Artifact #4 Students Rights and Responsibilities

Artifact #4

Students Rights and Responsibilities

Courtney Zedaker

College of Southern Nevada

November 08, 2017

Artifact #4 Students Rights and Responsibilities

A large high school in the northeastern United States created a dress code policy. This

policy prohibited wearing gang symbols such as athletic caps, earrings, emblems, and jewelry.

The policy was developed based on gang activity in the school. Bill Foster was not involved in

gang activity but decided to wear an earring to school. He believed wearing an earring to school

was a form of self-expression and believed the earring was appealing to the ladies. He was

suspended for his act and filed a suit.

The first case we are going to look at that supports Bill Foster is Tinker v. Des Moines

Independent School District (1969). This case is about students who were suspended for wearing

black armbands to school to show their disapproval of the Vietnam War. The district court and

the court of appeals upheld the schools policy. The Supreme Court overthrew the district and

court of appeals because they felt that the students weren't causing problems and were peacefully

expressing their opinions. They overthrew the decision and stated that the students were

protected by their first amendment. Just as in the Tinker case, Bill foster had a constitutional

right to wear his earring to school. He wasnt wearing it to show involvement in gang activity,

but rather to express himself. Bill was peacefully expressing his sense of style and was not

disrupting his fellow students. The Supreme Court said that, it can hardly be argued that either

students or teachers shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the

school house gate (1969) and I believe that protects Bills freedoms.

The second case we will discuss in defense of Bill Foster is Chalifoux v. New Caney

Independent School District (1997). In this case two students felt their First Amendment right to

free speech and religious expression was violated due to the school prohibiting them wearing

their rosaries outside their clothing. The school had a gang-related apparel policy but never
Artifact #4 Students Rights and Responsibilities

stated anything specifically about the rosaries. The students were not wearing the necklaces to

initiate gang activity and in fact, gang members never even paid attention to the necklaces. There

was no direct correlation with the necklace and gang involvement. Similarly, Bill Foster was not

wearing an earring to get attention or pledge allegiance to a gang. He was wearing the earring as

a form of self expression protected under the First Amendment. Bill did not choose to wear

anything that would provoke or pledge allegiance to any gang affiliation. He was simply

showing off his own personal sense of style.

The first case we are going to look at that supports the schools decision is West v. Derby

Unified School District (2000). The Court defended the school for suspending a student for

drawing a Confederate flag during class. The school had a strict policy that prohibited racial

intimidation or harassment. The Confederate flag was one of many items listed specifically in

their policy. In the case of Bill Foster, the school had created a list of items that were off limits.

The school made sure to create a policy that was a guideline to all students that helped in cases

like this. When Bill showed up with an earring, one of the prohibited items, he was disciplined

according to the policy. The school has the right to create policies and then discipline according

to said policy.

The second case that supports the schools decision is Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of

Education (2000). A high school student wore a t-shirt to school that had rock star Marilyn

Mason on it. The shirt also had other elements such as a three-faced Jesus and other phases. A

school official told the student he was in violation of school dress code that prohibited clothing

with offensive illustrations and must turn the shirt inside out or change. A court found in favor

of the school and reiterated they have the right to prohibit vulgar and offensive clothing. Also the
Artifact #4 Students Rights and Responsibilities

court ruled the school could prohibit clothing that is contrary to the schools education mission

or statement. In Bill Fosters case, the school acted appropriately in conjunction with their

policy. When a student shows up to school, clearly in violation of a policy, the school has the

right to take disciplinary action. The school had a policy that stated this was an offensive piece of

clothing/jewelry. The school has a mission to protect students and to not have items present that

may spark gang activity. Bill was in violation and the school is allowed to take action.

In conclusion, based on the court cases and text, I believe the court will rule in favor of

the schools decision. Due to the gang activities that were prevalent in the school, they initiated a

policy to prohibit the wearing and display of gang symbols. The case West v. Derby Unified

School District (2000) supports my decision because the court found in favor of the school due to

their list of apparel and items that were against their policy. Similarly, Bills school had listed

earrings as an item not allowed on school premises and he decided to wear one anyways. In the

case Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education (2000) my decision is supported in a few ways.

In Van Werts case the schools decision was upheld due to the apparel item going against the

schools mission. Bill Fosters schools mission is to keep gang activity down. They have a strict

policy of restricted items to keep said activity down. Bill knew the policy was in place and wore

the earring anyways.

Artifact #4 Students Rights and Responsibilities

References

Botoff v Van Wert City Board of Education 220 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000), (n.d). Retrieved
November 07, 2017. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1210620.html

Chalifoux v New Caney Independent School District, 976 F.Supp. 659 (1997). (n.d). Retrieved
November 05, 2017. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/976/659/1582548/

Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). (n.d). Retrieved
November 05, 2017. http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-
resources/supreme-court-landmarks/tinker-v-des-moines-podcast

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle River: Pearson
Education

West v Derby Unified School District No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358 (2000). (n.d). Retrieved
November 08, 2017. http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=1685