Running head: STUDENT’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Student’s Rights and Responsibilities

Angelique Cameron

College of Southern Nevada

STUDENT’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Abstract

This paper is about a case where the high school prohibited students from wearing what they

considered to be gang symbols. The reason for the ban was because there was an excessive

amount of gang activity in that high school. The student, Bill Foster, wore an earring to school as

a form of self-expression, and for other personal reasons. He was suspended, and filed suit. The

following cases will briefly discuss the similarities and differences between them and Bill

Foster’s case.
STUDENT’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

Student’s Rights and Responsibilities

Throughout history, there have been many scenarios in which people have had to fight

for their rights, and the people who were among the last to get recognized as having them were

the students. In this case, Bill Foster was a student who wanted to wear jewelry as part of his

own unique style. Because there seemed to be an inundation of gang related activities in that

school, he was suspended for wearing them.

This case involves at least two amendments. The first amendment addresses freedom of

expression. Students have the right to express themselves, but the schools still have quite a bit of

power when it comes to what the students can wear. The circumstances are always a factor,

therefore the amendment does not always give a clear cut answer. In the fourteenth amendment,

a citizen is afforded due process. Bill Foster was not given any notice, or given any kind of

hearing, in agreement with the information given. It appears that more than one of Mr. Foster’s

rights may have been violated.

Olesen v. Board of Educ. of School Dist. No. 228, 676 F. Supp. 820 (N.D. Ill. 1987) is

the first case that represents the above situation. Similarly, the male student wanted to wear

earrings, supposedly to express himself, and to be appealing to the opposite sex. He also felt that

because the girls in the school were allowed to wear earrings, that is was an unfair directive. In

Olesen v. Board of Education, the school was trying to single out the students that were affiliated

with gangs. A clear indicator of gang affiliation was when the males wore earrings. Because the

school put the safety of the students first, the court ruled for the school (“Supreme Court

Decisions”).
STUDENT’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

A second controversial case was Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District, 767 F.

3d 764 (9th cir.2014). Along with the other case, this one also dealt with gang activity. The

Caucasian kids wanted to wear American patriotic symbols on Cinco de Mayo. This school had a

history of gang violence, and the school strongly felt that the students wearing the shirts on that

day could lead to violent acts. The court ruled in favor of the school because the school had the

safety of the students in mind when they made the decision (Dariano v. Morgan…).

On the other hand, in the Alabama & Coushatta Tribes v. Big Sandy School D., 817 F.

Supp. 1319 (E.D. Tex. 1993) case the court ruled for the students. Students of Coushatta Tribes

were told to cut their hair because they were in violation of the dress code. According to

Rummage (2015), the school failed to show that the dress code restriction was a valid means of

achieving its objectives to, among other things, maintain discipline and foster respect for

authority. He also stated that the restriction violated the students First Amendment rights and

granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the dress code (Rummage, 2015).

In 1997, David Chalifoux and Jerry Robertson from Chalifoux v. New Caney

Independent School Dist., 976 F. Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997) were prohibited from wearing

rosary beads to school. As stated by Hudson (2011), it was due to an influx of gang activity, and

the people who were in the gangs were known to wear rosaries as well. These students filed suit,

and claimed their First Amendment rights had been violated. The court ruled for the students.

Hudson (2011) argued that school officials should focus on punishing the affiliated parties

instead of students who are wearing rosaries for personal reasons.

STUDENT’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

The court should rule for the student to wear the earrings. The decisions seem to vary

from district to district, but it seems that religious types of expression have helped students win

their cases. However, the decisions should not only be based on religion. That is another form of

bias to fight for the student who wants to wear something because of their beliefs rather than for

his own personal style. Bill Foster had every right to wear the earrings, and the school should

have found another way to single out the gang affiliated students.
STUDENT’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

References

Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District. (2015, April 10). Retrieved October 25, 2016,

from http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/05/dariano-v-morgan-hill-unified-school-district/

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

Retrieved October 23, 2016, from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/students-should-

be-free-to-wear-rosary-beads

Rummage, R. S. (2015). In Combination: Using Hybrid Rights to Expand Religious ... Retrieved

October 25, 2016, from http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-64/issue-

4/comments/combination-hybrid-rights-religious-liberty.html

Supreme Court Decisions - Welcome! | HTI. (n.d.). Retrieved October 24, 2016, from

http://hti.osu.edu/sites/hti.osu.edu/files/summaries_of_court_cases.pdf
STUDENT’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 7
STUDENT’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 8