PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #4

ONLINE EDU 210

JESSICA M. GONZALEZ
 Due to past gang activity, a large high school in the northeastern part of the United

States implemented a policy where students are not allowed to wear gang symbols. Items

that students are not allowed to wear to school that may portray gang symbols are:

jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. However, Bill Foster, a student at the high

school, decided to one day wear an earring as a form of self expression. Bill is not

involved in gangs. However, he decided to wear the earring because he thinks that

females find it to be attractive. Student Bill Foster decided to go against school policy

only because he wanted to attract attention from the opposite sex. Therefore, he was

suspended for making the wrong decision.

In Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, involved three students

who were suspended for each wearing a black armband to school in protest against the

involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. However, students in the same

school were permitted to wear jewelry that displayed Nazi symbols. The Supreme

Court found that each student in this case did have the right of freedom of speech and

that they were not disrupting any school activities by wearing the black armband. But, the

court did agree with the school when it came to keeping order and discipline. So basicly,

students in this school were allowed to use different methods of expression, whether it

was in the form of an article of clothing; an emblem; or a piece of jewelry; as long as

whatever item was being used was not gang related or as long as it did not create

disruptions in the school environment.

In Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, a high school principal removed

proofs of two pages from the school newspaper that was given to him by the teacher
 Page 2
in charge of the newspaper because they discussed issues on student pregnancy, birth

control, and divorce. The principal believed that even though no names were given of

pregnant students that were on one article, other students could identify them by reading

their story. He also felt that birth control should not be discussed because younger

students also read the newspaper. In the divorce article, the principal believed that

permission needed to be obtained from the parents who were divorcing or discussing

divorce before anything was published. The court decided that the newspaper is part

of the school curriculum and that as long as student speech does not disrupt or cause

harm to others, there was no problem with allowing the articles to be published.

In Boroff vs. Van Wert City Board of Education, a high school student wore

a t-shirt that portrayed an image of Marilyn Manson, it had offensive wording, and it

violated the school's dress code policy. A student official saw what the student was

wearing and he asked the student to turn the shirt inside out or to leave the school.

The student left and returned the next day with another Marilyn Manson shirt. He was

sent home again. The student sued the school for violating his freedom of speech rights.

A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit. He appealed the case, but once again

lost. The court ruled in favor of the school because they felt the school has the right to

prohibit students from wearing clothing that may be offensive or vulgar to others.

In Doe vs. Renfrow, a 13 year old student from Highland Junior High School

in Highland, Indiana sued several Highland school officials, the Highland Police Chief,

and the trainer of the German shepherds used in a drug search at her school. One

morning before class was over, students were ordered by the teacher to remain
 Page 3
seated, to put their hands on their desk, and to put their belongings in view. School

officials, police officials, and drug sniffing dogs walked up and down the rows of seats

with students in them while they searched for drugs. One of the German shepherds

stopped where the 13 year old was sitting and kept pressing its nose up against her.

The student was told to empty her pockets, but nothing was in them. She was then

escorted to the nurse's office where two women police officials asked her to take off

her clothes so that they could search her. This student ended up suing several officials

because she felt her rights secured by the fourth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments

were being violated during the search. The charges against the Highlands Police Chief

and the dog trainer were dismissed because the court stated that they did not

participate in the search. Drugs were never found on the 13 year old student. The court

found that the search was valid because Highland schools have a history of drug activity.

I do not believe that student Bill Foster's rights were violated in any way. He

knew what the school policy was regarding gang symbols and what things he was not

allowed to wear to school. Even if he did not know at the moment, he would of been

told by a school official the reason for his suspension. I do believe that the court will

rule in favor of the school because they implemented their policy for a reason. Students

must follow the policy or else they have to suffer the consequence, which in this case is

suspension. If you really think about it, the only reason why schools implement policies

is to protect the students and faculty from unwanted danger. In this case, it is to protect

from gang related activity.

REFERENCES:

1.) Underwood, Julie and Webb, L. Dean (2006), School Law for Teachers: Concepts
and Applications, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

2.) Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District

3.) Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier (1987)

4.) Boroff vs. Van Wert Board of Education (2000), retrieved from http://
www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/

5.) Doe vs. Renfrow (1981)