Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 1

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Sha Heilman

College of Southern Nevada

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 2

A High School in the North eastern part of the united states was having issues regulating

the dress code policy. This issue arose from a concerning number of students representing gang

violence with their clothing. To prevent gang affiliation on school grounds the school enforced a

strict dress code to be followed by all students. After these dress code restrictions were enforced

a student by the name Bill Foster was suspended for violating newly introduced dress code. He

was suspended for wearing an earring to express his personal sense of fashion. After this

occurred, he filed a law suit against the school district. We are going to take a look at why Foster

may or may not have the grounds to win a case over his personal choice of style.

In the case Jacobs vs. The Clark County School District (2008) Kimberly Jacobs was

suspended on six separate occasions for expressing her religious views on a shirt. This was an

issue because Liberty the high school that she attended just made changes to their dress code

policy to be a uniform to allow more focus on school. While she was suspended, she missed 25

days of school and this is the reason that she filed a lawsuit. Jacobs (2008) stated that it made her

teachers view her differently and she missed out on too much instruction time while suspended.

In addition to her belief that this was violating her first amendment right. In this case the school

district was enforcing dress code to promote attention towards school, make income differences

not noticeable, and streamline what a student may or may not wear. So, in the end Jacobs did end

up losing even with many other students who filed suit in agreement with her. It all came down

to because everyone was forced to wear the same clothes that did not promote a certain group

over another. Bill Foster would potentially run into the same issues if it is a dress code being
Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 3

applied to everyone to make a neutral environment then he cannot go out of his way to express

himself as different from the rest.

Another example of when Bill Foster may not win his dress code case was Cassidy v.

Bossier Parish School Board (2001). This was a case in Louisiana where over 40 parents came

together to reject a dress code to be enforced in the next school year of 1999-2000. While this

case was brought up on the fact that parents believed that their children’s first amendment’s

rights were not being allowed. Where this case was lost was that the school gave notice to the

parents of what the dress code would be, and it was ultimately for a more functional education

system. The dress code was not enforced to censor students in any way just to simply make sure

that little to no attention was put on what students were wearing rather just on their education.

Bill Foster could fall under the same category if he was given notice on what the dress code was

and wasn’t being censored in any way, he would have to abide by the same dress code as

everyone else.

While looking at most of the cases pertaining to dress code and whether or not you can

enforce it, worry about students not having their first amendment rights is what the main point of

concern is. This could be one of the few ways that Bill Foster would be able to win his case.

While wanting to express himself with an earring he could be showing that he was expressing

what gender he was attracted too. Now a way to prove this was not allowing him his first

amendment rights in the principal who made the dress code was found that he was not in support

of Bill Foster’s sexuality and did not want other students knowing about the choice they had.

Much like the case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) when the principal removed certain articles

from the school newspaper to block what students could know and not know about based on
Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 4

what his personal beliefs were, this is not allowed. That would be a violation of students first

amendment rights and Bill could have a chance to win such case.

Another instance where Bill Foster would most likely win his case would come from the

decision made in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). In this case student Mary Beth Tinker were to

wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam war when the school board heard of

this, they made the dress code so that no arm bands could be worn. When Mary Beth still came

to school the next day with an armband, she was punished along with her brother who did the

same and other students. When this case was brought up in court in a 7-2 choice since the arm

bands did not disrupt any school activity and she was expressing her concern for the war they

ruled in favor of Mary Beth (1969). If Bill Foster was just expressing himself while not harming

or disrupting other students and jewelry was not clearly written in the dress code policy, he has a

strong chance of winning.

While all of these cases show how Bill Foster may or not win in a suit against him

wearing an earring to school, it all comes down to the fact was this in violation of his first

amendment rights? Also, if the school had not previously stated what type of jewelry can be

worn, he wasn’t expressing any affiliation towards a gang or particular group that would not fall

in line with dress code. Yet the only argument that he had was that he was trying to attract

women not that he was expressing an opinion or needing to wear his earring for the purpose of

freedom of speech. I believe that Bill Foster could win this case based on the fact he wasn’t

wearing any item a gang would also wear, he wasn’t supporting any logo’s, and whether or not

no jewelry was stated in the dress code policy.

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 5

References

Cassidy v. Bossier Parish School Board 240 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2001)

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier 484 U.S. 260 (January 13, 1988)

Jacobs v. Clark County School District No. 05-16434. (9th Cir. May 12, 2008)

Tinker v. Des Moines 383 F.2d 988 (February 24, 1969)