Hair-raising events in 1965 courts

By David Maurer

Published: April 20, 2008

Justice may be blind, but judges usually aren’t.
Charlottesville Municipal Court Judge Allan Spitzer could see very well. When a young man approach his bench on Nov. 4, 1965, the World War II veteran didn’t like what he saw.
Spitzer apparently felt that people entering court should reflect a certain level of personal grooming out of respect for the venerable institution. When 19-year-old Jonathan Gainsbrugh failed to meet the judge’s standards, it resulted in a legal dustup that grew into a clash of principles.
The University of Virginia first-year student had entered the court that day as a result of being charged with failing to yield the right-of-way. Spitzer later said that Gainsbrugh had appeared in his court “with shoes in his hands, and dirty in every appearance.”
Not suitable
The student also had allowed his hair to grow rather long. Spitzer ruled that Gainsbrugh’s appearance was not suitable for a court of law and ordered him to get a haircut.
The judge reset the court date to Nov. 16 to give the student time to comply with his order. When a clearly nervous Gainsbrugh re-entered Spitzer’s domain on the appointed date, his hair was as long as ever.
The judge was not amused and said that he would hold the student in contempt of court for disobeying a lawful order. Gainsbrugh wasn’t convinced that it was a lawful order.
Spitzer continued the case until Nov. 30 to give the defendant the opportunity to receive legal counsel. During an interview with Tom Luce, a reporter with The Daily Progress, Gainsbrugh explained where he was coming from.
The native New Yorker said he wasn’t trying to “buck the system,” but the matter had become a personal thing for him.
The short of it
“I’m not trying to make long or short hair an issue, nor am I trying to be contemptuous of the court,” Gainsbrugh said. “I just don’t feel that Judge Spitzer had the right to tell me how I should wear my hair.
“Why should a judge order someone to cut or comb his hair? This is a disregard for my personal right of choice. I don’t like my position, but people have to think for themselves.
“They can’t rely on someone else for the rest of their lives. If I weren’t able to pay legal expenses and hire a lawyer, I would have no choice but to accept the judge’s decision. How many people have felt they had been wronged, but due to a lack of money have been forced to accept whatever judgment was handed down?”
During the 1960s hair length on males was sparking confrontations, many between parents and sons,
throughout the nation. The new “mop-top” look for males had been inspired largely by the Beatles.
At the same time, Gainsbrugh was dealing with his legal problems, an outraged mother in Provincetown, Mass., was about to go to war over the hair issue as well. Mrs. Salvatore DelDeo became fighting mad after her 6-year-old son was sent home from school because the teacher thought his hair was too long.
Mrs. DelDeo was quoted as saying her son’s haircut was “longer than a crew cut but not a Beatle haircut.” School officials countered that it was longer than the school’s dress code permitted.
DelDeo started a movement to get the dress code dropped. It was her feeling that children should go to school clean and well dressed, but it shouldn’t be up to the school to dictate what they should wear or how they should have their hair cut.
As the turbulent decade progressed, long hair became a symbol for many young people of personal freedom. Lengthy locks on boys and men also served to rebel against the formidable power of social conformity.
Gainsbrugh quickly started feeling pressure from forces outside the court. In a sampling of university students, Luce found that most sided with Gainsbrugh, but a few thought the whole haircut issue was “sort of silly and immature.”
Before Gainsbrugh’s court appearance on Nov. 16, B.F.D. Runk, dean of the university, asked him when he was going to get a haircut. In response to the question, Gainsbrugh submitted to a light trim.
It fell short of the judge’s expectations.
On Nov. 30, Gainsbrugh again faced the judge. Even though he now had attorney Richard Barrick at his side, things didn’t go well.
The traffic offense had escalated into a full-blown legal case with two commonwealth’s attorneys, J.T. Camblos and Herbert Pickford, serving for the prosecution. Spitzer gave Gainsbrugh a visual once-over and passed judgment.
The student was found guilty on two counts of contempt and was fined $50 for each count. He also was sentenced to 10 days in jail for each offense.
Gainsbrugh had pleaded guilty to the traffic violation and was fined $25 for that as well. Barrick appealed the contempt ruling.
It started to look like the case of the long hair might make it all the way to the Supreme Court. Then on Dec. 8, 1965, the unexpected happened.
Gainsbrugh and Barrick appeared back in Spitzer’s courtroom. The attorney asked that the case be reopened and Spitzer consented. Barrick said his client had something to say, and the judge gave him the floor.
“I want to apologize for my appearance in Court Nov. 4 and 16th,” said Gainsbrugh, who was wearing a tie and clean white shirt. “I did not wear socks [on one occasion] and I wore a shirt with a dirty collar [on the other occasion].
“This was negligence on my part. I have been to a barber shop, and I realize the gravity of what has been imposed upon me. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.”
The judge eyeballed the repentant student carefully, and then made his ruling.
“I believe he [Gainsbrugh] should receive some punishment,” Spitzer said to the defendant’s lawyer. “Report to the Police Department for two days on a clean-up detail.”
So ended the to-do that started with a traffic violation, and rapidly went from bad to worse. Gainsbrugh didn’t tell Luce what prompted his change of mind.
Perhaps he found out what the legal fees were going to be to fight the charges. Or maybe somebody mentioned to him the famous saying that warns, “The wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.”

/
978-7244