ARTIFACT 4: STUDENTS RIGHTS

Artifact #4:
Students Rights
Angelina Tang
College of Southern Nevada
November 5, 2016

ARTIFACT 4: STUDENTS RIGHTS

A school in the Northern United States, had a policy where students and staff were
prohibited wearing any sort of gang symbols such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic
caps. The school had had some gang activity and the policy was then created. Soon after, Bill
Foster, a student at the school who had no gang activity, decided to wear an earring as a form of
fashion and self-expression. He believed that the earring was attractive and to the young ladies.
He was suspended for doing so and consequently he filed suit against it.
The first case that is being presented in favor of Bill foster is Tinker v Des Moines (1969).
In this case, students were being suspended from school for wearing black armbands protesting
the Vietnam War. There was nothing else to it other than the students wearing their armbands as a
form of pure speech. The end result of the case was that it was unconstitutional to suspend
students for silently expressing their voices. There was no law or rule stating that they could
not wear something that would be offensive until after the staff and faculty was informed. In Bill
Fosters case, the policy had been created after the fact that the school had been involved in gang
activity. There was nothing that Bill was doing that would lead the school to believe he was
involved in gangs. He was using it as a fashion statement and nothing else. Since the earring
does not interfere with the teaching and the learning there is no reason why Bill should be
suspended.
The second case that is going to be presented in favor of Bill is Doe v. Brockton School
Committee (2000). This case was in regards to students cross-dressing. The court ruled in their
favor because there seemed to be no disruption in the school. They have free exercise to wear
what they want under the First Amendment (Underwood, 124). Just like Bill, he was only
wearing an earring that had no harm to him or to the school. It was not disruptive to anyone, and

ARTIFACT 4: STUDENTS RIGHTS

there should be no reason why he should have been suspended. Would things be different if they
were females?
The first case being presented against Bill Foster is Boroff v. Van Wert Board of
Education (2000). Students in this case were prohibited from wearing band t-shirts like Marilyn
Mason due to what type of behavior the band promotes. It was conflicting with the educational
values the school was trying to promote and was also disruptive. In Bills case, the school had
started the policy because of the inappropriate gang activity that had started. Earrings were one
of the items that were prohibited and he was not abiding by the policy. Although it was just a
form of self-expression, the rules and policies are implicated for a reason.
The second case being presented against Bill is Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
(2000). Here a school principal removed some pages from a school newspaper because there
were topic on there like student pregnancy, birth control and impact of divorce. The judge
determined that no First Amendment rights were violated since, the paper is sponsored by the
school, for the school. As a student of the school, yes there is certain freedom of expression but
at the same time you have to follow school policy. Bill had to think about the rules before he
thought about himself. The rules are implicated for the safety of the students and Bill failed to
abide by it.
After reviewing both sides of the argument, my decision is that Bill Fosters rights and
freedom to expression were violated under the Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and Doe v. Brockton
School Committee (2000). The student was not involved in any sort of criminal activity nor was
he a disruptive student. His earring was of no harm to him or to the rest of the school. His
suspension was uncalled for and unconstitutional. There is also another factor that plays in favor
of Bill. If the school has a policy of no earrings, jewelry, emblems, and athletic caps, does the

ARTIFACT 4: STUDENTS RIGHTS

policy also apply for female students? It is almost impossible and not ethically right for the
school to say no earrings for males but females its ok.

ARTIFACT 4: STUDENTS RIGHTS

5
References

Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education 220 F.3d 465 (2000). July 26, 2000. Retrieved
November 4, 2016. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1210620.html
Doe v. Brockton School Committee. (2001). WL 33342399. February 26, 2001. Retrieved
November 4, 2016. http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/lawlib/docs/yunits.pdf
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. 484. U.S. 260. (1988). January 13, 1988. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-casesummary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier
Tinker v. Des Moines. 393 U.S 503. (1968). November 12, 1968. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503
Underwood,J.&Webb,L.(2006).NegligenceandDefamationintheSchoolSetting.School
LawforTeachers:ConceptsandApplications.UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey.Pearson
Education,Inc.