Running head: PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #4 1

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Portfolio Artifact IV

Khadeejah Griffin

College Of Southern Nevada

 2
In a populated high school located in the northeastern part of the United States, school

officials enforced a policy, prohibiting students to wear gang symbols such as jewelry, earrings,

and athletic caps. At the time of the policy being implemented, gang activities were extremely

active and common throughout the community. Bill Foster, a student at the high school, wore an

earring to attract the ladies and to show self-expression. Bill was suspended, thus he decided to

file a lawsuit. The question then becomes was Bill’s freedom of expression rights violated or did

Bill disregard the implemented policy?

Pro Support

In support of Bill Foster, he could argue that the first amendment gives each student the right to

freedom of self-expression. An example in support of Bill would be the ​Tinker v. Des Moines

Independent Community School District ​(1969). At the time of the Vietnam war, students in the

Moines Independent Community School District decided to wear black armbands to protest

against the war. The school board passed a ban once they began to understand students had been

protesting against the war. This meant that students could not wear black armbands anymore. On

December 16, 1969, the next day, Mary Beth Tinker, a student in the school district, decided to

wear the black armband to school. When asked to remove the band, Tinker refused to and was

sent home. In this case, the District Court ruled that “The wearing of an armband for the purpose

of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of

the First Amendment. The wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely

divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It was

closely akin to "pure speech"(1969). This case compares to Bill Foster’s scenario because he was
 3
suspended for using his rights. Bill’s rights were extremely violated, so in terms of using the

school district, Bill Foster does have a case and an argument.

Bill Foster could also argue that his wearing of an earring does not interfere with the

schools' work. In the Burnside v. Byars (1966) case, students were expelled for wearing

“freedom buttons” from officials at the Booker T. Washington High School of Philadelphia. The

district court ruled that “But, with all of this in mind, we must also emphasize that school

officials cannot ignore expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend. They

cannot infringe on their students' right to free and unrestricted expression as guaranteed to them

under the First Amendment to the Constitution, where the exercise of such rights in the school

buildings and schoolrooms do not materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of

appropriate discipline in the operation of the school”. If Bill’s earring was disrupting other

classmates learning environment, the school district could have argued that. But, if Bill is only

freely expressing himself without disturbing/ interfering with students and teachers working

environment, the school district is violating his rights.

Con Support

In support of the school district, they could argue that they have the authority over what

students can say and wear especially if it is disruptive. In the scenario, it says that the school

prohibited gang symbols such as earrings, hats, and jewelry. If the earring Bill was wearing was

a part of gang symbols, then the school did not violate his rights if he went against an

implemented law. In the case of Shanley v. Northeast Independent School District (1972), 5

senior students were suspended for publishing an “underground newspaper” which violated a
 4
school board policy. In the newspapers, the students expressed their thoughts without any

consent from their teachers. The newspapers were sold off campus but to students who also

attended the high school. The Supreme Court expressed that, “One may also exceed his or her

constitutional rights of expression by adopting a method of expression that materially and

substantially interferes with the rights of others or with the conduct of school activities”. The

school can prohibit students from disruptive speech/ expression. In support of the school district,

Bill Foster does not have a case.

The school district could also argue that the wearing of gang-related symbols could cause

some concerns on the safety of other students. In the scenario, it states that Bill wore the earrings

to attract young ladies, but his claim is extremely weak and unsound because it is not justifying if

he truly is or is not gang-related. In Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education(2000) case,

Nicholas Boroff, a student, wore a Marilyn Manson shirt which read, “Hear no truth, see no

truth, and speak no truth. The had the words believe written across the back with the word “lie”

highlighted. The student was sent home due to the shirt going against school values. Boroff went

on to sue the school for violating his First Amendment rights. “The court agreed that the school

could prohibit a student from wearing a Marilyn Manson T-shirt if considered offensive based on

the bands’ promotion of values contrary to the school’s educational mission” (Underwood &

Webb, 2006). The school prohibited gang symbols, so the school has permission to prohibit

students from wearing things that do not align with its educational mission. Foster went

completely against the school’s policy because he felt it was his right, but in truth, he disregarded

the schools’ regulations which resulted in him getting suspended.

 5
In Bill Foster’s case, he has enough support and evidence to say that the school violated

his rights of self-expression. But, the school could possibly overthrow his case because Foster

refused to follow school policies. In agreeance with the school, the ​Boroff v. Van Wert City

Board of Education​ case agreed with the idea that schools have the power to stop a student from

wearing anything that has been prohibited by school officials on school grounds. Yes, the First

Amendment does give each individual the right to self-expression, speech etc., but it does not

support ideas and things that may cause harm towards other individuals. Although Foster said he

wore the earring to attract ladies, he could be gang-related. The high school implemented the

policy so that their students could feel safer. So, since Foster decided to wear an earring, the

school could have possibly felt that he was a threat and could not be around other students. The

school never violated Bill Foster’s rights because he broke a policy that had already been

enforced at the school which is why it is best to choose the schools side in this scenario.
 6

References

Boroff v. Van Wert City, ​240 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000). Retrieved February 19, 2019 from

caselaw.findlaw.com website: ​https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1210620.html

Burnside v. Byars​, 363 F.2d 744 ​(5th Cir. 1966). Retrieved February 20, 2019 from justia.com

website: ​https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/363/744/264045/

Shanley v. Northeast, 4​ 62 F.2d 960 (1972). Retrieved February 19, 2019 from openjurist.org

website:

https://openjurist.org/462/f2d/960/shanley-v-northeast-independent-school-district-bexar-county-

texas

Tinker v. Des Moines,​ 393 U.S. 503. U.S. Supreme Court (1969). Retrieved February 20, 2019

from law.cornell.edu website: ​https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503