Running​ ​head:​ ​ARTIFACT​ ​4​ ​STUDENT’S​ ​RIGHTS​ ​AND​ ​RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Portfolio​ ​Artifact​ ​4:​ ​Student’s​ ​Rights​ ​and​ ​Responsibilities

Marilyn​ ​Gonzalez

Dr.​ ​Isbell

EDU​ ​210

College​ ​of​ ​Southern​ ​Nevada

ARTIFACT​ ​4​ ​STUDENT’S​ ​RIGHTS​ ​AND​ ​RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Portfolio​ ​Artifact​ ​4:​ ​Student’s​ ​Rights​ ​and​ ​Responsibilities

In​ ​an​ ​attempt​ ​to​ ​seem​ ​more​ ​attractive​ ​to​ ​his​ ​fellow​ ​female​ ​students,​ ​high​ ​school​ ​student

Bill​ ​Foster​ ​wore​ ​an​ ​earring​ ​to​ ​school.​ ​His​ ​school​ ​promptly​ ​suspended​ ​him,​ ​citing​ ​the​ ​high

school’s​ ​dress​ ​code,​ ​which​ ​stipulated​ ​that​ ​clothing​ ​and​ ​accessories​ ​such​ ​as​ ​jewelry,​ ​emblems,

earrings,​ ​and​ ​hats​ ​that​ ​are​ ​associated​ ​with​ ​gang​ ​activity​ ​was​ ​strictly​ ​prohibited.​ ​This​ ​dress​ ​code

was​ ​implemented​ ​after​ ​it​ ​became​ ​apparent​ ​that​ ​gang-related​ ​activity​ ​was​ ​prevalent​ ​in​ ​the​ ​school.

Foster​ ​himself​ ​is​ ​not​ ​associated​ ​with​ ​any​ ​gangs​ ​and​ ​states​ ​that​ ​choosing​ ​to​ ​wear​ ​an​ ​earring​ ​is​ ​a

form​ ​of​ ​self-expression.​ ​Feeling​ ​that​ ​his​ ​suspension​ ​was​ ​a​ ​violation​ ​of​ ​his​ ​rights,​ ​Foster​ ​filed​ ​suit.

Tinker​ ​v.​ ​Des​ ​Moines​ ​Independent​ ​Community​ ​School​ ​District​ ​(1969)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​first​ ​case

presented​ ​in​ ​favor​ ​of​ ​Foster’s​ ​freedom​ ​of​ ​expression.​ ​This​ ​case,​ ​decided​ ​by​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States

Supreme​ ​Court,​ ​concerned​ ​students​ ​wearing​ ​a​ ​black​ ​armband​ ​to​ ​school​ ​in​ ​protest​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Vietnam

War.​ ​Administrators​ ​who​ ​were​ ​aware​ ​of​ ​this​ ​protest​ ​implemented​ ​a​ ​school​ ​policy​ ​effectively

banning​ ​these​ ​armbands,​ ​which​ ​resulted​ ​in​ ​Tinker​ ​and​ ​other​ ​students​ ​receiving​ ​a​ ​suspension.​ ​The

Supreme​ ​Court​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the​ ​wearing​ ​the​ ​armbands​ ​is​ ​a​ ​form​ ​of​ ​expression​ ​that​ ​is​ ​protected​ ​by

the​ ​First​ ​Amendment.​ ​Additionally,​ ​the​ ​court​ ​found​ ​that​ ​by​ ​suspending​ ​the​ ​students,​ ​the​ ​school

also​ ​violated​ ​students’​ ​right​ ​to​ ​due​ ​process​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Fourteenth​ ​Amendment.​ ​Pursuant​ ​to​ ​the

findings​ ​of​ ​this​ ​case,​ ​Foster​ ​has​ ​a​ ​solid​ ​base​ ​from​ ​which​ ​to​ ​argue​ ​that​ ​his​ ​First​ ​Amendment​ ​rights

were​ ​violated,​ ​as​ ​students​ ​do​ ​not​ ​“shed​ ​their​ ​constitutional​ ​rights​ ​to​ ​freedom​ ​of​ ​speech​ ​or

expression​ ​at​ ​the​ ​schoolhouse​ ​gate”​ ​(Tinker​ ​v.​ ​Des​ ​Moines,​ ​1969).​ ​Furthermore,​ ​it​ ​can​ ​be​ ​argued

that​ ​simply​ ​wearing​ ​an​ ​earring​ ​does​ ​not​ ​“impinge​ ​upon​ ​the​ ​rights​ ​of​ ​others”​ ​(Tinker​ ​v.​ ​Des

