Students Rights and Responsibilities 1

Artifact #4

Students Rights and Responsibilities

Joshua Matul

College of Southern Nevada

October 24, 2015

Students Rights and Responsibilities 2

At a large High School that has a history for gang activity a school dress code policy was

placed. This policy prohibits the use of gang symbols including jewelry, earrings, emblems and

athletic caps. Bill Foster, a student who has never been related with gang activity wore an

earring to school as a form of self-expression with a belief that he would appear attractive to his

female classmates. Subsequently he was suspended from school for violating the policy to

which he responded by filing suit against the school.

The first case used in favor of Bill Foster is Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969).

In this case students were planning to wear black armbands as a way to protest the Vietnam War,

when the school found out about this they created a policy against armbands. The students

proceeded to wear the armbands anyways and were suspended for breaking the school policy.

The final decision for this case after its appeals was that students have the rights of the First

Amendment and have the freedom to express themselves. The petitioners did not significantly

disrupt the schools and they have the freedom to express themselves in the school setting.

In relation to Bill Foster and his defense Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) is

relevant. In this case the school has placed a no gang symbol earring policy as a response to

gang related activity. Bill foster has not been affiliated with gangs in the past and with the given

details, it is assumed that this is a standard earring without gang symbols or affiliation; it is used

solely for a self-expressive purpose. Bill Foster wearing an earring has not disturbed the school,

or violated the freedoms of his fellow students his suspension is unfair.

The second case that will be used in favor of Bill Foster is Pyle v. South Hadley School

Committee (1995). In this case two students wore shirts to school and were told to remove them.
Students Rights and Responsibilities 3

The school claimed that the shirts were vulgar or obscene, however the school also admitted that

these particular shirts did not disturb the schools function or cause problem. The school also

created a new dress code policy that banned the shirts that they were wearing. The courts ruled

in favor of the students because these particular shirts showed no signs of disruption despite what

the messages displayed on them.

The Pyle v. South Hadley School Committee (1995) case has some similarity to the case

of Bill Foster. The main similarity is that in both cases the item worn displeased the school

because of the school believed the item would portray. However, contrary to what the school

claimed Bill was not affiliated with gangs and because of that the earring would not bring harm

to the school. If Bill was not using the earring as a way to bring gang related attention to the

school, there would be no disruption in the school. Because the earring that Bill is wearing is not

related to gangs it is not giving the message the school claims it will and it will not cause

disruption in the school setting so he should not be punished for wearing it.

The first case that will used in favor of the school is Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of

Education (2000). In this case a student is suspended for wearing Marilyn Manson T-shirts on

multiple days after being told he could not attend school wearing them. The courts favored the

school because the dress code violation contained messages that went against the schools

educational values.

In the case of Bill Foster, Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education (2000) there are

some similarities. In this case the student wore the item as a form of self-expression claiming

protection under to First Amendment. While in neither case the student proved to cause harm to
Students Rights and Responsibilities 4

other people in both cases the school disagrees with the message of the items. In the case of Bill

Foster the policy was put in place to stop gang activity and to deter students from it, Bill Foster

was using an item used by gang members as a sign of affiliation with them. In this way Bill is

using an item that is directly going against what the school is trying to promote, even if he is not

doing it on purpose and should be punished accordingly.

The second case that will be used in favor of the school is Melton v. Young (1971). In

this case a student chose to wear a confederate flag patch and was asked to have it removed. The

school had a history of racial tensions and part of their school policy prohibited provocative

symbols. When the student chose not to remove his patch he was suspended and he filed suit

against the school. It was ruled that due to the history at that school they had reason to believe

that his patch would cause disruption in the school setting and had the right to suspend the

student.

The case of Melton v. Young (1871) is relevant to Bill Foster because of what had

happened at the school in the past. The school only set the policy in place because it had a

history of gang activity. While Bill may not have had the intention of causing disruption or harm

the fact that he was wearing something associated with the gangs at the school could be assumed

that it would bring reasonable disruption. He could have been mistaken for a gang member and a

violent act could have happened, because of this the school took appropriate action in suspending

him.

To conclude the case of Bill Foster I believe that his punishment is fair because he

violated the school policy. To support this the first case that is relevant is Boroff v. Van Wert
Students Rights and Responsibilities 5

City Board of Education (2000) where the student was rightfully suspended even if he did not

believe that he would bring disruption to the school. The fact is that just because Bill does not

believe that he is portraying a gang related message does not mean others will see it the same

way. To further prove this point the case of Melton v. Young (1871) should also be added in. In

both cases the policy is placed in order to prevent something that has been proven to happen at

that school. Even if Bill Foster is not a gang member that does not stop other people from

mistaking him as one and because of that the school is correct in punishing him.
Students Rights and Responsibilities 6

References

BOROFF v. VAN WERT CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION No. 98-3869 (2000) Retrieved
October 20, 2015 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1210620.html

MELTON v. YOUNG No. 6018 (1971) Retrieved October 22, 2015

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1971416328FSupp88_1400/MELTON%20v.%20YOUN
G#

PYLE v. SOUTH HADLEY SCHOOL COMMITTEE No. 94-2025 (1995) Retrieved October
23, 2015 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1316740.html

TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 21 (1996) Retrieved October 19, 2015.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/393/503.html

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications. Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.