Artifact 4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 1

Artifact 4

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Cynthia Guzman

College of Southern Nevada

EDU 210 - 1004

November 11, 2018

Artifact 4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 2

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

In the northeastern part of the U.S. a large high school issued a policy prohibiting the

wearing of gang symbols. These symbols were laid out as being jewelry, emblems, earrings and

athletic caps. The policy was initiated because of gang activities prevalent in the school. Bill

Foster wore an earring to school and was suspended for it. Foster was not related in any gang

activity. He wore the earring as a form of self expression and thinking the earring would attract

young ladies. He then filed a lawsuit. The question in this case and the question the court will

have to answer is whether Foster’s “freedom of expression” rights was violated.

The first case that will be presented to support the court’s ruling of Bill Foster’s school

violating his “freedom of expression” rights is ​Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District

(1969). This case took place during the Vietnam War era. Three students were suspended for

wearing black armbands in protest of the war. The Supreme Court found that the suspensions

were unconstitutional. They found that the students did have rights to free speech but could be

limited if the school could show that the speech would disrupt school activities. Schools have to

have substantial proof of disruption of a student’s speech in order to limit them. “However, the

school must show more than a desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that accompany

unpopular viewpoints,” (Underwood & Webb). This case support the court’s decision that

Foster’s school does violate his rights because the earring he wore was a symbol of expression.

Unlike ​Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District​ (1969) Foster wasn’t trying to make a

political statement, he just wore the earring because it was attractive to young ladies. He also

said he wore it as a form of self-expression.

Artifact 4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 3

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser ​(1969) will be the second case that will support

the court’s ruling that the school violated Foster’s rights. This case involves Mathew Fraser

nominating a classmate for student council office in a high school assembly of approximately

600 students using a graphic sexual metaphor. Fraser was suspended for 2 days. The Lower

courts found that the suspension was violating his rights to free speech, “and that his speech was

not disruptive under the ​Tinker​ guidelines,” (Underwood & Webb). The Supreme Court then

examined the case but went beyond just focusing on the guidelines but to focusing on the content

of the speech. The Supreme Court came to the decision that the school board has the authority to

prohibit vulgar and offensive speech or conduct that does not follow the school’s mission. This

case supports the court’s decision that Foster’s “freedom of expression” rights were violated

because the earring is neither vulgar or offensive. The earring also does not harm any of the other

students at the school. It is not disruptive to the school like Fraser’s sexual metaphor.

The first case that will be presented in favor of the court deciding that Foster’s school did

not violate his “freedom of expression” rights is ​Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education

(2000). In this case a Nicholas Boroff went to school wearing a Marilyn Manson T-shirt. The

school, Van Wert High School in Ohio, considered it offensive based on the band’s promotion of

values which was contrary to the ones of the school’s educational mission. Van Wert High

School prohibited Boroff from wearing it again. Boroff’s mother filed the lawsuit claiming the

administrator’s refusal violated his rights. The court ruled and supported that the school board

could prohibit a student from wearing a particular item of clothing considered offensive. The

Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education ​(2000) case supports the court’s decision because

they see Foster’s earring as offensive since it is associated with gang activities which have been
Artifact 4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 4

prevalent in the school. Without being given the school’s educational mission, we can assume

that gang activity goes against it. Foster’s rights were not violated.

Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District (​ 1997) will be the second case

presented in favor of the court ruling that Foster’s school did not violate his “freedom of

expression” rights. This case involved David Chalifoux and Jerry Robertson who were 2 students

enrolled at the New Caney High School who were prohibited from wearing rosaries outside their

clothing while on school premises. They were informed by school officials that the rosaries were

gang related paraphernalia. Chalifoux and Robertson filed a lawsuit against the school claiming

that their First Amendment rights had been violated. Neither of them take part of any gang

activity. The NCISD dress code prohibits the wearing of gang related apparel. The courts ruled

that the school’s prohibition of rosaries did violate the two students’ rights since their dress code

handbook was vague and they must define gang related apparel with specificity. The ​Chalifoux v.

New Caney Independent School District ​(1997) case supports the court’s decision that the school

did not violate Bill Foster’s rights because in his situation, his school was very specific. The

items that they listed related to gang activity were; jewelry, emblems, earrings and athletic caps.

Foster wore the earring knowing it was on the list of items associated with gang activity. The

school knows these items are related to gang activities because prevalent at Foster’s school. This

being said his rights were not violated.

After reviewing these cases I think the court will rule that Bill Foster’s “freedom of

expression” rights were not violated. I’ve come to this conclusion from examining the two cases

Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District (​ 1997) and ​Boroff v. Van Wert City Board

of Education ​(2000). In ​Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education (​ 2000) case a student’s shirt
Artifact 4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 5

was prohibited from being worn since the content on the clothing item was found offensive to the

school’s educational mission. Foster’s earring if found offensive by his school and we can

assume it goes against their educational mission. In ​Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School

District (​ 1997) case two students were suspended and prohibited from wearing their rosaries

because their school recognized it as gang related paraphernalia. In this case the court ruled their

suspension unjust and that the school’s dress code handbook wasn’t specific enough. Foster’s

school was extremely specific as to what classified as gang related objects so they didn’t violate

Bill Foster’s “freedom of expression” rights since they had stated clearly what would not be

allowed.
Artifact 4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 6

Works Cited

Justia. (2018). ​Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School Dist., 976 F. Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex.

1997).​ Retrieved from

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/976/659/1582548/

Reuters, Thomson. (n.d). ​BOROFF v. VAN WERT CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION

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

(2000). R

Underwood, Julie, and L. Dean. Webb. (2006) ​School Law for Teachers: Concepts and

Applications. ​Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.