Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​4:​ ​Student’s​ ​Rights​ ​and​ ​Responsibilities

Artifact​ ​5

Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​4:​ ​Student’s​ ​Rights​ ​and​ ​Responsibilities

Bethany​ ​Sell

College​ ​of​ ​Southern​ ​Nevada

Edu​ ​210-4001

May​ ​6,​ ​2017

Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​4:​ ​Student’s​ ​Rights​ ​and​ ​Responsibilities

A​ ​high​ ​school​ ​bands​ ​all​ ​jewelry,​ ​emblems,​ ​earrings​ ​and​ ​athletic​ ​caps​ ​due​ ​to​ ​their

associations​ ​with​ ​gang​ ​activity.​ ​Bill​ ​Foster,​ ​a​ ​student​ ​not​ ​associated​ ​with​ ​a​ ​gang​ ​wore​ ​an​ ​earring

to​ ​school​ ​as​ ​a​ ​form​ ​of​ ​self​ ​expression​ ​to​ ​impress​ ​the​ ​ladies​ ​and​ ​was​ ​suspended​ ​for​ ​it.​ ​He​ ​filed​ ​suit

claiming​ ​that​ ​his​ ​rights​ ​to​ ​free​ ​speech​ ​were​ ​infringed​ ​upon.

Backing​ ​Bill​ ​Foster​ ​is​ ​the​ ​precedent​ ​set​ ​by​ ​Tinker​ ​v​ ​Des​ ​Moines​ ​Independent​ ​School

District​ ​(1969).​ ​In​ ​this​ ​case,​ ​three​ ​students​ ​were​ ​suspended​ ​for​ ​wearing​ ​black​ ​armbands​ ​in​ ​protest

of​ ​the​ ​Vietnam​ ​War.​ ​As​ ​can​ ​be​ ​found​ ​in​ ​the​ ​course​ ​textbook,​ ​the​ ​court​ ​decided​ ​that​ ​students​ ​are

free​ ​to​ ​express​ ​themselves,​ ​even​ ​in​ ​regards​ ​to​ ​controversial​ ​issues,​ ​as​ ​long​ ​as​ ​the​ ​protected

expression​ ​does​ ​not​ ​“substantially​ ​interfere​ ​with​ ​the​ ​requirements​ ​of​ ​appropriate​ ​discipline​ ​in​ ​the

operation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​school”​ ​(Cambron-McCabe,​ ​98).​ ​This​ ​case​ ​relates​ ​to​ ​that​ ​of​ ​Bill​ ​Foster​ ​because

his​ ​form​ ​of​ ​expression​ ​was​ ​silent.​ ​He​ ​caused​ ​no​ ​disruption,​ ​and​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​indication​ ​that​ ​his

expression​ ​bothered​ ​of​ ​interfered​ ​with​ ​the​ ​rights​ ​of​ ​his​ ​fellow​ ​students.

In​ ​addition​ ​he​ ​can​ ​use​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​B.​ ​H.​ ​v​ ​Easton​ ​Area​ ​School​ ​District​ ​(2011)​ ​to​ ​support

his​ ​case.​ ​In​ ​this​ ​case​ ​the​ ​court​ ​issued​ ​an​ ​injunction​ ​to​ ​a​ ​middle​ ​school​ ​that​ ​had​ ​banned​ ​students

from​ ​wearing​ ​shirts​ ​that​ ​said​ ​"I​ ​♥​ ​boobies!​ ​(KEEP​ ​A​ ​BREAST)".​ ​The​ ​court​ ​reasoned​ ​that

because​ ​the​ ​shirts​ ​were​ ​not​ ​lewd​ ​and​ ​the​ ​school​ ​could​ ​not​ ​prove​ ​that​ ​they​ ​would​ ​cause

disruption,​ ​they​ ​could​ ​not​ ​be​ ​banned.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​relevant​ ​to​ ​Bill​ ​Foster’s​ ​case​ ​because​ ​he​ ​was

expressing​ ​a​ ​non-lewd,​ ​non-aggressive​ ​message​ ​by​ ​wearing​ ​his​ ​earring.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​not​ ​associated

with​ ​any​ ​gang,​ ​so​ ​his​ ​speech​ ​wasn’t​ ​meant​ ​to​ ​inspire​ ​any​ ​gang​ ​related​ ​activity,​ ​and​ ​no​ ​disruption

resulted​ ​from​ ​him​ ​wearing​ ​it.

However,​ ​ ​the​ ​high​ ​school​ ​can​ ​support​ ​its​ ​case​ ​with​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​of​ ​Bethel​ ​School​ ​District

No.​ ​403​ ​v.​ ​Fraser​ ​(1986).​ ​In​ ​this​ ​case​ ​the​ ​court​ ​upheld​ ​the​ ​school’s​ ​decision​ ​to​ ​discipline​ ​a
Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​4:​ ​Student’s​ ​Rights​ ​and​ ​Responsibilities

student​ ​for​ ​using​ ​lewd​ ​content​ ​in​ ​a​ ​nomination​ ​speech,​ ​which​ ​was​ ​given​ ​at​ ​a​ ​student​ ​government

assembly.​ ​“The​ ​court​ ​majority​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the​ ​school’s​ ​legitimate​ ​interest​ ​in​ ​protecting​ ​the​ ​captive

student​ ​audience​ ​from​ ​lewd​ ​and​ ​vulgar​ ​speech​ ​justified​ ​the​ ​disciplinary​ ​action”

(Cambron-McCabe,​ ​ ​98-99).​ ​This​ ​case​ ​supports​ ​the​ ​school’s​ ​side​ ​because​ ​Bill​ ​was​ ​using​ ​the

earring​ ​to​ ​impress​ ​students​ ​of​ ​the​ ​opposite​ ​gender.​ ​If​ ​the​ ​school​ ​can​ ​prove​ ​that​ ​there​ ​was​ ​a​ ​lewd

meaning​ ​behind​ ​it,​ ​then​ ​they​ ​will​ ​have​ ​been​ ​justified​ ​in​ ​disciplining​ ​Bill.