Moines,​ ​1969).​ ​This​ ​is​ ​in-line​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Tinker​ ​Standard​ ​set​ ​forth​ ​by​ ​this​ ​case,​ ​which​ ​states​ ​that

unless​ ​there​ ​is​ ​“evidence​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​necessary​ ​to​ ​avoid​ ​material​ ​and​ ​substantial​ ​interference​ ​with
ARTIFACT​ ​4​ ​STUDENT’S​ ​RIGHTS​ ​AND​ ​RESPONSIBILITIES 3

schoolwork​ ​or​ ​discipline,”​ ​prohibition​ ​of​ ​expression​ ​is​ ​“not​ ​constitutionally​ ​permissible”​ ​(Tinker

v.​ ​Des​ ​Moines,​ ​1969).​ ​Under​ ​the​ ​scope​ ​of​ ​this​ ​landmark​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​case,​ ​Foster​ ​also​ ​has

grounds​ ​to​ ​argue​ ​that​ ​the​ ​suspension​ ​he​ ​received​ ​as​ ​a​ ​result​ ​of​ ​wearing​ ​an​ ​earring​ ​is​ ​a​ ​violation​ ​of

his​ ​Fourteenth​ ​Amendment​ ​rights.

The​ ​second​ ​case​ ​presented​ ​in​ ​favor​ ​of​ ​Foster’s​ ​argument​ ​that​ ​his​ ​right​ ​of​ ​expression​ ​was

violated​ ​is​ ​Chalifoux​ ​v.​ ​New​ ​Caney​ ​Independent​ ​School​ ​District​ ​(1997).​ ​This​ ​case,​ ​decided​ ​by

Texas’​ ​District​ ​Court,​ ​parallels​ ​Foster’s​ ​case​ ​in​ ​that​ ​high​ ​students​ ​David​ ​Chalifoux​ ​and​ ​Jerry

Robertson​ ​were​ ​suspended​ ​on​ ​the​ ​grounds​ ​of​ ​wearing​ ​rosaries,​ ​which​ ​violated​ ​their​ ​school’s

dress​ ​code​ ​as​ ​being​ ​associated​ ​with​ ​gang​ ​activity.​ ​This​ ​case​ ​found​ ​that​ ​by​ ​wearing​ ​rosaries​ ​as​ ​a

form​ ​of​ ​symbolic​ ​religious​ ​expression,​ ​Chalifoux​ ​and​ ​Robertson​ ​were​ ​engaging​ ​in​ ​protected

speech​ ​under​ ​the​ ​First​ ​Amendment.​ ​While​ ​this​ ​case​ ​concerns​ ​religious​ ​expression,​ ​the​ ​findings

of​ ​this​ ​case​ ​can​ ​apply​ ​to​ ​Foster​ ​because​ ​the​ ​ruling​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case​ ​also​ ​states​ ​that​ ​during​ ​the​ ​time​ ​that

Chalifoux​ ​and​ ​Robertson​ ​were​ ​wearing​ ​their​ ​rosaries,​ ​they​ ​were​ ​never​ ​approached​ ​by​ ​gang

members​ ​nor​ ​were​ ​they​ ​ever​ ​misidentified​ ​as​ ​gang​ ​members.​ ​Similarly,​ ​although​ ​Foster​ ​was

wearing​ ​an​ ​earring,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​neither​ ​misidentified​ ​nor​ ​approached​ ​by​ ​gang​ ​members.​ ​Therefore,

this​ ​is​ ​in-line​ ​with​ ​the​ ​court’s​ ​statement​ ​that​ ​the​ ​school​ ​“must​ ​show​ ​that​ ​[…]​ ​speech​ ​caused​ ​a

