Running head: STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Student’s Rights and Responsibilities

Tania Sanchez

College of Southern Nevada

November 10, 2019

STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

A student by the name of Bill Foster was suspended because he was wearing an earring.

Before this happened the school, had developed a policy that prohibited certain clothing items

and accessories that may represent relationship to gang activities. Foster however, was not part

of any gang activity and said that he wore an earring, noted in the policy that represent

symbolism in relationship to gangs. Bill Foster stated that wearing the earring was his form of

self-expression. As a result, he was suspended from wearing the earring and he filed a case

because he believes that the school violated his form of self-expression.

The first case that Bill Foster can used to demonstrate that the school did in fact violate

his freedom of expression rights is the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District.

In this case a group of students “were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the

Vietnam war,” (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p.121). It was later determined that the school did in

fact violate the students’ rights freedom of expression by not allowing the students to support the

current situation in Vietnam. The students were not disruptive to their education and the

education of their peers when it came to be wearing the armband. Their suspension was

unnecessary because they were not interfering with the school and the education of their

classmates. Foster can use this case when it comes defending his position because wearing the

earring did not pose any form of disruption when it came to be receiving his education and it also

did not disrupt the education of other students. For piece of attire to be considered disruptive it

must cause a scene on why wearing such earring could pose a threat to him and other students.

Another case Bill Foster can use to back up his file against the school, where the school

violated his freedom expression rights is the case of Doe v. Brockton School Committee. In this

case the court ruled in favor of a student who was cross dressing. The student began wearing
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

female clothing attire even though he was biologically male. This violated the student’s freedom

of expression because he was not allowed to dress in a manner that the student identified with.

The case was later decided that the school did in fact violate the student’s freedom of expression.

Foster can use this case to defend his position because he said that wearing such accessory was a

form of expression. Hence, the school limiting his wanting to wear an earring is violating his

freedom of expression.

On the other hand, some cases that can be used to be defend the school’s position that

Foster’s freedom of expression was not violated is the case of Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of

Education. In this case the school was able to deny a student’s attire because he wore a shirt that

went against the mission of the school. It was considered disruptive and schools can limit what

students wear once they are in school grounds. When schools set up dress codes the schools have

the right to limit the time and the location that the students may express themselves through their

clothing and accessories. Like authors mention in the text, “The restrictions, however, must be

reasonable, must not treat speech differently based on view point, and must be consistently

applied to all expression,” (Underwood and Webb, 2006 p.123). The school had already placed a

dress code that students could not wear earrings because it was believed be in relationship with

gang activity. When Foster decided to show up to school wearing the earring, he violated the

school’s policy.

Lastly, another case that can be used in opposition to Foster’s statement about the

violation of his freedom of expression is the case of Jacobs v. Clark County School District. In

this case the student Kimberly Jacobs brought up a case to the court stating that the school

limited her freedom of expression because she was suspended multiple times for wearing attire

that was not within the guidelines of the school. Jacobs wore a shirt that represented her religion
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

and she stated that the school was violating her rights of the first amendment. It was later decided

that the school was not to be held responsible for violating her freedom of expression because the

school was able to limit expression through their uniform policy. This can be used in opposition

to Foster’s statement because the school can limit what the students wear to create an

environment that is neutral to al students. No one student is going to be singled out because of

what they wear. Foster said wearing the earring was his form of expression but the fact that he

wore the earring held no significance towards anything can deny his statement. Also, the school

had set a dress code and he violated it which can be used to deny his statement.

In conclusion, based on the cases Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education and the

case of Jacobs v. Clark County School District can back up that Bill Foster’s freedom of

expression rights were not violated. In the case of Boroff, the attire wore by the student was

against the school’s mission, so the student was breaking school dress code when the student

wore the shirt. Such as in the case of Bill Foster. The school had clearly detailed a policy where

jewelry was not to be worn on school grounds. Schools have the right to limit what students wear

like it was mentioned in the text, but “The restrictions, however, must be reasonable, must not

treat speech differently based on view point, and must be consistently applied to all expression,”

(Underwood and Webb, 2006 p.123). In the case of Jacobs, likewise she wore a s shirt that did

not follow the guidelines of the dress code. She was not singled out of it all student needed to

follow such regulations. Even though, Bill Foster was not in relation to gangs, wearing earrings

was against the school policy. The school’s purpose was to create an environment where all

students can learn with the least distractive environment where no student can identify with a

certain group based on what clothing or accessories they choose to wear.

STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

References

Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education 532 U.S. 920 (2001)

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1210620.html

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

https://www.icj.org/sogicasebook/doe-v-yunits-et-al-superior-court-of-massachusetts-

united-states-11-october-2000/

Jacobs v. Clark County School District (2008)

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1204345.html

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

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21

Underwood, J & Webb, L. Dean. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.

Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.