The​ ​school​ ​can​ ​also​ ​argue​ ​their​ ​defense​ ​with​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Hazelwood​ ​School​ ​District​ ​v

Kuhlmeier​ ​(1988),​ ​in​ ​which​ ​case​ ​a​ ​school​ ​principal​ ​deleted​ ​two​ ​pages​ ​from​ ​a​ ​school​ ​newspaper

which​ ​talked​ ​about​ ​teen​ ​pregnancy​ ​and​ ​divorce​ ​because​ ​of​ ​fears​ ​that​ ​certain​ ​individuals​ ​could​ ​be

identified​ ​in​ ​the​ ​article.​ ​The​ ​court​ ​reasoned​ ​that​ ​the​ ​school​ ​newspaper​ ​was​ ​not​ ​a​ ​public​ ​forum

and​ ​“held​ ​that​ ​school​ ​authorities​ ​can​ ​censor​ ​student​ ​expression​ ​in​ ​school​ ​publications​ ​and​ ​other

school​ ​related​ ​activities​ ​so​ ​long​ ​as​ ​the​ ​censorship​ ​decisions​ ​are​ ​based​ ​on​ ​legitimate​ ​pedagogical

concerns”(Cambron-McCabe,​ ​99).​ ​This​ ​case​ ​supports​ ​the​ ​school’s​ ​defense​ ​because​ ​their​ ​was​ ​a

legitimate​ ​concern​ ​for​ ​the​ ​safety​ ​of​ ​students​ ​because​ ​of​ ​its​ ​relation​ ​to​ ​gang​ ​activity​ ​which​ ​was​ ​a

problem​ ​at​ ​this​ ​particular​ ​school.​ ​Even​ ​though​ ​Bill​ ​himself​ ​was​ ​not​ ​affiliated​ ​with​ ​gang,​ ​other

students​ ​ ​at​ ​the​ ​school​ ​were​ ​and​ ​could​ ​misinterpret​ ​its​ ​meaning​ ​and​ ​cause​ ​disruption​ ​or​ ​greater

misfortune.

In​ ​this​ ​case​ ​I​ ​would​ ​not​ ​think​ ​that​ ​Bill​ ​Foster’s​ ​rights​ ​to​ ​free​ ​expression​ ​were​ ​violated.

Although​ ​the​ ​ruling​ ​of​ ​Tinker​ ​v​ ​Des​ ​Moines​ ​Independent​ ​School​ ​District​ ​(1969)​ ​sets​ ​the

precedent​ ​that​ ​student​ ​speech​ ​is​ ​protected​ ​as​ ​long​ ​as​ ​it​ ​is​ ​undisruptive​ ​and​ ​does​ ​not​ ​interfere​ ​with

the​ ​rights​ ​of​ ​others,​ ​the​ ​school​ ​had​ ​a​ ​legitimate​ ​concern​ ​for​ ​students​ ​well​ ​being​ ​when​ ​it​ ​made​ ​the

rules​ ​that​ ​banned​ ​earrings​ ​from​ ​being​ ​worn​ ​to​ ​school​ ​as​ ​they​ ​were​ ​related​ ​to​ ​gang​ ​activity​ ​present
Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​4:​ ​Student’s​ ​Rights​ ​and​ ​Responsibilities

at​ ​the​ ​school.​ ​As​ ​was​ ​held​ ​in​ ​Hazelwood​ ​School​ ​District​ ​v​ ​Kuhlmeier​ ​(1988),​ ​schools​ ​can​ ​censor

student​ ​expression​ ​as​ ​long​ ​as​ ​there​ ​are​ ​legitimate​ ​concerns​ ​that​ ​the​ ​expression​ ​will​ ​interfere​ ​with

the​ ​education​ ​process.

Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​4:​ ​Student’s​ ​Rights​ ​and​ ​Responsibilities

References

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

B.​ ​H.​ ​v​ ​Easton​ ​Area​ ​School​ ​District,​ ​827​ ​F.​ ​Supp.2d​ ​392​ ​(E.D.​ ​Pa.​ ​Apr.​ ​12,​ ​2011).
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-3rd-circuit/2013/08/05/267359.html

Hazelwood​ ​School​ ​District​ ​v​ ​Kuhlmeier,​ ​484​ ​U.S.​ ​260​ ​(1988),​ ​on​ ​remand​,​ ​840​ ​F.2d​ ​596​ ​(8th
Cir.​ ​1988).

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

Cambron-McCabe,​ ​N.​ ​H.,​ ​McCarthy,​ ​M.​ ​M.,​ ​&​ ​Eckes,​ ​S.​ ​(2014).​ ​Legal​ ​rights​ ​of​ ​teachers​ ​and
students​.​ ​Upper​ ​Saddle​ ​River,​ ​NJ:​ ​Pearson.