Artifact #4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 1

Artifact #4

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Benjamin Mueller

College of Southern Nevada

April 7 2018
 2
Artifact #4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

A school in the northeast began a policy prohibiting students from wearing gang

related clothing and accessories like jewelry and baseball caps. Although not associated with

gang activity, Bill Foster was suspended for wearing an earring. According to Bill Foster, he

wore it out of self-expression. The question at hand will be whether Bill Foster’s freedom of

expression rights were violated.

The first case supporting that the school had grounds to suspend Foster due to wearing the

earring will be Blackwell V. Issaquena County Board of Education (1966). In this case, students

at Henry Weathers High School were handing out “freedom buttons” throughout the day. This

included handing out the buttons when the students were scheduled to be in class for instruction.

In this case, it is also noted that some of the students were pinning buttons on other students who

did not ask to be involved in receiving the freedom buttons. Stated in the case, “This activity

created a state of confusion, disrupted class instruction, and resulted in a general breakdown of

orderly discipline, causing the principal to assemble the students in the cafeteria and inform them

that they were forbidden to wear the buttons at school. At the assembly and also during

conferences with the students immediately thereafter, several students conducted themselves

discourteously and displayed an attitude of hostility.” (Blackwell v. Issaquena County Board of

Education 1966). While a lot of students are encouraged to express themselves peacefully, in this

case this was not achieved. By enticing students who were minding their business and not

requesting to be involved with the buttons, a disruption was caused to the educational

environment of the school. Another question in this case is if “whether the school regulation

forbidding the wearing of "freedom buttons" is a reasonable rule necessary for the maintenance
 3
Artifact #4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities
of school discipline or an unreasonable rule which infringes on the students' right to freedom of

speech”. It is vastly important to consider in issues of expression by students on campus how

much of a disruption to the campuses educational environment is tangible. Although Foster may

not have been directly involved with gang activity, by wearing something associated with gang

activity, the potential for disruption is introduced. It can also be noted that Foster thought the

earring was attractive to young ladies. In school education should be the main focus, not

attracting one’s classmates.

The second case supporting that Foster’s school had grounds to suspend him will be Davis v.

Firment (1967). In this case, 15-year-old Dave Davis was suspended due to having a long

haircut. While h the haircut which was considered to be in the style of the Beatles may not have

been a direct distraction to the educational environment, it was still a practical and direct

disobedience to school policies. Strict dress and grooming guidelines were set in place and made

visible to students at John F. Kennedy Senior High School. Some of the guidelines for grooming

that were set in place include “Hair shall be clean and neat and should be styled in accordance

with styles acceptable for school wear” and “Exceptionally long, shaggy hair and/or exaggerated

sideburns shall not be worn” (Davis v. Firment 1967). Also noted in Davis v. Firment is that

“gross deviation from the norm does cause a disruption of the learning atmosphere and can

create an undesirable separateness among students” (Davis v. Firment 1967). Although no direct

interruption of instruction may be caused by Bill Foster’s earring, it could still be considered

problematic and disruptive. Although it can be argued that requiring a haircut can be considered

to violate rights to freedom of expression, it is important to maintain a unified educational

environment where students don’t feel separation. This case upheld that is without merit to claim
 4
Artifact #4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities
requiring certain grooming requirements is cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, schools

have the right to instill dress code requirements.

The first case I will present to support Bill Foster’s earring wearing is Tinker v. Des Moines

(1966). In this case, students wearing armbands boycotting the Vietnam war were suspended.

The school claimed that wearing the armbands created a distraction in the school. The students

argued that by being suspended, their first amendment rights were violated. While the students

were still required not to wear the armbands on campus after this case, it was noted that open

dialogue about these issues should be encouraged on campus as long as they do not create

problems among students. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the student’s accessories were representative

of a political stance. In the case of Bill Foster, his earring was simply a fashion choice for self-

expression. Despite the school banning earrings and other accessories due to potential gang

relations, it cannot be affirmed that a simple earring is inciteful of such behaviors. Unlike Tinker

v. Des Moines where the accessories at hand represented a political stance, stating that

accessories like hats and earrings represent gang activity doesn’t have merit. Students who do

not incite direct disruptions should not be reprimanded for unimportant fashion choices. Bill

Foster’s earring did not directly relate to gangs and did not cause a direct distraction in the

classroom, so there is no justifiable reason for him to receive a suspension for wearing it.

The second case I will present in support of Bill Foster will be Conyers v. Glenn (1971). This

is another case regarding student grooming, specifically wearing long hairstyles. This case will

again support the fact that Bill Foster did not endanger himself or other students by wearing an

earring. It’s noted by Robert L. Ackerly that “The courts have clearly warned that freedom of

speech or expression is essential to the preservation of democracy and that this right can be

exercised in ways other than talking or writing. From this generalization, it follows that there
 5
Artifact #4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities
should be no restriction on a student's hair style or his manner of dressing unless these present a

`clear and present' danger to the student's health and safety, cause an interference with work, or

create classroom or school disorder”(Conyers v. Glenn 1971). From what I can gather about

Foster’s circumstances, his earring does not pose a ‘clear and present’ danger to any facets of the

school. Something important to be gathered from this case is that “We do not suggest that the

wearing of exaggerated hair styles or other expression of individuality cannot be disruptive.

Perhaps it can, and if it becomes so or clearly threatens to become so the disruption may be dealt

with.” (Conyers v. Glenn 1971). While there may be situations of individual expression being

disruptive, there must again be a ‘clear and present’ danger at hand. Since Bill Foster has no

gang affiliation and is not causing a classroom disruption with his earring, there doesn’t seem to

be any danger at play. In the case of Foster promoting gang activity or disrupting class with his

self-expression choices, suspension may be just. However, without any clear disruption to the

school, the educational environment, and its students, a suspension cannot be justified.

My decision is that Bill Foster was unjustifiably suspended and should be able to attend school

while wearing his earring. While the school did implement a policy restricting accessories that

promote gang activity, it’s unable to be proven that something like an earring directly promotes

this. Based on the cases Tinker v. Des Moines and Conyers v. Glenn, I would revoke Foster’s

suspension.
 6
Artifact #4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

References

District Court of Appeal of Florida. (1971, January 20). CONYERS v. GLENN | 243 So.2d 204

(1971) | so2d2041352. Retrieved April 08, 2018, from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1971447243so2d2041352

Louisiana, E. D., & United States District Court. (1967, June 13). DAVIS v. FIRMENT | 269

F.Supp. 524 (1967) | supp5241731. Retrieved April 08, 2018, from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1967793269fsupp5241731

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.

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

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. (1966, July 21). BLACKWELL v. ISSAQUENA

CO | 363 F.2d 749 (1966) | 3f2d7491944. Retrieved April 08, 2018, from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/19661112363f2d7491944

United States District Court S. D. Iowa. (1966, September 01). TINKER v. DES MOINES INDE

| 258 F.Supp. 971 (1966) | upp97111062. Retrieved April 08, 2018, from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/19661229258fsupp97111062