Running head: Portfolio #4 Students’ Rights & Responsibilities 1

Portfolio Assignment #4

Students’ Rights & Responsibilities

Francisco Perez

College of Southern Nevada

April 11, 2019

 Portfolio #4 Student’s Right & Responsibilities 2

Schools are a place where students should be able to express themselves to others in

order to relate to others. Many do this through their appearance. Students wear what they like

and what they think their peers may find appealing. Imagine being suspending from school

because of something you wore when it was not offensive or inappropriate in any way. This is

what happened to Bill Foster. His high school began a policy that prohibited the wearing of gang

symbols such as jewelry or other apparel. Bill Foster was not involved in any sort of gang

activity but was suspended because he was wearing an earring. He thought the earring would be

attractive and he wore is to express himself as students should. This suspension led to Bill filing

a lawsuit. Were Bill’s rights being violated by the school? Does the school have the right to deny

Bill the freedom of wearing his earring? There are many different arguments that can be

presented in favor and in opposition to the school’s decision to suspend him.

There many who would agree that the school was impeding Bill’s right to freedom of

expression rights. When it comes to something as harmless as an earring it is hard to agree with

the school’s decision to suspend Mr. Foster. His earring did not interrupt or distract other’s

students from learning which is the main reason schools insist on having a dress code. ​Tinker v.

Des Moines (​ 1969) is a court case the directly deals with the right of students to freely express

themselves. In this case, students were suspended for wearing black armbands that expressed

their disapproval of the war in Vietnam. There were not allowed to return until they agreed to not

wear the armbands. ‘

This court case ruled that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to

freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Vietnam War was a very
 Portfolio #4 Student’s Right & Responsibilities 3

controversial topic that warranted this kind of reaction. This court case did confirm the students’

rights to freedom of expression but also reinforced the school’s authority to regulate those rights

if the exercise of the rights might be reasonably predicted to cause a material and substantial

disruption or invasion of the rights of others. (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p.121) However,

Bill’s earring was merely a piece of jewelry that he chose to wear to appeal to young women and

did not cause any disruption. Furthermore, as this case indicates, Bill does not lose his right to

freedom of expression because he is in school and should not be reprimanded for wearing an

earring.

Another court case that defends Bill’s case ​Chalifoux v. New Caney ​(1997). In this case,

students were being told not to wear rosaries. Many people were these in order to show their

religious faith but the school associated them with gangs and prohibited them. The school could

not clearly define how the rosaries were related to gangs and the court ruled against them. This is

almost the exact same situation as Bill’s. His earring was not worn for religious reasons but it

cannot be directly related to any sort of gang activity. Since this relationship cannot be

established the school should not be able to suspend Bill for wearing something when he had no

intent on wearing it is a symbol for gang violence but rather as a piece of jewelry that he thought

would appeal to others.

It could also be argued that the school was justified in the suspension of Bill because they

have the right to enforce their dress code. One case that could be used to defend the school’s

decision is ​Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser​ (1986) which was a court case that set limits

to students’ first amendment rights in school. Matthew Fraser delivered a speech that was vulgar.

The school disciplined him and he proceeded to sue the school. This case established that schools
 Portfolio #4 Student’s Right & Responsibilities 4

can take into account the offensiveness of expression and are expected to teach students socially

acceptable behavior. Some may argue that because of the ruling of the court, in this case, the

school is within its rights to suspend Bill because the earring could be considered offensive since

they related it to gang activity. Although that may be a far stretched notion.

Another case that could be used to argue in favor of the school’s suspension is​ Melton v.

Young (​ 1972). In this case, a student named Rod Melton wore a jacket that had a confederate flag

on it. The school asked him to either remove the jacket or leave school. Melton and his parents

sued the school over this. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the school’s decision. Schools

have the right to restrict a student’s appearance when it causes a classroom such as with the

confederate flag because of its’ pro-slavery history. Cases like these establish the school’s power

to restrict what students wear. One could argue the school has the power to restrict Bill’s apparel

in order to protect the safety of its students and to remove gang-related attire from the school

from gang activity in schools. Just as the school found Melton’s confederate flag controversial

and offensive the school can look at Bill’s earring in the same light.

I believe that the school has completely violated Bill’s right to freedom of expression.

While I do understand the need to prevent gang violence and stop students from glorifying this

sort of behavior to their peers, I do not understand how the school thought Bill was doing this.

He had no involvement in any sort of gang activity which makes it unjust that the school decided

to suspend him when he was simply wearing something he thought people would find attractive.

Schools do have the right to enforce a dress code to prevent students from disrupting class but

Bill was not creating any sort of disruption through his earring. All in all, I believe that the court

would rule in favor of Bill. Suspending him for wearing earrings is extreme for something minor.
 Portfolio #4 Student’s Right & Responsibilities 5

As mentioned earlier, the ​Tinker v. Des Moines ​(1969) case established that students do not

forfeit their freedom of expression rights at school. While cases such as ​Bethel School District

No. 403 v. Fraser ​(1986) and ​Melton v. Young (​ 1972) highlight the school’s ability to enforce

their dress code. However, in both of these cases, there was a clear offensive and disruptive

factor to both of the student’s choices. Whereas, in Bill’s case the school can not adequately

explain how Bill’s earring has anything to do with gangs.

Portfolio #4 Student’s Right & Responsibilities 6

References

Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser (1986). Retrieved April 10, 2020.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/478/675.html

Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School Dist., 976 F. Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997).

Retrieved April 10, 2020. ​https://www.leagle.com/decision/19971635976fsupp65911551

Melton v. Young, 465 F. 2d 1332 (6th Cir. 1972). Retrieved April 10, 2020.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/229/melton-v-young-6th-cir

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District.​, 393 U.S 503 (1696). Retrieved April 10,

2020. ​https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/393/503.html

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). ​School law for teachers: concepts and applications.​

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.