1

Students Rights and Responsibilities

Kaila VanDuisen

Students Rights and Responsibilities

College of Southern Nevada

April 29th, 2018

 2
Students Rights and Responsibilities

At a large high school in the Northeastern part of the United States, there was a boy

named Bill Foster. Due to prevalent gang activity, the school began a policy that banned the

wearing of gang symbols like emblems, earrings, jewelry, and athletic caps. Though Foster was

not involved in any gangs, he wore an earring to school as a form of self-expression. Foster also

believed that the wearing of earrings would attractive members of the young females that go to

his school. The school still saw this earring as against the new policy and decided to suspend Bill

Foster for wearing gang jewelry. Afterwards, Foster filed a suit against the school for infringing

on the students First Amendment rights.

On Mr. Foster’s side of the defense we will use the case Chalifoux v. New Caney

Independent School Dist. To form our stance. In summary, this case involved two students who

wore rosaries around their necks to school to symbolizes their religious faith. This school had

also band the wearing of such jewelry due to it being related to certain gangs in the area. The

principal then considered the plastic necklaces as gang attire. The students were found not to be

gang affiliates, but the principal still prohibited them from wearing their rosaries. In this

particular case the prohibition of wearing the necklace was impeding on their freedom of

religious expression. In addition, the terms of gang attire are not clearly stated. The court could

not prove that this was accurately gang attire and the lack of relation between the two left the

courts to not uphold the dress code. In Bill Foster’s case there is the same lack of relation

between earrings and gang affiliation. The courts would also have to rule that they have no proof

that they are connected in anyway.

Secondly, in Fosters defense the case Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District

also supports it. In this case the students wore black arm bands for a silent protest. The Supreme

Court ruled that “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers sed their constitutional
 3
Students Rights and Responsibilities

right to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate.” (1969). During this ruling as

well, they decided the suspensions that were given were unconstitutional. This case also

recognizes the student’s rights but also affirms the school’s grounds on being able to regulate the

rights if it involved a disruption of any kind or the invasion of the rights of others. This case

supports Foster because he was never involved in any gang activity and his earring did not

disrupt any students nor did it invade other student rights. Therefore, him wearing the earring

shouldn’t have made him get suspended.

On the other side of this case, the school also has cases that they could use in their

defense against Foster. For example, Stephenson vs. Davenport Community School District is a

case where a student got a tattoo of a cross on her hand between two fingers. This individual was

an outstanding student and went to school with no incidents occurring. Although, this student did

go to a prevalent gang membered school which caused the school to also ban any gang related

symbols that could be displayed at school. This student said that she enjoyed her tattoo however

it was not tied to any religion, by saying this she cancels out using the expression of religion

argument. This court ruled that this tattoo was not protected under the first amendment. Bill

Foster should not be protected under the first amendment as well if Brianna Stephenson was not

in this case.

In addition to that case the school can also use the case of Boroff vs. Van Wert City Board

of Education. Nicholas Boroff wore a Marilyn Manson shirt to his school that had a picture of a

three headed Jesus on the front. This shirt also said, “hear no truth, see no truth, and speak no

truth.” On the front and on the back said “believe” with an emphasis on the word “lie”. The

principal saw the shirt and sent the student home because the shirt was inappropriately against

the school’s values. In this case the courts decided that a school can prohibit a student from
 4
Students Rights and Responsibilities

wearing a shirt that is offensive on school grounds even if that t-shirt has shown no disruption of

education. Similarly, Fosters school has the right to prohibit a student from wearing items that

are contrary to the school’s mission. 0n Fosters case the school had standards in place to prevent

gang activity and he chose to disregard the school’s regulations. Therefore, the school had the

right to suspend him for his actions.

In conclusion, the student bas a good defense because the school did not have the proof

of a relation to wearing earrings and gang activities. If he also uses the claim that his earring

wearing did not disrupt any sort of education nor did it impede on any other student’s rights, he

has a fair shot in winning. The school’s cases or argument would not be enough to win against

these arguments that Foster is presenting.

 5
Students Rights and Responsibilities

References

Boroff vs. Van Wert City Board of Educ. 220.F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S., 920

(2001) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1210620.html

Chalifoux vs. New Caney Independent School Dist., 976 F. Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997)

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19971635976FSupp659_11551/CHALIFOUX%20v.%2

0NEW%20CANEY%20INDEPENDENT%20SCHOOL%20DIST

Stepehenson vs. Davenport Community School District, 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997)

http://www.ahcuah.com/lawsuit/federal/stephen.htm

Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/393/503.html