of his classmates. Believing the issue was one of personal choice rather than discipline, Ernie decided to support his son and respect his wish to keep his hair long.
Interestingly, just a few weeks earlier, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had sent a letter to all of the county’s school principals addressing students’ rights to free expression. “In establishing and enforcing a code of behavior, it must be remembered that an individual student has the right not to conform to the standards of the majority, no matter how overwhelming its proportion, so long as the nonconformity does no injury to the community or any of its members, and so long as it does not interfere with the school’s primary function of providing instruction.” Principal Sewell claimed that he hadn’t received the letter, but a checklist at the ACLU states it was sent.
According to North Olmsted School Board President Allen D. Dorris, the district had a dress code in place, but it did not specify an acceptable hair length. That decision was left up to the school principal. When questioned about what an acceptable hair length was, Principal Sewell described it as being “a tapered back in a front frame so that it doesn’t hinder the student’s sight.”
With neither side willing to back down, the school district escalated the matter. On September 27, 1967, eight days after Carl’s suspension, they filed a complaint with the Juvenile Court, accusing him of disobedience. While awaiting a hearing, Carl remained at home and continued his studies with the help of a tutor hired by his family.
An editorial in the Plain Dealer the following day read, “If skirts of schoolgirls are so short they distract attention from class work, if boys’ pants are so skin-tight that their wearers cannot sit comfortably and pay attention, then school regulations providing for proper dress and decorum make sense.
“But if a boy wants to wear his hair long in the back, if he keeps it neatly combed, if he can see out and does not attract lice, what concern is it of the school?”
It continues: “It is the function of the schools to teach, not to banish pupils so they cannot be taught and then say they are truant.
“The school system looks silly by bringing this case into Juvenile Court in hardheaded fashion.
“It says young Towner became truant by not getting a haircut to his principal’s satisfaction, which kept him from returning to class in defiance of the compulsory school attendance law.
“Yet the policy book for the North Olmsted schools does not designate any standard for length of hair, so the matter of who may be allowed in school and who may be barred can become a question of a principal’s taste.”
This prompted two negative replies from readers, both published on October 8, 1967.
The first, penned by Cleveland resident George Cicero, read, “It is disgusting to have The Plain Dealer editorialize on behalf of a boy being suspended for having long hair. As a former school teacher, I am well aware that one of the principal’s primary responsibilities is to preserve a sound academic atmosphere in the school. Matters of dress and hair style are only a few of the factors that come into consideration. I think it is the height of audacity for The Plain Dealer to take issue with a principal on such a question . . .
Mrs. Raymond W. Blakeslee of Avon Lake wrote, “As a parent who has tried to instill, in my children, a healthy respect for all authority, I was appalled by the editorial and its lack of wisdom . . . In a paper so widely read by all age groups, I could hardly believe that The Plain Dealer could foster insubordination, by criticizing the principal of a school, and sympathizing with a pupil. The Plain Dealer premise is wrong, no matter which of the parties involved is right.”
The Plain Dealer, for which young Carl had been a carrier for two years, went out and asked some of his neighbors what they thought.
One of his customers was Mrs. Rita Monck, who said, “It’s disgusting what the school is doing to him. He has manners and is so neat and clean looking. If they took a survey and saw the greasy kids and their long hair . . . I ’ve been trying to start a citizen’s committee to do something about this.”
Another neighbor made it clear that he didn’t approve of Carl’s long hair: “Long hair belongs on girls, and that’s where it should be. I don’t like it at all.”
A mother of five boys and a girl said, “My older sons like to keep their hair a little bit long, but I like to see it short. Carl is a real nice boy, but I’d like to see his just a little bit shorter. I don’t agree with the school if he was a good student and it didn’t interfere with his studies. Even kids that don’t like other kids like him.”
Finally, Walter Welling, who had lived on the same road as Carl for twenty-five years, said, “I kind of like long hair, but I think it’s a little out of line with the average amount of boys. You should go along with the heads of the schools to keep harmony and make them all alike.”
The Cleveland Press featured a letter from 13-year-old Mary Kenney who lived in University Heights, which is about 8 miles (12.9 km) east of Cleveland. “Why does everyone think it’s so terrible for boys to have long hair? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin had long hair and look at all the great things they did for this country. Some of these men even wore powdered wigs, and nothing was said against it.
