Portfolio Artifact #4 Students Rights and Responsibilities 1

Portfolio Artifact #4

Students Rights and Responsibilities

Lisa N. Dickson

College of Southern Nevada

April 6, 2019
Portfolio Artifact #4 Students Rights and Responsibilities 2

Students Rights and Responsibilities

In the Northeastern part of the United States, a very big high school was having problem

with gang activities. With the increase of gang activities, this high school decided to put into

place a policy prohibiting gang related symbols. This policy included jewelry, emblems,

earrings, and athletic caps. Bill Foster wore an earring to school to impress the ladies. Foster was

not involved with any gang activity. Foster believed the earring was self-expression. The high

school decided to suspend Foster for wearing an earring. Foster thought it went against his rights

of “freedom of expression” to be suspended so he sued the high school. The question in this case

is if Foster’s rights were violated and does he have the right to file suit.

The first case I would like to present for the defendant Foster having the right to file suit is

M.C. Ex Rel. Chudley v. Shawnee Mission Unified School District (2019). M.C. and several of

her friends and fellow students of Shawnee Mission School District (SMSD) and students across

the country organized a walk out to advocate for reducing gun violence after the Parkland High

School shootings in Florida. It was decided that it would take place on the 19th anniversary of

the Columbine High School Massacre. This walk out was pacifically to stop gun violence in

schools. SMSD said that they knew about the walk out and that the students were ok to be

involved but said several times that it was a student-led event and optional. Several schools in

the district told the students what they were allowed to talk about and what they were not

allowed to talk about. On the day of the walk out several schools in the SMSD pulled students of

the stage in the middle of speaking and took notes from other students before their speech.

SMSD even had several students suspended for what they said before they were pulled off the

stage. M.C. took SMSD to court saying that they took away their amendment rights. The courts

looked at the Tinker case and debated if the children were in the right or not. It was decided that
Portfolio Artifact #4 Students Rights and Responsibilities 3

the school had taken away their rights. M.C. Ex Rel. Chudley v. Shawnee Mission Unified School

District (2019) case significantly backs up Foster’s violation of right’s case. Foster was not

harming anyone. Foster was not involved in gang related violence. Foster did not disrupt the

school or students by wearing an earring. Just like M.C. Ex Rel. Chudley v. Shawnee Mission

Unified School District (2019), Foster’s right of expression was taken from him.

The second case I would like to present for the defendant Foster having the right to file suit

is Griggs Ex Rel. Griggs v. Fort Wayne School Bd. (2005). In Griggs Ex Rel. Griggs v. Fort

Wayne School Bd. (2005) the plaintiff David Griggs is a student at Elmhurst High School in Fort

Wayne, Indiana. Griggs wanting to support the Marines and came to school wearing a shirt that

talked about guns, had a picture of a M16 rifle and had a marine slogan on it. The Admin at

Griggs school felt like his shirt was “inappropriate for the school setting.” Griggs felt like the

First Amendment gave him the right to wear this shirt. Griggs School does have a dress code.

The dress code states that you cannot wear "apparel depicting ... symbols of violence.” Griggs

feels like this statement is too broad and impended on his first amendment. The courts ruled

with Grigg. The courts said that even though schools are under a lot of pressure to prevent

student violence, the Admin’s right to censor student speech cannot be limitless. Griggs Ex Rel.

Griggs v. Fort Wayne School Bd. (2005) referenced the Supreme Court in its decision in Tinker

v. Des Moines "[i]t can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional

rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate". In the case of Griggs's

Marine Creed shirt, the Admin have gone a bit too far. In Griggs Ex Rel. Griggs v. Fort Wayne

School Bd. (2005) the rules had been stated but were too broad for interpretation. In Foster’s case

the rules have also been stated but very broad and leaving the students with a loss of freedom of

speech. In Foster’s school do they inforce the no earing policy on the female population as well
Portfolio Artifact #4 Students Rights and Responsibilities 4

as the male? Do they inforce it on the staff? Having a no earing policy is too broad and infringes

on the students’ rights just like in Griggs Ex Rel. Griggs v. Fort Wayne School Bd. (2005).

Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist.(2011) is the first case that I would like to argue

that Foster has no grounds to file against his school for taking away his rights. Dariano went to

school at Live Oak High School. Dariano and two other students wore shirts with the American

Flag on them to school on Cinco de Mayo. Rodriguez, the assistant principal, asked the students

to remove their shirts or turn them inside out. Dariano and his friends refused to do it. Rodriguez

asked them to come to his office. It was decided that the students either needed to turn their

shirts around or go home for the day with an excused absent. The students went home and

decided to file suit. They lost the case. The rules of the school were clearly stated what was

allowed at school and what was not. They broke the rules and that rules did not infringe on their

rights. Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist. (2011) shows that if the rules are stated and

broken then you do not have a claim to file suit. Foster new the rules of his school. They are

clearly stated. He chose to break them. Just like in Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist.

(2011) this did not infringe on his rights and he has no reason to file suit.

The next case I would like present against Foster and that he has no grounds to file suit for

his rights of expressions being infringed on is Jacobs v. Clark County School District (2008). In

Jacobs v. Clark County School District (2008) then Clark County decided to put in affect a dress

code. They decided it would help with an increasing student achievement, promoting safety, and

enhancing a positive school environment. Jacobs went to Legacy High School in Clark County.

Jacob’s repeatedly violated Legacy’s uniform policy. One of the times she was wearing a

religious shirt. She was suspended a total of five times and approximately 25 days. During her

suspension she was still taught at home. Her grades actually improved. Jacobs claims that she
Portfolio Artifact #4 Students Rights and Responsibilities 5

missed out on classroom opportunities, suffered a bad rep with her teachers and other students,

had a tarnished disciplinary record, and was deprived of her First Amendment rights to free

expression and free exercise of religion because of Liberty's enforcement of its mandatory school

uniform policy. Jacob’s was not the only student who was testing the dress code rules. Several

other students in Clark County at different schools also went against dress code. They were

mentioned in this case also. The courts ruled with Clark County School district. The rules of the

dress code were known from the beginning. The students knew the rules, yet each student chose

to test the rules and break the dress code. Some of the students including Jacobs broke the dress

code more than once. Jacobs v. Clark County School District (2008) proves that if the rules are

in place and you choose to break them then your rights are not infringed open. Foster knew the

rules. The school had plainly stated all rules. Foster chose to break the rules. The courts said in

Jacobs v. Clark County School District (2008) this does not infringe on your rights.

My decision for Bill Foster is against him. In Jacobs v. Clark County School District

(2008) the rules were clearly stated and they choose to break them. Foster knew the rules and he

choose to break them, for the ladies. That is not a right that the courts have infringed upon. In

Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist. (2011) the same thing was told to Dariano. He knew

the rules and he choose to break them. The Admin have a lot of things to worry about and rules

are put in place for a reason. Foster should have really thought out his actions before breaking a

rule that he was fully aware of and just choose to disregard. This is why I feel like Foster would

not win a suit on rights and that he should not even try.
Portfolio Artifact #4 Students Rights and Responsibilities 6

References

Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist. (2011). No. C 10-02745 JW. 822 F.Supp.2d 1037.
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division. Filed November 8,
2011. Retrieved March 24, 2019. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20120606d57.

Griggs Ex Rel. Griggs v. Fort Wayne School Bd. No. 1:04-CV-059. 359 F.Supp.2d 731 (2005).
United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. Filed March 10, 2005.
Retrieved March 24, 2019.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/20051090359fsupp2d73111002.

Jacobs v. Clark County School District. No. 05-16434. 526 F.3d 419 (2008) United States Court
of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Argued and Submitted March 8, 2007.Submission Vacated May
3, 2007. Resubmitted August 15, 2007. Filed May 12, 2008.
Retrieved March 24, 1019. https://www.leagle.com/decision/2008945526f3d4191898.

M.C. Ex Rel. Chudley v. Shawnee Mission Unified School District (2019). NO. 512
Case No. 18-2283-JAR-KGG. United States District Court, D. Kansas. Filed January 28,
2019. Retrieved March 24, 2019. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20190128c18.

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers' Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Education.