substantial​ ​interference​ ​with​ ​school​ ​activities”​ ​(Chalifoux​ ​v.​ ​New​ ​Caney,​ ​1997).​ ​Since​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no

interference​ ​other​ ​than​ ​Foster’s​ ​suspension,​ ​Foster​ ​has​ ​grounds​ ​to​ ​argue​ ​that​ ​simply​ ​wearing​ ​an

earring​ ​did​ ​not​ ​cause​ ​enough​ ​disturbance​ ​to​ ​warrant​ ​such​ ​an​ ​infringement​ ​upon​ ​his​ ​freedom​ ​of

expression.

Bethel​ ​School​ ​District​ ​No.​ ​403​ ​v.​ ​Fraser​ ​(1986)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​first​ ​case​ ​presented​ ​in​ ​favor​ ​of

administrators’​ ​argument​ ​that​ ​they​ ​have​ ​a​ ​right​ ​to​ ​implement​ ​and​ ​enforce​ ​this​ ​dress​ ​code.​ ​In​ ​this
ARTIFACT​ ​4​ ​STUDENT’S​ ​RIGHTS​ ​AND​ ​RESPONSIBILITIES 4

case,​ ​decided​ ​by​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​Supreme​ ​Court,​ ​a​ ​public​ ​high​ ​school​ ​student​ ​delivered​ ​a

speech​ ​during​ ​a​ ​student​ ​assembly​ ​that​ ​was​ ​riddled​ ​with​ ​lewd​ ​comments​ ​and​ ​sexual​ ​innuendo.

This​ ​caused​ ​a​ ​stir​ ​in​ ​the​ ​assembly,​ ​with​ ​“students​ ​hoot[ing]​ ​and​ ​mimick[ing]​ ​the​ ​sexual​ ​acts”​ ​the

student​ ​was​ ​referring​ ​to.​ ​The​ ​school​ ​found​ ​that​ ​this​ ​speech​ ​was​ ​in​ ​violation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​school’s

“disruptive-conduct​ ​rule”​ ​and​ ​he​ ​was​ ​given​ ​a​ ​three-day​ ​suspension​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​being​ ​removed

from​ ​the​ ​list​ ​of​ ​proposed​ ​graduation​ ​speakers.​ ​The​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​held​ ​that​ ​this​ ​student​ ​was​ ​not

engaging​ ​in​ ​protected​ ​speech,​ ​which​ ​meant​ ​that​ ​“the​ ​First​ ​Amendment​ ​did​ ​not​ ​prevent​ ​the

School​ ​District​ ​from​ ​disciplining”​ ​(Bethel​ ​v.​ ​Fraser,​ ​1986).​ ​Additionally,​ ​the​ ​court​ ​maintained

that​ ​students​ ​are​ ​not​ ​granted​ ​protections​ ​at​ ​the​ ​“same​ ​latitude”​ ​as​ ​adults​ ​under​ ​the​ ​First

Amendment,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​deciding​ ​which​ ​modes​ ​of​ ​expression​ ​“are​ ​inappropriate​ ​and​ ​subject​ ​to

sanctions”​ ​is​ ​a​ ​responsibility​ ​that​ ​rests​ ​with​ ​the​ ​school​ ​board​ ​(Bethel​ ​v.​ ​Fraser,​ ​1986).​ ​Under​ ​the

scope​ ​of​ ​this​ ​case,​ ​administrators​ ​have​ ​sufficient​ ​grounds​ ​to​ ​argue​ ​that​ ​they​ ​are​ ​well​ ​within​ ​their

right​ ​to​ ​implement​ ​and​ ​enforce​ ​this​ ​dress​ ​code.​ ​Dress​ ​is​ ​not​ ​necessarily​ ​a​ ​form​ ​of​ ​expression​ ​as

many​ ​states,​ ​including​ ​two​ ​Northeastern​ ​states​ ​(where​ ​Foster’s​ ​high​ ​school​ ​is​ ​located),​ ​do​ ​not

