Running head: Artifact # 4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 1

Artifact # 4

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Yailin Solis

College of Southern Nevada

October 5, 2019
Running head: Artifact # 4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 2

In the Northeastern part of the united states, a large high school initiated a policy

prohibiting the wearing of gang symbols like jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. This

policy went into effect due to gang activities that were present in the school. A student by the

name of Bill foster wore an earring to school as self-expression however for this action he was

suspended. Bill did not pertain to any gang activity and only wore the earing because it attracted

young ladies.

Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board (2003) will be the first case presented

against Bill fosters unfair suspensions caused by the earing he wore to school. In the case,

Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board (2003) Alan Newsom a student attending Jouette

Middle school wore a T-shirt with the initials NRA and a picture of three gunmen. Jouette’s

dress code policy prohibited any apparel that was associated with weapons and violence.

Newsom was never suspended for wearing his T-shirt however he was asked to turn it inside out.

Newsom filed a lawsuit and had support from the NRA, ACLU, Rutherford Institute. The verdict

of this case was in favor of Newsome because his speech was similar to Tinker v. Des Moines

School Dist. (1969). As stated in Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969) “student speech

within the school environment, and as such was entitled to constitutional protection unless the

speech is disruptive”. Jouette failed to present that Newsom or any other student who wore a

clothing piece related to weapons would or has caused an issue at school. As presented in this

case Bill would not cause any harm because he decided to wear an earring, nor does it mean he is

in a gang. His suspension violated his freedom of speech.

Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969) will be the second case presented against Bill

fosters unfair suspensions caused by the earing he wore to school. In the case Tinker v. Des

Moines School Dist. (1969) three students in Des Moines, Iowa were suspended from school for
Running head: Artifact # 4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 3

wearing black armbands to protest the Government’s policy in Vietnam. The school originally

had a policy that any student who wore an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and if

they refused, they would be suspended until they no longer wore the armband. The final verdict

of this case was in favor of the students who got suspended because the students were not

causing any commotion while wearing their armbands. “Their conduct was within the protection

of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth” (1969). Although Bill’s school had a policy that earings were not allowed he chose

to wear one as well and did it without causing a commotion among his peers. His conduct is

protected by the Free speech clause.

Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Educ.(2000) will be the first case present in favor of

Bill Foster's suspension for the earing he wore to school. In the case, Boroff v. Van Wert City

Board of Educ.(2000) Boroff a student attending Van Wert High School decided to wear a

“Marilyn Manson” T-shirts to school and as a result every day the student wore those T-shirts he

was told that it was against school dress code to wear such shirts. The “Marilyn Manson shirts

were considered to be offensive and not acceptable. His mother then decided to file a lawsuit

against the school's actions towards her son and his self-expression. The verdict of this case was

in favor of the school Van Vert High school because it was concluded that “ a school may

prohibit a student from wearing a T-shirt that is offensive, but not obscene, on school grounds,

even if the T-shirt has not been shown to cause a substantial disruption of the academic

program”(2000). Bill Foster's freedom expression rights were not violated because the school's

dress code policy stated the prohibition of any form of gang-related activities including earings.

The school was trying to prevent violence within its students and Bill foster disobeyed the dress

code, therefore, he was suspended.

Running head: Artifact # 4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 4

Paul Palmer v. Waxahachie Independent School District (2009) will be the second

case in favor of Bill Foster's suspension for the earing he wore to school. In the case, Paul

Palmer v. Waxahachie Independent School District (2009) a then-sophomore named Palmer

wore a T-shirt to school with “ San Diego” written on it this shirt according to the principal

violated the Districts dress code. Palmer’s parents then brought him a new shirt with a “John

Edwards for President '08” logo which was also against District’s dress code. Palmer then sued

the District arguing that they were violating his freedom of speech. The Verdict of that case was

in favor of the school district because Palmer violated the school's dress code even if it did not

pose any threat or had gang-related messages. The court dismissed Palmer's claims. Bill Foster's

rights were not violated because he did not follow the school's dress code policy. Although Bill

may not be associated in a gang the school policy still stated that no earrings may be worn at

school.

In conclusion, I believe that the court will rule in Bill Foster's favor because his Freedom

of speech is being violated. As presented in Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board (2003)

Newsom wore a T-shirt that contained references to weapons however the court ruled in his

favor since it was not proven that wearing that T-shirt will cause violence. It also cannot be

proven that Bill Foster will join any gang-related activity because he decided to wear an earring

to school. Lastly Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969) is another example of why the court

will rule in favor of Foster because he went against the school's dress code however he caused no

commotion while doing so. Besides, Foster was simply expressing his beliefs that earnings made

him attractive to girls. It can also not be proven that the use of earrings among men links them to

gang-related activities.
 Running head: Artifact # 4 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 5

References

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education

(2000). ). Retrieved October 3, 2019 from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-

circuit/1210620.html

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board

(2003). Retrieved October 3, 2019 from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1173598.html

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. Palmer v. Waxahachie Independent school

District (2009). Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-

circuit/1251036.html

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969).

Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/393/503.html

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers' Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle

River: Pearson Education.