Running Header: Portfolio Four: Students Rights and Responsibilities

Earrings the Next Big Trend

Madison Smith
College of Southern Nevada EDU 210-1001
November 1, 2014

Portfolio Four: Students Rights and Responsibilities

2

Jewelry, emblems, earring, and athletic caps were banned from a high school because
they were a sign of gang symbols. After gang activities took place at the school the policy was
developed. Thinking he would attract the ladies, Bill Foster, who was not affiliated with a gang,
wore an earring to school. He was later suspended and filed suit.
In 1965 a group of students wore armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. They
were previously told that if they did this they would be suspended and that is exactly what
happened. They were suspended and then they sued the school. After a long battle the final
verdict was that the students were protected under the first amendment and the suspension was
unjust (TINKER v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
1965). Given the ruling in the case of Tinker V. Des Moines, it would support the favor of Foster.
Foster just wore the earring because he is a boy and likes girls, he was not going to go out and
murder someone, just because of what he wore. He wanted to express himself in a way that may
have been affiliated with gangs, but he was not in a gang. Foster would be protected under the
Constitution.
This case that is currently being decided helps to support the freedom of speech that
Foster deserves. A high school student, during the Olympics, held up a sign that said bong hits 4
Jesus. The teacher told him to put it away and after he refused she took it away from him, and
later suspended him. This is currently called, Frederick v. Morse (FACTS AND CASE
SUMMARY: MORSE V. FREDERICK, 2002). Even though there has been no decision made,
this still supports Fosters case. They both have the right to freedom of speech. They were not
forcing other people to partake in certain action, nor were they necessarily partaking in these
activities themselves.

Portfolio Four: Students Rights and Responsibilities

3
In the Newsome V. Albemarle County School Board, a student Alan Newsom, claimed
that his schools dress code was unconstitutional. After his shirt reminded a teacher of a shooting
at a school, she told him to turn it inside out, which he did, but he still filed the claim. His motion
was denied (NEWSOM NEWSOM v. ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 2003). In
this case it support the school Foster attends. All it took was one person to be offended by
Newsomes shirt, it would only take one person for Foster as well. The earring is still considered
gang related, even though his intentions were clean, that one person takes his message the wrong
way and it is all over.
In another current case, a high school student, was suspended from her softball team
without prior notice. She took the school and the coach to court. The final case decision has still
not been decided, but it would seem that the students claims have been dismissed, so far. This
case is referred to as, Wooten V. Pleasant Hope R-VI School District (WOOTEN v. PLEASANT
HOPE R-VI SCHOOL DIST., 2000). Not enough information is given as to whether or not he
knew about the no gang related rule, but this case supports the fact that he still broke the rules
and should face the consequences.
After reviewing all of the cases; Tinker V. Des Moines; Frederick v. Morse; the Newsome
V. Albemarle County School Board; and Wooten V. Pleasant Hope R-VI School District: I have
come to the conclusion that Foster should not be suspended for this, but dress coded. He has the
right to freedom of speech as stated in Tinker V. Des Moines and Frederick V. Morse. He has not
been linked to these gang related activities, but he was told that he could not wear the earring,
which is why being dress coded is a better verdict.

Portfolio Four: Students Rights and Responsibilities

4
References
FACTS AND CASE SUMMARY: MORSE V. FREDERICK. (2002, January 2). Retrieved from
United States Courts : http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/getinvolved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/free-speech-school-conduct/facts-casesummary.aspx

NEWSOM NEWSOM v. ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD. (2003, December 1).

Retrieved from Findlaw: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1173598.html

TINKER v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. (1965,

December). Retrieved from Oyez: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21

WOOTEN v. PLEASANT HOPE R-VI SCHOOL DIST. (2000, November 8). Retrieved from
Leagle: http://www.leagle.com/decision/2000974139FSupp2d835_1894.xml/WOOTEN
%20v.%20PLEASANT%20HOPE%20R-VI%20SCHOOL%20DIST