STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Adrian E. Duarte

College of Southern Nevada

STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Adrian Duarte

Dale Warby

EDU 210

Date (26/09/2018)

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Does one's freedom of speech and expression as protected under the First Amendment in

the United States’ Constitution include the protection of students’ rights in schools? Are students

able to use profanity or inappropriate expressions because they're safeguarded under this

amendment? For one, as the United States Constitution does not mention the topic of education,

and the rights of all education matters are reserved to the states per the Tenth Amendment, the

Constitution also does not expressly state whether certain speech or forms of expression in an

educational setting are protected or not. Moreover, in the United States Supreme Court Case

Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court upheld that students do not "Shed their constitutional

rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" (Tinker v. Des Moines

Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 [1969]). Pressing forward, should a school or school

district reserve the right to establish rules to ensure that no language or forms of expression

become a safety risk or constant disturbance to the school and classroom environment? In the

proposed case, a United States high school established a policy that prohibits the wearing of what

they classified to be “gang symbols,” including earrings, jewelry, emblems, and athletic caps due

to the high presence of gang activities in the school. Bill Foster, a student at the high school, was

suspended for wearing earrings as a form of self-expression, despite not symbolizing and

condoning any form of gang activity promotion. As Americans, undeniably should every person
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

be allowed their First Amendment right privileges to freedom of expression in accordance with

our country’s Constitution; however, I also maintain that all education institutions should be

judgment, prejudice-free establishments, and must hold the right to restrict certain detrimental

speech and forms of expression to keep schools and their operations safe and composed.

On what grounds is a school permitted to discipline all students by banning innocuous

accessories, including those that are forms of self-expression? The plaintiff in the proposed case,

Bill Foster, brings before the court an infringement upon his First Amendment United States

Constitution right of freedom of expression. In the court case, Foster may argue that the school

policy to prohibit the wearing of these accessories not only forbid the students from their choice

of self-expression but also includes a sense of negligence on behalf of the school to ban all

objects, including those that hold no offensive or inappropriate assessment. In the Supreme Court

case of Tinker v. Des Moines, a group of students who were protesting the Vietnam War were

suspended for wearing black armbands (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393

U.S. 503 [1969]). As a result of the court’s opinion in the Tinker v. Des Moines case, Foster may

argue that his and his classmates’ rights to freedom of speech and expression was infringed upon,

even on school grounds, and that his suspension shall be overturned, for the case’s ruling

declares the school’s suspension to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, Foster may also argue, in addition to his argument that the school’s

suspension was made unconstitutionally, that unless the school shows a present distraction by

Foster wearing an earring, then he should not have been suspended, especially for a first-time

offense with no previous infractions. Based on the ruling from the court case of Doe v. Brockton

School Comm., the school violated the court’s opinion that no student should be diminished of

their First Amendment protections unless the school can show that the form of expression will
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

cause a disruption (Doe v. Brockton School Comm. 134 S.W.3d 637 [1996]). In addition, as

depicted and corroborated in School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications (2006) by

Author Julie Underwood, many states in the northeastern United States consider dress to be

“protected speech,” elaborating as long as it is not “Materially and substantially disruptive,

pervasively vulgar, or harmful” (Underwood, 2006, pg. 124). Due to the school suspending

Foster for an object that in no-way was represents or encourages gang-activity, the school would

be in violation of this law and the court’s ruling, as the earing Foster was wearing did not deter

any student from excelling in the academic setting, nor was the accessory vulgar or harmful.

Despite the plaintiff’s claim that his First Amendment right was infringed, I do believe

that in Foster’s case, the Court will ultimately rule in favor of the school. For one, the school

must enact policies that would ensure that school is efficiently and safely operated, while

promoting the values of the school district. Furthermore, many states around the nation have

allocated powers to the states Board of Educations and school districts to implement these rules.

Take for example the 2000 court case of Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education, where a

student was righteously suspended for wearing a Marilyn Manson t-shirt based on the values the

t-shirt symbolized. The court in this specific case ruled that the shirt was disruptive to the

education environment; thus, ensuring that the Board of Education’s decision to suspend the

student was substantiated and well-founded (Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education 220

F.3d 465 [6th Cir. 2000], cert. denied, 532 U.S. 920 [2001]). Moreover, based on the court’s

opinion in Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education, the school may argue that due to the high

presence of gang-activity at the school, the earring that Foster wore is disruptive to the education

environment and it did not align with the objectives and values of the school, despite Foster

arguing that it is a form of self-expression.

STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

Moreover, in the 2000 case of West v. Derby Unified School District No 260, the Derby

Unified School District had created and enforced a school and district-wide policy that prohibits

the acts of intimidation and racial discrimination (West v. Derby Unified School District No.

260, 206 F.3d 1358 [10th Cir. 2000]). A portion of the school’s enacted policy addresses concern

in regards to the First Amendment argument that dress and speech must be protected and cannot

be restricted. The schools’ policy in rebuttal states, “…District employees and students shall not

at school, on school property or at school activities wear or have in their possession any written

material, either printed or in their own handwriting, that is racially divisive or creates ill will or

hatred. (Examples: clothing, articles, material, publications or any item that denotes Ku Klux

Klan, Aryan Nation-White Supremacy, Black Power, Confederate flags or articles, Neo-Nazi or

any other “hate” group. This list is not intended to be all inclusive) …” (West v. Derby Unified

School District No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358 [10th Cir. 2000]). In the ruling of West v. Derby Unified

School District No 260, the court’s opinion stood in favor with the school. Just as the

northeastern high school that Bill Foster attended had established a school policy, the court

would argue that if it is expressly stated in the school’s policy and for righteous purposes to

enforce this rule in the policy, then the school has a right to enforce that statute, as it is for the

safety and security of the students, faculty, and the school.

When it comes to ensuring the safety and productivity of all school operations, I certainly

believe that schools should reserve the right to implement constitutional and just rules and

regulations for students and faculty. In the case of Bill Foster, I do believe that the school made a

righteous decision to suspend the student, if in fact, they were following their school disciplinary

policy. As stated in the ruling from the case of West v. Derby Unified School District No 260,

Bill Foster is not entitled to First Amendment protection, as schools reserve the right to
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

implement rules and statues that are ethical and constitutional to their school policy (West v.

Derby Unified School District No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358 [10th Cir. 2000]). Moreover, in the 2000

court case of Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education, the Court found that the school made

an appropriate decision to suspend a student for wearing a Marilyn Manson t-shirt that did not

abide by the school’s dress code policy, and ultimately, did not align with the school’s values

and mission; thus, disrupting the instructional and social school operations. Certainly, both sides

of the litigation may be argued; however, based on the evidence and cases argued, I believe that

the Court would and should rule in favor of the school, as I believe that all schools should

reserve the right to enact policies that would benefit their school and their students the most.
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 7

References

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

920 (2001)

Doe v. Brockton School Comm. 134 S.W.3d 637 (1996)

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

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

West v. Derby Unified School District No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358 (10th Cir. 2000)