Portfolio # 4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 1

Jaqueline Arguelles-Perez

College of Southern Nevada, EDU 210

Dr. Dale B. Warby

February 25, 2019

Portfolio # 4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 2

A large high school in the northeastern United States initiated a policy prohibiting the

wearing of gang symbols such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. This policy was

developed based on gang activities that were prevalent in the school. Bill Foster, who was not

involved in gang activity, wore an earring to school as a form of self-expression and a belief that

the earring was attractive to young ladies. He was suspended for his actions. Consequently, he

filed suit.

From one perspective it does indeed seem as though Bill's Freedom is being violated with

him simply wearing an earring. Thought, it was in school policy that students were not allowed

to wear jewelry or any gang-related items. It was made clear in the policy and Bill failed to

follow the school policy even though he was not involved in the gang affiliated groups.

Therefore, Bill was not stripped of his rights in this act because he was the one not following

school policy.

In Bill’s defense, there are many different cases that relate to Bill's case about dress and

accessories. The first case that goes hand in hand to support Bill's case is Brown v. Cabell

County Board of Education. A student is suspended for writing about giving freedom to a student

who had been accused of shooting an officer (Brown v. Cabell County Board of Education, 605

F.Supp.2d 788 (2009). In this case, the students were not given their right to express themselves

due to it causing “conflict” for the school.

Another case that supports Bill’s case is Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent school

district is another case in which students were stripped of their right of freedom of expression of

religion. Two students seen wearing plastic rosaries were prohibited to wear them due to them

being “gang-affiliated” even though they were found not guilty of being in the gang they were

unable to wear their rosaries (Chalifoux v New Caney Independent School District, 976 F.Supp.
Portfolio # 4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 3

659 (1997). This case relates closely to Bill’s case because both cases have a student or students

who are not being given their freedom of expression whether it be through their religion or their

general way of wanting to dress. The school should not have prohibited the two students from

wearing their rosaries for it is a symbol of what they believe. Just as Bill should have been able

to wear the earring that he wanted because it was not gang-related as proven later.

Now in the school's defense Bill Foster’s high school had frequent gang activity.

Therefore, the policy was made to cut down on the frequent gang activity, prohibiting the

wearing of gang symbols. Earrings were one of the items listed in the school’s policy. They

wanted to create a safe learning environment free of any distractions. To support the school’s

argument, in the court case of Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education on July 26, 2000 the

Court agreed that the school could prohibit a student from wearing a Marilyn Manson T-shirt

that it considered offensive based on the band’s promotion of values contrary to the school’s

educational mission (Boroff v Van Wert City Board of Education 220 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000),

cert. denied, 532 U.S. 920 (2001). Just as in Bill Foster's case where the earrings were

associated with gang-related apparel.

The second case I found was West v. Derby Unified School District No 266 on March 21,

2000, the Court found that the school had properly suspended a student for drawing the

Confederate flag in class. The school had a policy that prohibits racial harassment or

intimidation. The Confederate flag was one of the items listed in their policy (West v Derby

Unified School District No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358 (2000). Just as in Bill Foster’s case where

earrings were listed in the school’s policy of prohibited apparel and students were able to view

what they could and could not wear due to the frequent gang-related apparel.
Portfolio # 4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 4

“In jurisdictions in which dress is not considered protected speech, it can be restricted for

any legitimate reason. Policies should be written to ensure they reasonably relate to their asserted

purpose and are not vague” (Underwood, Webb, pg. 125). Billy Foster’s school initiated a policy

that was not vague and specifically listed the gang apparel it had restricted. An earring worn by

Billy Foster was on the list and he was made aware of what was prohibited. The school acted

properly in their suspension of Billy Foster and therefore his freedom of expression rights was

not violated.
Portfolio # 4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 5

References

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

920 (2001).

Brown v. Cabell County Board of Education, 605 F.Supp.2d 788 (2009)

Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District, 976 F.Supp. 659 (1997).

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

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teacher's Rights. School Law for Teachers: Concepts and

applications (p. 125). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.