“There is always controversy when a change is made. For example, when the waltz was introduced, many people didn’t accept it. Such is the case with long hair.”
On Thursday, October 12, 1967, Juvenile Court Judge John J. Toner listened to arguments from both sides in Carl’s case.
Principal Sewell explained that the length of a student’s hair should not hang down below the collar, nor cover one’s ears or eyes.
Ernie Towner argued that the length of Carl’s hair “doesn’t affect his education or the happiness of others. But to cut it would effect my son’s happiness.”
In the end, Judge Toner concluded that Carl was, in fact, delinquent. “The word reasonable is elastic, and a reasonable regulation is one that is fair and appropriate to a given situation. The North Olmsted regulation is a reasonable one because Carl was given plenty of opportunity to return to school, but he refused to get his hair cut.”
After issuing his ruling, the judge invited Carl, his parents, and school officials into his chambers in hopes of reaching a compromise. Despite their private discussion, no agreement could be reached. The group then returned to the courtroom, where Judge Toner posed one final question.
“Carl, will you get your hair cut?”
Without hesitation, Carl replied, “No, sir.”
What happened next stunned everyone in the courtroom.
Judge Toner ordered that Carl be committed to the Juvenile Detention Home pending a clinical evaluation, a process that could take up to three weeks. He specifically instructed that no one was to cut Carl’s hair and explained the reasoning behind his decision:
“In the Detention Home, he at least will be complying with the state law for attending school, and I want to determine if there is some psychological basis for his refusal to conform.”
Bailiff Michael O’Grady then led Carl out of the courtroom and took him to the detention home.
The ruling caught many by surprise, including Principal Sewell. Although he had sought enforcement of the school’s hair regulations, he was unhappy with the judge’s decision to send Carl to the Juvenile Detention Home, a facility operated by the Cleveland Board of Education. He said, “I tried settling it in my office several times and Carl and I couldn’t reach a compromise.”
Needless to say, Ernie Towner was not happy. “We came to court a united family, and now my son’s in jail, branded a criminal because he wears his hair long.
“When one man, a school principal, can decide a boy’s future by the cut of his hair, society has come to a pretty pass. It reminds you of the book, ‘1984’.”
Reflecting on his own long hair, he commented, “I am a respectable person and get along in the community. Carl wants to be like his daddy.
“How can I tell him he is wrong? Do I have to admit that I am wrong to be the way I am?”
At one point, Ernie pointed out that his younger son Curt had even longer hair, yet no one at Maple Elementary had made a stink about it. After leaving the courtroom, North Olmsted Superintendent Dr. Robert Van Auken noted that Curt’s long hair was the school board’s “next problem,” although he gave no hint as to how they were going to handle it.
What they may do to Curt was the least of Ernie Towner’s problems right now. His main focus was obtaining his son’s freedom. He retained the services of ACLU lawyer John H. Ober, who was the only person permitted to visit Carl while he was in the detention home. Upon visiting him, Ober said that “The two things he’s worried about are his school books and his paper route.”
He told the Towners, “If we could get your son into an accredited school, he would let him out in the morning.”
Meanwhile, Ober’s wife Laura, the executive director of the Ohio chapter of the ACLU, issued the following statement:
“The ACLU condemns the decision of Judge Toner to place a 14-year-old boy in the detention home because the length of his hair does not conform to the arbitrary standard established by a school authority.
“At Carl Towner’s hearing, no evidence was presented to show that his presence in the North Olmsted Junior High School had a disturbing influence, or in any way adversely affected the conduct of the school.
“In the absence of such evidence, a decision to expel the boy and find him delinquent is an outrageous injustice.”
By the following day, Judge Toner’s decision to incarcerate Carl for refusing to cut his hair had made headlines across the country. At North Olmsted Junior High School, approximately 500 of the school’s 1,400 students staged a protest outside the building. Meanwhile, students at Case Western Reserve University organized their own demonstration outside the Juvenile Court.
It is difficult to say how much influence these protests had. What neither Judge Toner nor school officials had anticipated, however, was the factor that ultimately secured Carl’s release: he was a British citizen. After learning of his detention, a representative from the British Consulate met with Judge Toner to discuss the case.
