1

Running Header: Portfolio Artifact 4

Portfolio Artifact 4

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Rubicela Chavez- Lazcano

Education 203

Professor Dr. Dale B. Warby

February 19, 2019

 2
Portfolio Artifact 4

Introduction:

Bill Foster decided to wear an earring to school as a form of self-expression. He was

suspended from his high school in the northeastern United States because it was considered a

violation of the school anti-gang dress code policy. Students were prohibited from wearing any

gang symbols to school which included athletic caps, emblems, and jewelry like his earring.

However, Bill is not involved in any gang activity. It must now be decided whether or not his

freedom of expression right was violated by the school.

Pro Support:

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

students was suspended from school in Des Moines, Iowa for wearing black armbands in protest

of the Vietnam War. The school principles found out students planned to use black armbands as

a form of protest and instituted a new policy to ban them. If a student was caught with it and

refused to remove it, they would face suspension. Ultimately the Supreme Court declared their

suspensions unconstitutional because they violated the first amendment rights of the students.

During this case the Supreme Court stated that neither “students or teachers shed their

constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the school gate”. Bill Foster’s case is

very similar, his right to self-expression is a first amendment right that is being violated by the

school.

In Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997),

honor roll student Brianna Stephenson was suspended from West High School for display of
 3
Portfolio Artifact 4
gang-related symbols. She had a small cross tattoo on her hand which school administration and

police considered to be a known gang symbol. The demanded her to remove the tattoo or be

expelled from the school. Brianna argued that the tattoo was more than two years old and had no

connection to gangs, as she was not involved in one. Because the school refused to change its

policy, Briana was forced to go through a painful and costly tattoo removal. Brianna filed suit

against the school and won. The courts ruled in her favor stating that it was void for vagueness,

meaning it was not specific enough in giving students information about what expression was

prohibited, and it made enforcement arbitrary because it left it up to schools and courts to decide

what violated the policy on a case-by-case basis. The same is true in Bill Foster’s case, the

description for gang attire by his school is vary vague and leaves lots of room for interpretation.

Con Support:

In Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Educ., 220 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000), Nicholas Boraff

was told by his school, Van Wert High School in Ohio, that he was not allowed to wear Marilyn

Manson t-shirts to school because it was considered offensive. He was asked by school staff to

turn it inside out, go home and change, or leave but it would be considered truancy. The student

chose to leave but came back the next three days with Marilyn Manson shirts on. The school told

him that he was not allowed to come to school while he continued to wear those shirts. His

mother filed a suit against the school for violating Nicholas’ first amendment right to free

speech. The court ruled in favor of the school stating that, the t-shirts were considered offensive

because of the band’s open promotion of values that are “counter-productive and go against the

educational mission of the Van Wert City School District community”. In Bill Foster’s case, the
 4
Portfolio Artifact 4
school associated his earing with gang activity which it also believed to go against the mission

and values of the school district.

In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser 478 U.S. 675 (1986), Mathew Frasier gave a

speech at his high school to nominate his fellow student Jeff Kuhlman for school vice president.

His speech was very sexually graphic and obscene, and the school chose to suspend him two

days for it. He filed a lawsuit claiming a violation to his freedom of speech. The lower courts

sided with the student because under Tinker guidelines his speech would no have been

considered disruptive. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the school. They

decided that schools have a right to prohibit speech that may be considered vulgar, offensive, or

inconsistent with the school’s education mission. This would mean that in Bill Foster’s case, if

his earring wad offensive because it was sending a gang message, the school would have been in

the right to censor that type of speech.

Conclusion:

This scenario involves the first amendment right to free speech and the conditions under

which student free speech can be restricted. If an expression of speech is found offensive and in

opposition to the school district’s values and educational mission, the schools have a right to

restrict that speech in order to prevent it disrupting the education of other students. In this case

however, the courts should rule in favor of Bill Foster. The school’s policy on the prohibition of

gang-related symbols is vague and, as in Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, it

gives too much power of interpretation to the schools, associated police, and courts to decide

what is or isn’t gang related. His earing is not clearly vulgar or offensive and is not causing any
 5
Portfolio Artifact 4
disruption to other students. It is clearly meets all the guidelines for appropriate expression of

free speech under Tinker.

 6
Portfolio Artifact 4

References

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser 478 U.S. 675 (1986)

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

Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969)

Underwood, J. (2006) School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.