You are on page 1of 7

Running head: STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Students Rights and Responsibilities

Oscar Garcia

College of Southern Nevada


STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Abstract

A large high school in the United States has updated their dress code to include the prohibition of

wearing gang symbols, such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps to keep their

students safe from current gang related activity. However, a student who was not involved in

gang activity decided to wear an earring for two reasons. Firstly, he did it for self-expression.

Secondly, he believed that wearing the earring made him more attractive to the ladies. Because

he violated school policy, he was suspended, which resulted in the student filing a law suit

against the school.

Keywords: student, self-expression, dress code


STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

Students Rights and Responsibilities

A large high school in the United States has updated their dress code to include the

prohibition of wearing gang symbols, such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps to

keep their students safe from current gang related activity. However, a student who was not

involved in gang activity decided to wear an earring for two reasons. Firstly, he did it for self-

expression. Secondly, he believed that wearing the earring made him more attractive to the

ladies. Because he violated school policy, he was suspended, which resulted in the student filing

a law suit against the school.

The First Amendment protects a persons right to have the freedom of speech, religion,

press, and assembly. Although most people usually see expression as communication through

words, this is not always the case. An example can be the facial expressions a person makes, how

they dress, and their body language. The student from the scenario is using the First Amendment

to individualize his appearance. The Fourteenth Amendment gives equal protection to all, so if

girls can wear earrings then a guy should be given the same opportunity. However, school

officials disagree with the look since it is prohibited resulting in a suspension. The Due Process

Clause gives authorities the right to discipline any student who violates the dress code without

giving prior notice to the student if they believe the student may present a danger. On the other

hand, it also gives students the right to be heard in situations in which their rights have been

disregarded (The american civil liberties union of Vermont., 2016, March 18).

The plaintiff, Bill Foster, a high school student, is being accused for the wrong reasons.

His reasons for wearing the one earring was to be able to express himself using the First

Amendment and to boost his self-esteem by enhancing his appearance. At the time, he was not

involved in gang activity. The Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District dealt with
STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

two students wearing rosary beads to school when it was prohibited due to it being a symbol of

gang-related affiliations (Hudson, 2011, March 1). The students confirmed that their reasoning

for wearing rosary beads was strictly for religious purposes. The district decided that a student

should not be punished for something that can carry more than one meaning instead the school

should punish students who are actually involved in gang-related activity. This case serves to

protect the First Amendment of students so that they are not oppressed by an environment of

undifferentiated fear. The school should have not disciplined Bill Foster without evidence that

he was involved in gang activity when his reasons for wearing the earring were disparate.

Fosters reasons for wearing the earring was harmless. The Tinker v. Des Moines Independent

Community School District case argued that as long as expression does not disrupt during school

operations then the speech is protected of the student (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent

Community School District, n.d.). This case included a small group of students who wore

armbands to show that they wanted to protest the Vietnam War. However, the school officials

feared that the armbands might be distracting, so they decided to suspend the small group of

students. The district court determined that the use of armbands equaled their voice which was an

opinion that did not require people to join. Unless there was proof that it was disrupting during

school operations then the speech of the students is protected. Bill Foster had a belief or his

opinion that wearing the earring was attractive to the opposite sex.

The defendant, the school officials, made a dress code to prohibit clothing that resembles

that of gangs in order to create a safe environment for the entire student population. The Olesen

v. Board of Education School District No. 228 case gives a criteria in which a student must meet

in order for their request of expression to be approved (Olesen v. board of educ. of school dist.

no. 228, n.d.). The criteria requires that the student has no adequate remedy at law, some
STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

likelihood of success on the merits, the balance of equity in his favor, and public interest on his

side. The boy involved in the case met only one out of the four criteria since his reasoning was to

wear the prohibited earring to express his individuality. He was overruled since he did not meet

all of the criteria. In the same situation, Bill Foster also only met the first criteria resulting in the

school suspension. Even though the school made a policy prohibiting certain clothing or

accessories beforehand, Bill Foster should be aware of the reason why the policy was created. In

the Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser case, a students speech becomes offensive for

having a graphic sexual metaphor to help a friend win candidacy (Bethel school district no. 403

v. fraser, n.d.). The Court agreed that the suspension was appropriate since they decided that the

First Amendment does not protect vulgar and lewd speech and did not have any fundamental

values, which include the sensibilities of other students. Bill Foster is not being sensitive to other

students when wearing something that is indicative of a gang. Students may feel intimidated

since they do not know his reasons for wearing the earring.

In this case between Foster and the School, the School has the advantage due to existing

guidelines. Even though Foster shows no threat by wearing an earring, he is not protected since

other students may feel threatened thinking that he must be affiliated with a gang. The scenario

also show that he was not involved in gang activity, but the other students are not aware of his

motivation. Foster states that his reasons for wearing the earring is to express himself and his

vanity. At the end of his claims, he shows no threat and should be given the chance to wear the

earring because the Chalifoux case proves that wearing something can carry more than one

meaning. However, the school authorities have made clear that the prohibition of wearing certain

things is to protect the school environment for all students. Unless Fosters reasons meet all the

criteria established in the Olesen case, only then can he be permitted to wear the earring. Finally,
STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

Fosters reasons for wearing the earring are weak since they only meet one out of the four

criteria, so suspension was applicable.


STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 7

References

Bethel school district no. 403 v. fraser. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 19, 2016, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667

Hudson, D. L., Jr. (2011, March 1). Students should be free to wear rosary beads. Retrieved

March 18, 2016, from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/students-should-be-free-to-

wear-rosary-beads

Olesen v. board of educ. of school dist. no. 228. (n.d.). Retrieved March 19, 2016, from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19871496676FSupp820_11334/OLESEN v. BOARD OF

EDUC. OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 228

The american civil liberties union of Vermont. (2016, March 18). Retrieved March 18, 2016,

from https://acluvt.org/pubs/students_rights/due_process.php

Tinker v. des moines independent community school district. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 18,

2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21

You might also like