Shortly thereafter, Carl was released from custody under two conditions. First, he had to be enrolled in an accredited school as quickly as possible. Second, the case would be reviewed again thirty days later.
Ernie was thrilled. “I’ve got my son back home, and that’s what’s most important to me and my wife. I never thought people cared much about things like this over here. You’ve all been a great help.”
The Plain Dealer didn’t waste any time getting an interview with Carl, whom they were calling the “Haircut Boy.” The day after his release, they ran a story titled “One Night Away Was Enough.”
“I was scared. They put me in a room—a filthy place with writing over the walls and only one chair.”
He said that upon his arrival, he was required to strip and take a shower while his long hair was inspected for lice and fleas. Dinner, he recalled, consisted of “two slices of bread with some junk in the middle and a carton of milk.”
Despite the circumstances, Carl said his treatment there was generally fair. The staff ‘‘was pretty decent to me and the other kids helped me make my bed. We played a lot of games and I shot a few games of pool in the recreation room.” He also observed that “Some of those fellows are pretty handy with a stick.” He added, “There was a fight too, but I didn’t know what it was all about.”
Carl spent the night in a dormitory with about twenty other boys. “It was a strange place and I couldn’t sleep,” he said. “I kept on thinking about Mom and Dad. I wanted to go home very much.”
The following morning, after breakfast, he worked in the laundry for two hours. “I didn’t go to classes because I hadn’t been there long enough,” he explained.
Looking back on the experience, Carl reflected, “It was unusual. I guess you could call it interesting now that it’s over, but I don’t think I will ever forget it,” he said. “I don’t ever want to see it again.”
His mom, Elsie, was interviewed by the Cleveland Press.
She told a reporter, “Carl has worn his hair long for several years without any objections from school officials. Then suddenly, they told him either he or his hair must go.
“I honestly thought this would last no more than one day… that the school board would compromise somewhat.
She noted that it was Carl’s decision to wear his hair long. “He had his hair short once, when he was six, and didn’t like it.
“After the Beatles became popular, the United States seemed to adopt the idea that long hair was something bad. It’s a matter of personal preference, not something dirty.”
At a time long before people could express their outrage on the Internet, readers wrote letters to the newspaper editors. Here are a few of my favorites, all published in the Cleveland Press:
The first is from John Wyman of Cleveland Heights: “Today a young man is being accused of countermanding the orders of society by not wearing his hair to the liking of others.
“It is absurd to think, sir, that in the year 1967 A.D. a person may not wear his own hair to his parents’ and his own desire without evoking controversy. This is not indigenous to a country that claims to be a world leader. It is reminiscent of the Dark Ages when the term ‘civil liberties’ was not yet in the dictionary.
“Personally, I think Carl Towner’s hairdo is obnoxious and looks seedy, yet this is entirely beside the point. People die every day now to protect his right to wear his hair the way he likes it, and in deference to them, if not to the principle behind it, we in Cuyahoga County should be ashamed that it happens here.”
Mrs. Edgar Schickel of Parma Heights wrote: “The boy had his chance to abide by laws of the school. If the principal gives in once, he would have no control over the other children. The father should be in jail instead of the son. He should have made the son obey the rules even if he didn’t go along with them all the way. If the boy doesn’t learn in school to conform he will have trouble all his life.”
Lastly, Mrs. John More of Parma wrote: “Another ‘juvenile delinquent’ has been carted off to the detention home, so all law-abiding citizens can rest a little easier.
“Did this boy steal a car? Beat up and rob an old lady? Rob a bank? Rape and strangle a little girl? No—the horrendous crime was he wanted to be true to his father and tradition of his family and refused to get his hair cut.
“For this blood-chilling deed, one of our great self-righteous judges ruled the boy a truant and disobedient. Disobedient to whom? His father or some nut with a tape measure? The crowning blow is referring this boy for psychiatric tests.
“Disgusting is the word, and the whole thing smells of Gestapo tactics.”
Judge Toner followed through on his promise to review the case after Carl’s release, although the hearing ultimately took place five weeks later, on November 20, 1967. Before a packed courtroom, Ernie Towner informed the judge that his wife and two sons had left the United States three days earlier and were now enrolled in Middlesex County Council schools in Ealing, England. This left Judge Toner with no other option but to approve their transfer to the British school system.
