Portfolio Artifact #4

  1  
 

Portfolio Artifact #4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

EDU 210: Nevada School Law

Professor Warby

Cassidy Hart

2/20/2018
Portfolio Artifact #4   2  
 
Abstract

In this assignment there is a court case in which a student, Bill Foster was suspended

for wearing an earring to school. I have presented both sides of his case, in which the court

rules in favor of the student, and in which the court rules in favor of the school. At the end, I

say how I believe from the evidence and research found, the court should rule the case.

In the North East United States, a pretty large high school came up with a policy

prohibiting the wearing of gang symbols. These gang symbols included jewelry, emblems,

earrings, and athletic caps. The policy was created because of several different gang activities

that were occurring in the school. One student, Bill Foster, was not involved in gang activity,

but he wore an earring to school as a form of self-expression. He believed personally that the

earring was attractive to young ladies. He was suspended for his act, and he filed suit.

Similar to this scenario with Bill Foster, is the Tinker v. Des Moines court case. In

this court case, a group of students decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the

war in Vietnam. The school board found out of the protest and passed a ban (ACLU, par1).

When one of the students, arrived at school she was asked to remove the armband. She

refused to remove the it, and was then sent home. Four other students were suspended, and

the students were told they could not return to school until they agreed to remove their

armbands. “The students returned to school after the Christmas break without armbands, but

in protest wore black clothing for the remainder of the school year (ACLU, 2006, par2).” The

Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could

not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process. Because wearing a

black armband was not disruptive, the Court held that the First Amendment protected the
Portfolio Artifact #4   3  
 
right of students to wear one. Similar to Bill Foster’s situation, because the earring that Bill

was wearing is not disruptive, he should be allowed to wear it.

The court case, Doe v. Brockton School Comm, was also similar to the scenario

given of Bill Foster. In this case, a transgender student Pat Doe was prohibited from

attending school due to cross-dressing. The student was expressing freedom of speech by

the clothing that was worn, just as Bill was expressing his freedom of speech by the

earring that he wore. In the Doe v. Brockton court case, the court ruled that, “Disciplining

a biologically male student for wearing girls clothing violates her First Amendment rights

of free expression and constitutes sex discrimination (Glad, 2018, par1).” I believe that

just as the court ruled in favor of the student in this case, they should also rule in favor of

Bill because of the First Amendment rights of free expression.

In the Hazelwood V. Kuhlmeier court case, students wrote a school newspaper as part

of their journalism class. One of the issues was to include student-written articles about teen

pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids (First Amendment Schools, par1). Once the

students in the class wrote these articles, the principal objected to the stories. He believed

that, “they were inappropriate for the younger students and unfair to the pregnant students

who might be identified from the text of the article (First Amendment Schools, 2018, par1).”

The articles from the school newspaper were deleted. Three students sued, claiming a

violation of their First Amendment rights. Just as the given scenario with Bill Foster, students

were trying to express themselves through jewelry, or through freedom of speech. The court

ruled in favor of the school, and against the students. This is because Educators have greater

authority to control student speech that occurs in school-sponsored activities (First

Amendment Schools, par4). This is why Bill Foster’s freedom of expression, by wearing an
Portfolio Artifact #4   4  
 
earring is not acceptable, because once again, Educators have greater authority to control

student speech that occurs in school-sponsored activities.

The Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education court case was also similar to Bill

Foster’s situation. A student in high school wore a t-shirt to school with the name of the

shock rocker Marilyn Manson on it (First Amendment Schools, par2). This student was using

his freedom of expression. The shirt depicted a three-faced Jesus, bearing the words "See No

Truth. Hear No Truth. Speak No Truth." On the back, the shirt contained the word

"BELIEVE" with the letters "LIE" highlighted (First Amendment Schools, par1). A school

official told the student that the T-shirt violated the school’s dress code policy. The school

official told the student to either turn the shirt inside out or leave school; the student left and

returned the next day with another Marilyn Manson t-shirt (First Amendment Schools, par2).

He was again sent home. The student sued, claiming a violation of his First Amendment

rights. It was ruled that school officials may prohibit students from wearing clothing that is

vulgar or offensive. Just like this case, the earring that Bill Foster was wearing, could have

been seen as offensive or vulgar, because of the recent gang activity. Although Bill was not

really part of a gang, he has to abide by the rules it order to ensure safety.

I believe that Bill’s freedom of expression was indeed violated in this case.

The First Amendment applies to public schools, and school officials cannot censor student’s

speech unless it is disruptive to the educational process. In Bill’s situation, I believe that his

earring was not disruptive to the educational process. Bill has his freedom of speech rights

through expression, and by him wearing an earring, he is causing no harm. The court should

rule in favor of the student, Bill.

Portfolio Artifact #4   5  
 
References

ACLU. Tinker v. Des Moines - Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Behalf of Student

Expression, 2006. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from

https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-

behalf-student-expression

First Amendment Schools. The Five Freedoms - Court Case, Boroff v. Van Wert City Board

of Education. 2018. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from

http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=1685

First Amendment Schools. The Five Freedoms - Court Case, Hazelwood Sch. Dist.. v.

Kuhlmeier. 2018. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from

http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=186

Glad. Doe v. Yunits, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from

https://www.glad.org/cases/pat-doe-v-yunits/