Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Josebe Dominguez
EDU 210
Due to the gang activities that were prevalent in a large high school in the
northeastern United States, the school initiated a policy prohibiting the wearing of gang
symbols such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. Bill Foster, a student of that
high school, wore an earring to school. He was not involved in the gang activity; he only
thought that wearing earring was attractive to girls. He was suspended from school, and
One court case that supports the side of the school is Bethel v. Fraser. In this case,
the high school student Matthew Fraser approached the podium at the front of his public
schools auditorium. Matthew was a little nervous. He felt nervous because hed shown the
speech to two teachers at his school, and they both told him the speech was inappropriate.
One of his teachers even warned him he might get into severe trouble for reading it. He
decided to read it anyway. After the speech, Matthew was told he had violated the schools
conduct code. He was suspended for two days, and was told he would not be allowed to
In the scenario I have in the first paragraph, Bill sued the school probably because
he thought that his freedom of speech and expression was violated. The same happened in
the case of Bethel v. Fraser. Fraser believed that he had a First Amendment right to give his
speech, but the school argued that Matthews speech had clearly violated the school
conduct code, and that the First Amendment did not protect Matthews words in public
school. In the scenario presented in the first paragraph, Bill could claim that the policy
against the wearing of earrings in the school violates students first amendment rights. He
Portfolio#4 Students Rights and Responsibilities 3
also could say that unless all students including females are suspended for merely wearing
an earring then suspending him appears to be harsh and gender bias. In the case of Bethel v.
Fraser the Supreme Court ruled had not violated Matthews First Amendment, and that
schools do not have to tolerate certain behaviors. This decision supports the school side.
Another case that supports the side of the school is Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case.
Here, Students produced a school newspaper as part of their journalism class. One issue
was to include articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. The
principal objected to the stories, believing they were inappropriate for the younger students
and unfair to the pregnant students who might be identified from the text of the article. He
also believed that the parents of the students quoted in the divorce article should have been
given an opportunity to respond. He deleted the articles from the school newspaper. Three
students sued, claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights under the Tinker
standard. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the principal has the right to censor
articles in the student newspaper that were deemed contrary to the schools educational
mission. The decision of this case supports the side of school in Bills case because here the
Court said that schools could censor any forms of expression deemed ungrammatical,
unsuitable for immature audiences, or any expression that advocates conduct otherwise
inconsistent with the shared values of the civilized social order. Based on that decision, if
the school can prove that Bills earrings support the gang activities that were prevalent in
the school, the Court will probably rule in favor of the school.
When it comes to support the side of Bill (the student in the first paragraph), one
important case is Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker, his sister Mary Beth, and a friend were
sent home from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The school
4 PORTFOLIO#4 STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
had established a policy permitting students to wear several political symbols, but had
excluded the wearing of armbands protesting the Vietnam War. The Court found that the
school had not demonstrated that the armbands caused a material and substantial
interference with schoolwork. The Court noted that the school district had not banned all
political symbols, but had instead prohibited. This decision supports the side of Bill
because if he could prove that his earrings or clothes do not affect or interfere his
Another case that supports the side of Bill is Chandler v. McMinnville School Dist.,
978 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1992). A group of teachers in Oregon went on a lawful strike. The
school district hired replacement teachers. Two students, whose fathers were striking
teachers, wore buttons with the word scab on them. The students distributed similar
buttons to their classmates. School officials prohibited the students from wearing the
buttons. The students sued, claiming a First Amendment violation. The lower court sided
with the school district. The students then appealed. The Ninth Circuit panel held that the
students wearing of the buttons could not be prohibited unless the school district could
show a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption. The decision of this case supports the
side of Bill (the student in the first paragraph) because student speech is divided into three
basic categories: first, vulgar and plainly offensive speech; second, school-sponsored
speech; and third, speech that falls into neither of the first two categories. The buttons in
this case were not vulgar and they were not school-sponsored. The same happens in the
scenario we have in the first paragraph. Bill was wearing earrings because he thought that it
was attractive for girls. In that case, he was not related with any gang activity. To find Bill
guilty, the school has to demonstrate that the earrings would cause a substantial disruption
of school activities
Portfolio#4 Students Rights and Responsibilities 5
I do not think the suspension of Bill (the student in the first paragraph) is justified. I
believe that this action is severe and should have been at most a dress code violation with
the student receiving detention. The policy does not specifically mandate suspension. I
understand that the school has a responsibility to create a safe environment but the policy
should not violate students rights. Bill should be able to wear his earring since the policy
refers to gang symbols not just earrings. The courts will probably state that students do not
References
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser. (1999). In Great American Court Cases, Gale.
Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.csn.edu/login?qurl=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.credoreference.com/entry/greatcourts/bethel_school_district_no_403_v_frase
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. (1999). In Great American Court Cases, Gale.
Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.csn.edu/login?qurl=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.credoreference.com/entry/greatcourts/hazelwood_school_district_v_kuhlmeie
Tinker v. Des Moines. (2011). In Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and
Military History. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.csn.edu/login?qurl=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.credoreference.com/entry/abcvw/tinker_v_des_moines