Running Head: STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Students Rights and Responsibilities:

Bill Foster’s Freedom of Speech and Expression

Jennifer Cook

College of Southern Nevada

 STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Students Rights and Responsibilities:

Bill Foster’s Freedom of Speech and Expression

Bill Foster, a student at a large northeastern high school in the United States, decided to

wear an earring to school one day to impress the ladies. Although Bill Foster was not in a gang,

he was suspended due to the schools dress code policy that prohibited the wearing of gang

symbols including jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. The school initiated the dress

code policy due to prevalent gang activity at the school. Bill Foster filed suit against the school

for infringing on his freedom of expression.

Bill argues that “the First Amendment protects all forms of expression, not only verbal

communication and protected expression may also be written or symbolic” (Underwood &

Webb, 2006, p. 120). He states that his earring is a symbolic speech protected by the First

Amendment. He also argues that his earring was not a disruption to the school like in the Doe v.

Brocton School Comm. court case (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 124), where the court ruled in

favor of the student. Bill states that his freedom of expression was violated and he should not

have been suspended because his earring was not a disruption nor did it relate to a gang.

Bill also argues that his earring did not relate to gangs which is the reason the school

adopted the dress code policy. He states that the school was “absent in a rational relationship

between the dress code and the activity it aimed to curtail” (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 125),

like in the court case, Stephenson v. Davenport Comm. He believes that because he is not in a

gang and the earring was not a disruption in school that he should not have been suspended and

should be allowed to wear his earring in school.

The school, on the other hand, considers his earring to be a violation of the school’s dress

code policy and gang related. The school argues that the earring is “materially and substantially
 STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

disruptive” (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 121) and they have every right to suspend him for

dress code violation, just like in the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District.

The Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District court case “recognized students rights, but

reinforced the schools’ authority to regulate those rights if the exercise of rights might be

reasonably predicted to cause a material and substantial disruption or invasion of the rights of

others” (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 121). The school states that Bill was a disruption to the

school because the earring was underlined in the schools dress code policy as gang related.

The school also states that they had “accurately described the gang attire it sought to

restrict” in the dress code policy (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 125). It clearly stated no

earrings in the policy set forth by the school prior to the violation being made, unlike the

Stephenson v. Davonport Community School District court case ruling. The school also had

every right to prohibit such attire that promoted gang activities, which were contrary to the

values of the school’s educational mission like in the court case, Boroff v. Van Wert City Board

of Educ. The schools policy clearly stated the dress code policy of no earrings even if the

student was not in a gang.

Due to the fact that the school did set forth a dress code prior to Bill Foster’s violation, I

believe that the court should uphold the dress code and not rule in favor of Bill Foster. The

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District landmark case not only gave rights to student

expression, it also gave schools the right to exercise reasonable restrictions on the students

freedom of expression. It holds especially true, if it the violation is disruptive and in a closed

forum, such as in the classroom. Although I am an advocate in exercising the freedom of

expression, Bill Foster is in violation of the dress code policy at his school and should not be

able to win his case.

 STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

References

Bonner, A., Hines, J. (1994). Death by Cheeseburger: High school journalism in the 1990’s

and beyond. Arlington, VA: The Freedom Forum.

Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education 220 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S.

920 (2001).

Doe v. Brocton School Committee, 2000 WL 33342399 (Mass. App. 2000).

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

vs. New Caney Independent School District.,976 F. Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997).

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

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.