recognize​ ​dress​ ​a​ ​form​ ​of​ ​expression,​ ​meaning​ ​Foster’s​ ​choice​ ​to​ ​wear​ ​an​ ​earring​ ​is​ ​not

necessarily​ ​protected​ ​under​ ​the​ ​First​ ​Amendment​ ​(Underwood,​ ​2006,​ ​p.124).​ ​Furthermore,

because​ ​of​ ​the​ ​prevalent​ ​gang​ ​activity​ ​in​ ​this​ ​high​ ​school,​ ​the​ ​assumption​ ​that​ ​wearing​ ​an​ ​earring

would​ ​cause​ ​a​ ​disruption​ ​is​ ​a​ ​logical​ ​conclusion.​ ​Therefore,​ ​administrators​ ​can​ ​argue​ ​that​ ​due​ ​to

this​ ​potential​ ​for​ ​disruption,​ ​granting​ ​a​ ​suspension​ ​to​ ​Foster​ ​for​ ​violating​ ​the​ ​dress​ ​code​ ​is​ ​within

their​ ​authority.

The​ ​second​ ​case​ ​presented​ ​in​ ​favor​ ​of​ ​administration's​ ​right​ ​to​ ​enforce​ ​this​ ​dress​ ​code​ ​is

Boroff​ ​v.​ ​Van​ ​Wert​ ​City​ ​Board​ ​of​ ​Education​ ​(2000).​ ​This​ ​case,​ ​decided​ ​by​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States
ARTIFACT​ ​4​ ​STUDENT’S​ ​RIGHTS​ ​AND​ ​RESPONSIBILITIES 5

Sixth​ ​Circuit​ ​Court​ ​of​ ​Appeals,​ ​regards​ ​high​ ​school​ ​student​ ​Nicholas​ ​Boroff’s​ ​choice​ ​to​ ​wear

Marilyn​ ​Manson​ ​t-shirts​ ​to​ ​school.​ ​These​ ​shirts,​ ​which​ ​featured​ ​language​ ​and​ ​imagery​ ​that​ ​was

offensive,​ ​but​ ​not​ ​obscene,​ ​was​ ​in​ ​violation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​school’s​ ​dress​ ​code,​ ​which​ ​specifically

stipulated​ ​that​ ​“clothing​ ​with​ ​offensive​ ​illustrations”​ ​were​ ​not​ ​acceptable​ ​(Boroff​ ​v.​ ​Van​ ​Wert,

2000).​ ​Boroff​ ​was​ ​suspended​ ​after​ ​repeated​ ​warnings.​ ​The​ ​court​ ​held​ ​with​ ​the​ ​ruling​ ​established

in​ ​Bethel​ ​v.​ ​Fraser​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​school’s​ ​right​ ​to​ ​“prohibit​ ​the​ ​use​ ​of​ ​vulgar​ ​and​ ​offensive​ ​terms

in​ ​public​ ​disclosure”​ ​(Boroff​ ​v.​ ​Van​ ​Wert,​ ​2000).​ ​Moreover,​ ​because​ ​Boroff’s​ ​clothing​ ​choice

was​ ​neither​ ​a​ ​form​ ​of​ ​political​ ​expression,​ ​it​ ​did​ ​not​ ​necessitate​ ​the​ ​need​ ​to​ ​apply​ ​the​ ​Tinker

Standard​ ​(Boroff​ ​v.​ ​Van​ ​Wert,​ ​2000).​ ​This​ ​case,​ ​in​ ​conjunction​ ​with​ ​the​ ​previously​ ​outlined

case,​ ​serves​ ​as​ ​a​ ​base​ ​for​ ​administration​ ​to​ ​argue​ ​that​ ​Foster’s​ ​choice​ ​to​ ​wear​ ​an​ ​earring​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a

form​ ​of​ ​protected​ ​speech​ ​or​ ​expression.​ ​It​ ​also​ ​reaffirms​ ​administration’s​ ​right​ ​to​ ​deem​ ​what

forms​ ​of​ ​expression​ ​are​ ​acceptable.​ ​This​ ​findings​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case​ ​also​ ​establish​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​pattern

for​ ​courts​ ​to​ ​err​ ​on​ ​the​ ​side​ ​of​ ​ruling​ ​in​ ​favor​ ​of​ ​administration​ ​in​ ​these​ ​gray​ ​areas,​ ​strengthening

administration’s​ ​position​ ​regarding​ ​enforcement​ ​of​ ​the​ ​dress​ ​code.

