210 Portfolio Artifact #4

Students Rights and Responsibilities

Adamarys Hernandez

The College of Southern Nevada

 The case of Bill Foster is very similar to the law Tinker v. Des Moines School District U.S

503 (1969) which was under the first amendment that explained why a student has the right to

practice freedom of expression by clothing or accessories. Bill foster was suspended from school

due to him wearing an earring that was against the policies the school had announced. In the Tinker

v. Des Moines case a group of students planned to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black arm

bands outside of their clothing. Many staff and students tried to stop their protest by threatening

them with harm or suspension if they proceeded with their plan. Fosters schools had implemented

a policy that banned things like earrings, jewelry, and athletic caps in order to stop any gang

relevance due to a recent gang activity that happened. The students protesting the Vietnam War

won the case due to the suspension being unconstitutional because they did not lose the right to

free speech at the door of the school they entered. This is quite similar to Bill Fosters case because

he was suspended while using his first amendment right to freedom of expression through the way

he chose to dress just like the students with their black arm bands. I would say this would mean

Bill Foster does have a case and has a good chance of winning.

A good example of a case that could be used in Bill Foster’s favor is Mahaffey v Aldrich,

236 F. Supp. 2d 779(E.D. Mich. 2002). This case showed how a student has the right to free speech

under the first amendment when a student named Joshua Mahaffey created a website that was

considered threatening from a lot of the staff at his school. He was later suspended and was in the

process of expulsion, but his parents withdrew him from the school and enrolled him somewhere

else. His parents filed a claim stating their son’s due process rights were violated and the courts

agreed with them. This would indicated Bill does have a case due to the school suspending him

just like they did Joshua and violating both their first amendment rights by resulting to suspension.

It proved that even though the students expressed their own opinions in different ways, they had
the absolute right to do so under the first amendment and no punishment for that reason should

have been enforced.

Another good example of a case that can be used to favor Bill Foster is the case Doe v.

Brockton School Comm as stated in chapter 7. This was a case that ruled in favor of a student’s

cross-dressing because the school did not show any disruption. I see Bill wearing an earring to

school gives a great example of no disruption. Earring are very small and most of the time very

hard to notice if you are not paying attention. I can not see in any way how this could stop a student

from focusing on their class work unless the other student is doing something on purpose to make

it known. In Bill’s case he simply wore an earring to school and acted as if nothing had been

different from any other day he attended school. This case would probably be my main piece of

evidence when it comes to getting Bill’s case considered to be wrongful doing.

To have a liable claim against the case of Bill Foster the courts could use the case Botoff

v Van Wert City Board of Education that basically agreed that the school could stop a student

from wearing a Marilyn Manson shirt that was considered to be offensive because of the band’s

values to the school’s education mission. This became effective July of 2000 and denied the appeal

of a high school student who believed he should’ve been able to wear his Marilyn Manson shirt to

school. The shirt did show their beliefs on many different aspects of life with religion being the

main focus. Bill Foster’s school cause use this as an example of the earring could make another

student attending the school feel uncomfortable because it may be going against their beliefs. This

could lead to Bill not having a case due to the fact the school can state his earring could have been

considered offensive or demoralized certain values of education.

For the case of Bethel School District. No. 403 vs Fraser, 478 U.S 675(1986) a school was

allowed to restrict a student’s speech, even if there was no disruption that occurred during the
speech. Matthew Fraser gave a speech to his friend for a nomination and it was full of sexual

references. Matthew was later suspended for 2 days for the speech and he filed a lawsuit against

the school. The courts ruled the suspension in the school favor due to the authority to prohibit

speech and conduct of things such as the speech Matthew gave. This could be used against Bill to

show how they are allowed to prohibit certain speeches of student that may present it in an

unmannerly way. They could consider bill trying to make a statement from wearing the earring

against school policy and claim it to be presented unmannerly against the school rules.

Bill Foster was a student who meant no harm to anyone and wanted to wear an earring to

school because he had the total right to. Despite a recent school policy that for bided such action,

Bill decided to still do so with wearing his earring and still ended up being wrongfully punished

even though he was using his first amendment right. There are certain cases out there than do have

the right to oppose what Foster did do, but his case did not show any type of disruption to anyone

or anything by wearing this earring. I believe he was done wrongfully and his choice to experience

how he felt through jewelry was his absolute right and did not need to lead to suspension. Schools

need to understand not everyone can think and dress the same and some students may want to

school that. Even though it was against school policy Foster showed no types of interruptions that

could interfere with any other students learning and that why I believe he was in no wrong to use

his freedom of expression.

 References
FindLaw's United States Sixth Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved from

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

MAHAFFEY v. ALDRICH. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20021126_0000122.EMI.htm/qx

PETER DOE [Note 1] & another [Note 2] vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF

STOUGHTON & another. [Note 3]. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/437/437mass1.html

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. (n.d.). Retrieved from

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