Rights and Responsibilities Dukes

Tiffany Dukes

October 5, 2017

EDU 210 Artifact #4

Rights and Responsibilities

Rights and Responsibilities Dukes

The case of Bill Foster is similar to that of Tinker and Eckhards, where the rights of the

students were stripped away after students were disciplined for wearing an armband silently

protesting against the Vietnam War to school. In this case, Bill Foster was suspended from

school because he was wearing an earring which was against the policies set forth. Fosters

school had implemented a policy that banned such items including: earrings, jewelry, emblems

and athletic caps in order to prevent any gang affiliations, due to the recent gang activity and

situations the school was facing. Furthermore, Bill argued the suspension was a violation of his

rights. He also argued that he had no affiliation with any gang and was only wearing the earring

to attract women and not represent a gang.

If the courts could argue that Bill violate the set-forth policy by wearing an earring to

school and could present a similar case such as the case of Chalifoux v New Caney Independent

School District. In this case two students were suspended for wearing rosaries outside of their

clothing while on school premises at which time the school connected with the rosaries to gang-

related apparel. On September 3, 1997 the Court found that the schools prohibition on gang-

related apparel, and its ban on rosaries in particular, violates the Plaintiffs rights to free speech

and free exercise of religion. Chalifoux v New Caney Independent School District, 976 F.Supp.

659 (1997). Bill argued that he only wore the earring to attract women and not as a symbol of

gang affiliations just as the case of the student who wore the rosier as a freedom of speech

expression.

To support the case against Bill the courts could argue a similar case such as Botoff v Van

Wert City Board of Education, which on July 26, 2000 the Court agreed that the school could

prohibit a student from wearing a Marilyn Manson T-shirt that it considered offensive based on

the bands promotion of values contrary to the schools educational mission. Botoff v Van Wert
Rights and Responsibilities Dukes

City Board of Education 220 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 920 (2001).If so,

this would lead the courts to argue that because the school had an influx amount of gang activity

that they were trying to break free of. The courts would then favor the board of educations and

argue that Bill violated the policy by wearing a gang affiliated apparel.

I believe that the school must fulfill their duty of providing appropriate guidelines to

protect the students and staff. Since there are set forth rules and relations that Foster was aware

of, I believe he should be held accountable for the breaking such rules. It is unreasonable to

believe all earrings are represented as gang related, but because they are typically worn by

female students the school a reason to believe that Foster wore it as a symbol of gang affiliation.

Unfortunately, based upon prior court cases the stand has a legal leg to stand on and is justified

in suspending Bill Foster. Bill was clearly in violation of the schools dress code.

References

Botoff v Van Wert City Board of Education 220 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 920
(2001).

Chalifoux v New Caney Independent School District, 976 F.Supp. 659 (1997).

Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).