This did not mean, however, that Towner had given up his fight. He said, “I hope to join my family for Christmas, but they will stay in England until this matter is settled once and for all.”
He said that there was “little doubt in my mind that the judge would have sent him back to the detention home.” He added, “There just wasn’t enough time to get him into a school.”
The Plain Dealer interviewed both Carl and his mother Elsie via a transatlantic telephone call. They were now living with Elsie’s mother, Edith Durrant, in Ealing.
Carl spoke first. “I guess I can’t win, no matter what I do.”
He then asked, “How’s my dad? Have you talked to him? Have any of my friends called? Tell them to write me, will you? Tell my dad we all miss him, and I hope he can be here for Christmas.”
He then handed the phone to his mom.
“You ought to see some of those London reporters. Their hair is longer than Carl’s… almost as long as mine. We had about 20 here last night, I thought they’d never stop.
“We’ve only got seven rooms here and two of them we can’t use in winter… we’d freeze to death. It’s very cold. I’m wearing my mother’s fur coat to keep warm.
“It’s amazing how one gets spoiled in America. I would give anything right now for a bit of central heating. It feels like we’re sitting on the North Pole.”
She said the reason they were staying with her mother was “because it’s far too expensive to rent over here. The cost of living is terribly high, and housing is extremely scarce.
“It’s no good like it is now, and quite honestly, it’s a dreadful financial drain, but we’ll manage.
“Tell Ernie I love him, and that we miss him terribly. Also that the boys are well and the family sends their love. I’d better ring off now, I think I’m about to make a fool of myself.”
The newspaper noted that it sounded like she was crying as she hung up the phone.
The Daily Telegraph in London reported on the case as well, this time interviewing Carl’s father. He explained that he had spent a considerable amount of money defending his son’s right to wear his hair long, adding, “It is no longer than the hair of Prince Charles. It is fantastic that, because of it, he now has a criminal record here.”
The situation, however, was even more serious than it appeared. Carl’s visa was set to expire on November 17, 1968, and there was growing doubt that it would be renewed in light of Judge Toner’s delinquency ruling. The Towners’ only remaining hope was that the Court of Appeals would rule in their favor before that deadline.
Almost one year to the day after Carl was suspended, on September 18, 1968, the Court of Appeals ruled that his constitutional rights had been violated. The decision, however, had nothing to do with the length of his hair. Instead, the court found that Carl and his father had never been properly informed that charges would be brought in Juvenile Court, nor were they advised of their right to legal counsel.
The Towners had both won and lost at the same time. The court may have ruled in their favor, but they were back to square one. The ruling did not mandate that the North Olmsted schools readmit Carl, so they could still keep him out until he cut his hair.
Ernie Towner could have fought on, but he had lost nearly everything in his fight against the school board. In addition to spending $20,000 (over $200,000 today) to fight his son’s case, the negative publicity had caused heavy losses to his business. “There’s not much left for me to fight with. I’ve been wiped out.”
After selling off both his business and home, he was left with just a few thousand dollars. Tuesday, December 10, 1968, would be his last day living in the United States. After more than a year apart, he headed home to England to be reunited with his family.
Eleven months later, on November 13, 1969, the North Olmsted school district found itself facing a remarkably similar situation. This time, the student in question was Senior Class President Bruce Morosko, who had been asked to cut his long, curly hair. Morosko refused on principle, but unlike Carl Towner, he was not suspended. Instead, the district chose a different solution: it changed the rules.
Under the revised dress code, responsibility for determining what constituted acceptable student appearance shifted from the building principal to the parents. Superintendent Dr. Robert Van Auken explained that the new policy would prohibit only clothing that was unclean, disruptive, or immoral. As an example, he cited a see-through blouse as attire that would not be permitted. He said, “We feel there has been a change in public attitudes and also in legal interpretations about what schools should require in dress and appearance.”
If only they had come to the same conclusion two years earlier. If they had done so, the Towner family would not have been forced to endure a lengthy legal battle, uproot their lives, and sacrifice nearly everything in the process.
Useless? Useful? I’ll leave that for you to decide.