It​ ​is​ ​my​ ​belief​ ​that,​ ​if​ ​this​ ​case​ ​were​ ​brought​ ​to​ ​court,​ ​the​ ​court​ ​would​ ​hold​ ​in​ ​favor​ ​of

Foster.​ ​While​ ​I​ ​would​ ​agree​ ​that​ ​the​ ​school​ ​administration​ ​does​ ​have​ ​an​ ​established​ ​right​ ​to

determine​ ​which​ ​non-protected​ ​forms​ ​of​ ​expression​ ​are​ ​permissible​ ​under​ ​both​ ​Bethel​ ​v.​ ​Fraser

and​ ​Boroff​ ​v.​ ​Van​ ​Wert​,​ ​Foster’s​ ​earring​ ​was​ ​neither​ ​vulgar​ ​nor​ ​disruptive​ ​to​ ​the​ ​school

environment.​ ​During​ ​the​ ​time​ ​that​ ​Foster​ ​was​ ​in​ ​school,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​neither​ ​misidentified​ ​nor

approached​ ​by​ ​gang​ ​members,​ ​which​ ​fits​ ​the​ ​disruption​ ​standard​ ​outlined​ ​in​ ​Chalifoux​ ​v.​ ​New

Caney​.​ ​Moreover,​ ​Foster​ ​himself​ ​did​ ​not​ ​engage​ ​in​ ​any​ ​offense​ ​or​ ​disruptive​ ​conduct.

Additionally,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​also​ ​the​ ​consideration​ ​that,​ ​if​ ​Foster’s​ ​school​ ​is​ ​not​ ​located​ ​in​ ​Pennsylvania
ARTIFACT​ ​4​ ​STUDENT’S​ ​RIGHTS​ ​AND​ ​RESPONSIBILITIES 6

or​ ​Ohio​ ​(both​ ​states​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Northeast),​ ​dress​ ​may​ ​be​ ​automatically​ ​be​ ​considered​ ​a​ ​form​ ​of

expression.​ ​If​ ​that​ ​is​ ​the​ ​case,​ ​then​ ​dress​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case​ ​may​ ​not​ ​fall​ ​under​ ​the​ ​school’s​ ​scope​ ​of

responsibility​ ​regarding​ ​determining​ ​freedom​ ​of​ ​expression,​ ​effectively​ ​nulling​ ​the​ ​findings​ ​of

Bethel​ ​v.​ ​Fraser​ ​and​ ​Boroff​ ​v.​ ​Van​ ​Wert​ ​as​ ​applied​ ​to​ ​this​ ​case.
ARTIFACT​ ​4​ ​STUDENT’S​ ​RIGHTS​ ​AND​ ​RESPONSIBILITIES 7

References

Bethel​ ​School​ ​District​ ​No.​ ​403​ ​v.​ ​Fraser,​ ​No.​ ​84-1667​ ​(1986).​ ​(n.d.).​ ​Retrieved​ ​November​ ​6,

2017​ ​from​ ​http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/478/675.html

Boroff​ ​v.​ ​Van​ ​Wert​ ​City​ ​Board​ ​of​ ​Education,​ ​No.​ ​98-3869​ ​(2000).​ ​(n.d.)​ ​Retrieved​ ​November​ ​6,

2017​ ​from​ ​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​ ​6,​ ​2017​ ​from

Lastname,​ ​W.​ ​(2009).​ ​If​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​DOI​ ​use​ ​the​ ​URL​ ​of​ ​the​ ​main​ ​website​ ​referenced.​ ​Article

Without​ ​DOI​ ​Reference​,​ ​Vol#(Issue#),​ ​166-212.​ ​Retrieved​ ​from​​ ​http://www.example.com