Running head: EDU 210 Artifact 4 1

EDU 210 Artifact 4

Richard L Tipton

College of Southern Nevada

EDU 210 Artifact 4 2

In our situation we have a school district who had outlawed certain accessories from the

campuses in their district. All of these objects were banned in order to limit gang activity. Some

of these items include athletic caps or gang symbols on jewelry, emblems, or wearing earrings.

A student named Bill Foster attended school with a pierced ear in order to show self-expression.

Bill was suspended as a result of this, he is now filing suit against the district.

We learned from Tinker V Des Moines that students do indeed have rights in the school

place. This is protected as long as the students form of expression is not causing a distraction or

disruption. This case created the “Tinker Standard.” If we judge by this standard Bill is

technically not in the wrong. He is just wearing it as a fashion statement and in order to have

expression of himself. We still must look deeper into this however.

If we look at Doe v. Brockton School Comm, the courts ruled in favor of a student cross

dressing due to the student not directly distracting anyone. There were no actual disruptions so

the student was able to dress the way they chose as a show of self-expression. This is extremely

similar to what Bill is encountering with his earing. With the earing being of no actual

distraction, or showing any extra displays of gang activity, this should cause him to be upheld.

However, we must look at the measures the district had taken to inform students that this was not

appropriate.

If we look at Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education, in this case we see that the

schools could prohibit students from wearing apparel with certain bands on it. This was

determined due to the artists views being against the school’s beliefs. The school in this instance

had provided prior warning as well, just like how Bill’s school had warned as well. If bill
EDU 210 Artifact 4 3

wearing an earring was proven to be against the school’s views, then indeed the school would be

in the right.

In Hazelwood V Kuhlmeier we learned that schools have the right restrict student

expression, even if it does not cause disruption. This can be done if the students actions could be

harmful to students or pervasively vulgar. In our situation Bill’s school did indeed put

restrictions on the expressions of students, especially what they are wearing. Despite the

restrictions the school had placed, Bill still wore the earring regardless. This is enough grounds

in my opinion to protect the schools position.

Overall in this situation the school’s decision should be upheld. Clothing is an important

part of expression, however limitations in order to protect students are completely valid. In this

situation the school declared they are doing this in order to protect students from gang activity.

Bill could have inadvertently been lumped into gang activity and could had been hurt or even

worse without knowing what caused him to be lumped into the gang activity. First and foremost

the schools must be protecting their students over anything else.

EDU 210 Artifact 4 4

References

Underwood, J.D, Webb, L.D, Upper saddle River, NJ, Columbus OH, School law for teachers,

concepts and applications, Pearson Merril Prentice Hall