Running head: Artifact #4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 1

Artifact #4

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Janette Briones

College of Southern Nevada

November 11, 2018

Artifact #4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 2

Abstract

A high school student was suspended for wearing an earring, due to the schools’ new policy. The

policy prohibited the wearing of gang symbols such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic

caps. The student is not involved in gang activity and used the earring as self-expression. A

lawsuit was filed, claiming the school violated his freedom of expression rights. In this essay,

this scenario will be compared with three cases. The cases Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent

School District and Bragg v. Swanson will be used to support the students’ claim. The case

Bethel v. Fraser will be used to support the school.

Artifact #4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 3

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Bill Foster wore an earring to school as a form of self-expression and a belief that the

earring was attractive to young ladies. His high school, located in the northeastern United States,

thought otherwise. The school initiated a policy prohibiting the wearing of gang symbols such as

jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. The policy was developed based on gang activities

that were prevalent in the school. Due to this policy, Bill was suspended, even though he was not

involved in gang activity. As a result, a lawsuit was filed.

Bill Foster’s situation is similar to Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District,

976 F. Supp. 659 (1997), in which the Plaintiffs were told they could not wear their rosaries

outside their clothing because rosaries were considered as “gang-related apparel”. They filled a

lawsuit accusing the district of violating their First Amendment rights to free speech and

religious expression. The Tinker standard was used, which is for there to be evidence “that the

student expression would lead to either (a) a substantial disruption of the school environment, or

(b) an invasion of the rights of others.” (“What are the free expression rights”, n.d.) Due to the

standard, the Defendants “must show that Plaintiffs’ religious speech caused a substantial

disruption of or material interference with school activities”. (Chalifoux v. New Caney, 1997)

There was no evidence presented that while the Plaintiffs wore rosaries, they caught the attention

of other students or they were mistaken for gang members. The Court ruled in favor of the

Plaintiffs.

The second case that supports Bill Foster is Bragg v. Swanson, 371 F. Supp. 2d 814

(2005), in which the student was disciplined for wearing a T-shirt displaying the Confederate

Flag. He was disciplined by the new principal, Joyce Vessey Swanson, because she has had

several negative experiences with the flag at other schools. With the Plaintiff, there was no
Artifact #4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 4

evidence that the clothing he wore created a disturbance at the school. Using the Tinker standard,

the Court held that “in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not

enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” (Bragg v. Swanson, 2005) Court ruled

in favor of the Plaintiff because the principal violated his First Amendment rights by acting with

a “remote apprehension of disturbance rather than “a specific and significant fear of

disruption…” (Bragg v. Swanson, 2005)

A case supporting the school would be Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S.

657 (1986). A public high school student was suspended for using elaborate and sexual

innuendos in a speech presented at a student assembly. The student claimed, “that the suspension

violated his First Amendment rights because his speech caused no disruption of school activities

within the meaning of Tinker”. (Bethel v. Fraser, 1986) The Court ruled that the school “may

prohibit student speech before a student assembly that is vulgar, lewd and plainly offensive” and

it also noted that “the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically,

coextensive with the rights of adults.” (Bethel v. Fraser, 1986)

Referencing both the Chalifoux v. New Caney and Bragg v. Swanson cases, if the Tinker

standard was used, the school would need evidence that Bill’s earring substantially interfered

with the school environment or interfered with the rights of others. Similarly to the rosaries, the

earring would not catch the attention of others to the point where it substantially interferes with

the school environment. It would also not cause a “specific and significant fear of disruption”,

like it was needed in the Bragg v. Swanson case. In this case, the Court would rule that the

school violated Bill’s First Amendment rights.

Artifact #4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 5

References

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

Bragg v. Swanson, 371 F. Supp. 2d 814 (2005)

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 657 (1986)

What are the free expression rights of students in public schools under the First Amendment?

(n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12991&printer-friendly=y