Artifact #4 1

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Berenice Perez

EDU 210 Nevada School Law

Artifact #4 2

In the Northeastern United States, a large high school began a school policy that banned

the wearing of anything related to gang symbols like jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic

caps. The school began this new policy because of the gang activities that were frequent around

the school. A high school student, Bill Foster, wore an earring to school as a way to express

himself. He believed the earring was a statement to attract young ladies. Bill Foster was not

involved with any gang activities and was suspended for the earring. As a result, Bill Foster filed

a lawsuit.

The first court case that supports Bill’s case regarding his freedom of expression being

violated is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969). This case discussed the

freedom of expression of a couple of students in junior high school using an armband. This

relates to the case because it is also a form of a symbol like the Northeastern high school

described as banned. Three students in Junior high, John Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and

John's sister, Mary beth tinker wore black wristbands to school in December 1965 to protest the

war in Vietnam. The school staff told the students to take the wristbands off but when they

refused to do so, they were then suspended. As a result, their parents then filed a lawsuit against

the school district saying the schools violated the student's first amendment of the right of

freedom of speech. This act correlates to expressing yourself. The supreme court ruled that

students had the right to free speech or expression, the court took the students' side. This helps

Bill Foster with his case because wearing wristbands or wearing an earring both help express

yourself whether it is a protest or the style because all students have the right to express to a

certain point.
Artifact #4 3

The second court case that helps Bill Foster support his side of having his freedom of

expression rights violated by the school is Guiles attended Williamstown Middle School as a

seventh-grader. He wore a shirt that had an anti-war rally. The shirt was George Washington

with the writing “ Chicken Hawk In Chief”. He had the body of a chicken. There were drugs and

a razor blade. All the expressions on the shirt were of disagreement with the president's policies.

He wore the shirt to school and even though it stood out there were really no disruptions

regarding it until one student complained about it. The other student did not agree with the

political statement but a teacher told him Guiles shirt was protected under the political speech

amendment. A parent then saw the shirt and also felt disturbed from the content on the shirt and

said the drugs and blade were violating the policy. The student was told to cover the disturbing

images with tape which he did. The student then made a lawsuit to the federal district in which

the court ruled that the school violated the student's right to free speech by asking the student to

censor the content on the shirt. Bill had an earring in which was not disturbing anyone, no one

felt disturbed nor offended for another student wearing an earring to express themselves. The

student was not using the earring as a form of gang relation but as expression.

The first case that supports that the school has the right to suspend a student from school

for wearing an earring because it violates the school policy is Boroff v. Van Wert City Board Of

Education. Boroff was a senior at Van Wert High school and August 29, 1997, went to school

wearing a shirt of “ Marilyn Manson” and three faced Jesus with writing “ see no truth, hear no

truth” everything on the shirt was very visible. The school's principal aide Froelich told the

student to either take it off, turn it inside out, or going home to change since the school had a
Artifact #4 4

dress code policy. Instead, the student left school so it was marked truant. Boroff and his mother

went to the school and was again told he was not allowed to wear those shirts but for the

following 4 days he continued to wear the shirts but was constantly told he was violating the

school policy. On September 16, 1997, Boroff’s mother filed a lawsuit against the school saying

the school violated the right to his first amendment but the court denied it. The school had a set

policy and was warned multiple times in which his rights were not violated. This ties in which

the school because a new policy was placed to protect students from gang-related as well as the

policy for Van Wert High school to protect students from offensive illustrations, drugs, alcohol

and tobacco slogans.

The second case that helps the school appeal that they did not violate the student's right to

expression is Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District. Brianna Stephenson was an

eighth-grade student attending Davenport community school. In February 1990 Brianna got a

tattoo on her thumb and index finger of a cross without the intention of symbolizing religion or

gang affiliation, but instead, it was a self-expression symbol according to her. She was an

excellent student and later attended West High school but gang activity kept rising and gang

members threatened other students with rival gang signals or just intimated other no gang-related

students. The superintendent at school sent out letters explaining that any gang-related displays

from students would result in suspension or have a recommendation for expulsion. Stephenson

was told she would have to remove her tattoo or would be suspended, and since furth

investigation summed up that her cross was associated with a gang. She began the process for

tattoo removal and would continue covering her tattoo while attending school during treatments.

September 25 was the last day for her extension on removing the tattoo, the tattoo was removed
Artifact #4 5

but left a scar. Stephenson's mother filed a lawsuit after that. The court ruled that Stephenson's

tattoo did not fall under the first amendment therefore there was no violation. The school's

responsibility is to keep students safe and choosing to stop gang affiliation helps protect students

just like the case of Bill Foster. The tattoo was proven to be gang affiliated as well as the earring

on Bill Foster was described as gang affiliated and breaking the school policy.

In the case of Bill foster v. Northeastern high school, the court will rule as no violation

made by the school. The expression of self was not violated because the school policy indicated

the banner of certain items and gang symbols. The earring was described as such a thing there for

by wearing it, it is violating the school policy. The school is responsible for all student's safety so

controlling the gang affiliation or any is the right thing to do because if it were not done, that

would be negligence. The school is in the right to place policies for all students' safety. Based on

the cases supporting the Northeastern high school all schools placed policies and described that

the expression of oneself by a symbol or by the object under a school policy does not fall under

the first amendment.

Artifact #4 6

Reference

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20080915mo

nday.html

https://www.leagle.com/decision/2000685220f3d4651642

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1097522​.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1101375.html

School Law for Teachers: Concepts and applications

Julie underwood, L. Dean Webb