Running head: STUDENT’S RIGHTS 1

Artifact #3: Student’s Rights and Responsibilities

Cecilia Andrade Salcedo

College of Southern Nevada

1
STUDENT’S RIGHTS 2

Abstract

In a hypothetical scenario, a student by the name of Bill Foster attended a large high

school in the northeastern United States. Recently the school had initiated a policy which did not

allow the students to wear any jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps because of their

connotations to gang activities. Foster decided to wear an earring to school to express himself

and to be more attractive to the girls in his school. Foster was suspended for his decision and he

then filed a law suit. According to previous court cases like Tinker v. Des Moines Independent

School District of 1969, Olsen v. Board of Education of 1987, and Chalifoux v. New Caney

Independent School District of 1997 there are different possible outcomes for this scenario.
STUDENT’S RIGHTS 3

In the United States, every person has rights, no matter what color of their skin is or what

language they speak. One of the most valuable rights a person has is the freedom of speech and

expression. The freedom of speech and expression is granted to every person in the United States

under the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. As stated in the

Constitution, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of

the people peaceably to assemble … (Staff, 2010)” Although freedom of speech and expression

is granted by the Constitution, there are certain places and times when this right is not protected.

Therefore, people should be informed and responsible for their actions to prevent incidents like

Bill Foster’s. Bill Foster, who was not involved in any gang activity, wore an earring to school as

a form of self-expression and a belief that the earring made him more attractive. Bill was then

suspended for this act as the school had recently initiated a policy prohibiting the wearing of

gang symbols such as jewelry, emblems, earrings and athletic caps. Bill felt he was treated

unfairly and filed a lawsuit.

As stated in the United States Constitution, the First Amendment states that the

government may not make any law that would establish a religion in the country, stop freedom of

speech, stop people from practicing their own religion, stop the press from printing and

publishing what they want or stop people from exercising their right to assemble peacefully or

demonstrating against the government (First Amendment, 2013). In the case of Bill Foster, his

first amendment rights were violated by being suspended for expressing himself. Although, the

school had recently developed a policy stating students could not wear gang related symbols, the

use of earrings are not necessary a gang symbol or gang related. Therefore, Bill Foster is right to

sue the school for violation of his First Amendment rights.

STUDENT’S RIGHTS 4

In the landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,

Christopher Eckhardt, a teenage boy held a meeting in his house to plan a public showing of for

their support for peace in the Vietnam War. During that meeting, the students decided to wear

black armband as a way to protest the Vietnam War throughout the holiday season. Shortly after,

the principals of Des Moines found out of the student’s plan and created a policy prohibiting the

wear of black armband in the school. In that policy, they made clear that any student wearing an

armband would be asked to remove it otherwise they would be suspended. Two days later, Beth

Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The

following day, John Tinker also wore an armband and was also sent home. The students were

suspended for over two weeks and returned to school on New Year’s Day, the day their protest

ended (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District). With the help of their

parents, the students sued the school district claiming their right of expression were violated. The

district court dismissed the case supporting the school and the Supreme Court later ruled in favor

of the students because their protest did not disturb school functions. Tinker v. Des Moines

supports Bill Foster’s case as he did not wear earring with bad intentions nor did he disrupt the

any school functions.

In Olsen v. Board of Education School District, Darryl Olsen Jr. was a high school senior

at Bremen High School in Midlothian, Illinois (Olsen 1987). Bremen High just like Foster’s high

school, had a policy against gang related symbols, emblems, and jewelry being displayed in

school. Olsen filed a lawsuit against the school district claiming that they were violating his First

and Fourteenth Amendment rights, which are his freedom of speech and expression and the right

to equal protection (Olsen 1987). Under Foster’s situation this would be correct as long as he had

no affiliation with gangs. This is immensely similar to Olsen’s situation up to this point.
STUDENT’S RIGHTS 5

However, Bremen High was able to provide sufficient proof that Olsen had in fact been

associated with a gang due to frequent appearances at the Simon City Royals meetings- which

was a gang of students at the high school (Olsen 1987). In addition to this, Olsen had low grades,

and lack of school attendance which made it more of a suspicious for school officials to suspect

affiliation with the Simon City Royals (Olsen 1987). If there had been a slight possibility of

Foster being associated with a gang, he would have been suspended right away by the school.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Citizens have the right to due process. Due

process is a trial by jury for anyone accused of wrongdoing. The Due Process Clause protects the

rights established in the First Amendment and prevents the government from taking away the

rights of the American people without fairness. Bill Foster, a teenage boy was suspended from

school without due process because he wore an earring to school to impress his lady friends. The

school suspended Bill immediately and was not given a chance to be heard. Therefore, the school

district violated Bill’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

In the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser, Matthew Fraser, a teenage boy, delivered a

speech to his classmates, during a school assembly, to nominate Jeff Kuhlman, a fellow

classmate, as student body vice president. After giving his speech, Matthew was suspended for

making and giving a speech filled with sexual innuendos (Findlaw). Later, Matthew and the

Bethel School District went to court, they discussed whether the First Amendment prevented a

school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech. After the

hearing, Supreme Court Justice Burger concluded that the First Amendment did not prohibit

schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse was inconsistent with the

"fundamental values of public school education (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser)." The

case of Bethel v. Fraser would not benefit Bill Foster since the Supreme Court ruled that the
STUDENT’S RIGHTS 6

school has the right to discipline students misbehaving. Although Bill Foster has constitutional

rights of expression, they are limited in the school atmosphere to ensure safety and discipline.

In addition, Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District is another case that

supports Bill Foster’s situation. David Chalifoux and Jerry Robertson both students in New

Caney High School filed a law suit against their school for violating their First Amendment of

freedom of expression (Chalifoux 1997). They were suspended for wearing rosaries on school

property. School officials assumed that they were affiliated with a gang and suspended the

students after they claimed to not be a part of any gangs. During the time of the trial, the school

failed to provide proof of the students being a part of any gangs, which was the main reason that

Chalifoux was right (Chalifoux 1997). He was able to argue that he was treated unfairly, and

since his act of wearing a rosary was not disruptive, or gang affiliated, he won the case.

Comparing this case to Bill Foster’s case, Bill would be right and win the case against the school

district since he wore earring in a non-gang related way. Also, Bill use of earrings did not disrupt

school functions, which would also help Bill Foster win his case.

In conclusion, Bill Foster should not be suspended for expressing himself.

Although, the school had a policy prohibiting the use of gang items and symbols, Bill did not

wear earrings in a gang related way. Suspending Bill for expressing himself in school and not

being given the opportunity to explain himself, was a violation of his First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights. At the time of the incident, Bill was simply trying to impress the girls in his

school.
STUDENT’S RIGHTS 7

References

14th Amendment. (2012). Retrieved April 26, 2017, from http://kids.laws.com/14th-amendment

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667

Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. (2014). Legal rights of teachers and

students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District. (1997). Retrieved March 26, 2017, from

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

NEW%20CANEY%20INDEPENDENT%20SCHOOL%20DIST.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017,

from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/478/675.html

First Amendment. (2013). Retrieved April 26, 2017, from http://kids.laws.com/first-amendment

Staff, L. (2010, February 05). First Amendment. Retrieved March 24, 2017, from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Olsen v. Board of Education of School District No. 228. (1987). Retrieved March 25,

2017, from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19871496676FSupp820_11334/OLESEN%20v.%20BO

ARD%20OF%20EDUC.%20OF%20SCHOOL%20DIST.%20NO.%20228.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 26,

2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21