STUDENTS RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES

Students Rights & Responsibilities

Erika Barron

College of Southern Nevada

STUDENTS RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Gang activities were rampant in a large high school in the northeastern United States.

Due to this, the school introduced a dress code that prohibited anything that would represent

certain gang or gang-like activity, such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. A

student, Bill Foster, was not associated with any gangs. One day, Bill wore an earring to school.

He believed his earring had nothing to do with gangs, but with self-expression. Plus, he thought

that all the girls at school liked his earring. He was suspended for it. Due to being suspended,

Bill sued the school on the grounds that his First Amendment rights were violated.

According to the book, where dress is considered protected speech, then attire (possibly

including hairstyles, tattoos, and piercings) can be restricted only if it is materially and

substantially disruptive, pervasively vulgar, or harmful (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 124).

The school noticed that certain apparel was associated with certain gangs and gang activity. With

the activity increasing, the school restricted certain attire due to its disruptive, harmful nature. A

case defending this would be Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education. In the Boroff case,

[t]he Supreme Court has held that the school board has the authority to determine what

manner of speech in the classroom or in school is inappropriate (Boroff v. Van Wert City

Board of Education, 2000). The school board deemed garb that was gang related or gang

affiliated such as earrings, other jewelry, athletic caps, and emblems to be inappropriate, and

according to Boroff, they have that right. Also, while Bills earring may be self-expression and

the ladies may like it, in the case of Boroff, [t]he Court has determined that [a] school need not

tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission even though the

government could not censor similar speech outside the school. (Boroff v. Van Wert City

Board of Education, 2000). The educational mission of the school was to provide a learning

environment in which others could feel safe. With the gang related activity increase, the school
STUDENTS RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES 2

could no longer provide a safe school setting, so they implemented a dress code to keep their

educational mission intact. Bill was in violation of those dress codes and the school had every

right to suspend him.

Another case in support of the school would be Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board.

According to the case, [w]hile certain forms of expressive conduct and speech are sheltered

under the First Amendment, constitutional protection is not absolute, especially in the public

school setting. Educators have an essential role in regulating school affairs and establishing

appropriate standards of conduct (Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board, 2001). With this

said, the school is allowed to designate a dress code that regulated the amount of gang activities

that were increasing. It was essential in assuring that for school establish appropriate standards

of conduct, then the dress code needed to be imposed and enforced. Also, [t]he uniform

requirement does not bar the important personal intercommunication among students necessary

to an effective educational process (Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board, 2001). Students

were able to continue their friendships and their conversations even with the dress code enforced.

It did not bar them from communicating and interacting with each other.

A case that could be used in the defense of Bill would be Tinker v. Des Moines

Independent School District. According to the book, the Supreme Court found that the students

did have rights to free speech, but that they could be limited if the school had facts that

reasonably led it to believe that the speech would substantially disrupt school activities

Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 121). (With an increase in gang related activities occurring at the

school, a strict dress code was enforced which excluded earrings and other jewelry. However,

Bills earring did not cause an uproar nor did it disrupt school activities. The students in the

Tinker case neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the
STUDENTS RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES 3

lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work

and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to

deny their form of expression (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 1969). The

same could be said for Bill, he simply wore an earring as a statement of self-expression. He

didnt cause any gang riots or disrupt school events or activities. In fact, Freedom of expression

would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government

has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. The Constitution says that Congress (and the States)

may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says (Tinker v. Des

Moines Independent School District, 1969). Bills right to free speech and self-expression was

protected and the school violated that protection.

Another case in support of Bill would be Stephenson v. Davenport Community School

District. Policies should be written to ensure they reasonably relate to their asserted purpose and

are not vague (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 125). Earrings specifically were mentioned in the

dress code, but were the girls allowed to wear earrings or were just the boys not allowed? And

what did an earring have to do with gang activity? Were certain gangs wearing certain earrings in

certain ears to discern that they were a part of that gang? On top of that, what dictates that a gang

member is solely around to invoke violence upon others? According to the Supreme Court, the

definition of the term gang is very vague and found no evidence that gang has ever been

limited in meaning to a group having purpose to commit any particular offense or class of

crimes, or that it has not quite frequently been used in reference to groups of two or more

persons not to be suspected of criminality or of anything that is unlawful (Stephenson v.

Davenport Community School District, 1997). So, the gang activity that was on the rise at the

high school could only be describe as vague and, potentially, might not even be violent or
STUDENTS RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES 4

disruptive in nature. The Court also found that the District regulation fails to provide adequate

notice of prohibited conduct because the term gang, without more, is fatally vague

(Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 1997). Again, what does the earring

have to do with gangs, and can the female students wear earrings? Gang symbols were banned,

but what qualifies as a gang symbol? This definition of attire is very vague as it does not

explain what exactly qualifies as a symbol of a particular gang or its activities. As with this high

school, the Court found that [t]he District regulation suffers from an additional defect because it

allows school administrators and local police unfettered discretion to decide what represents a

gang symbol (Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 1997). I ask again, what

does the earring have to do with gangs? And how did the school come to the conclusion that

Bills earring is a gang symbol? Bills earring was a symbol of self-expression, not a gang. The

dress code stated that attire that was associated with a gang was banned, but Bills earring had

nothing to do with a gang, therefore, his earring should not have caused a suspension.

Like the last case, this was a tricky one. There are several cases in support of the school

and the student. In fact, I think I found the case this example was based off of. But, with the

information I was given and the research I have done, I would have to side with Bill and I

believe the courts would agree with me. I came to this conclusion on the sole fact that the dress

code was very vague in what could or could not be worn. It also did not mention if girls could

wear earrings, but not boys. There was also no description of what qualified as gang related in

terms of attire or activity, so why was Bills earring deemed a quality reason for suspension?

Thanks to the cases I found in support of Bill and his situation, I would have to side with Bill on

this one.
STUDENTS RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES 5

References

Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education. (2000) Retrieved from

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

Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board. (2001) Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-

5th-circuit/1047560.html

Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District. (1997) Retrieved from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1097522.html

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. (1969) Retrieved from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503

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

Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.