Running Head: Artifact #4: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 1

Students' Rights and Responsibilities

Amanda L. Laymon

College of Southern Nevada

Artifacts #4: Students' Rights and Responsibilities 2

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Bill Foster, who was a student at a northeastern United States high school, wore an

earring to school. The school had recently created a policy preventing students in gangs from

wearing any symbol relating to their gang due to previous issues. These symbols include jewelry,

emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. Bill Foster, while wearing his earring, was suspended even

though he was not in a gang. He was wearing the earring to express himself and thought that it

would attract some young women. After his suspense, he filed suit.

The first case to assist the school district in not getting charged for Foster's suspension is

Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier (1988). In this presented case, a school newspaper

included articles that mentioned women based topics, including birth control and student

pregnancy, as well as, the effects that divorce has on students. The principal of the school

removed these two pages due to their choice in topic. When taken to court to fight their removal

the court found that the newspaper was a part of school curriculum and the school's actions to

remove the two papers from it were justified. Due to this case, student speech can still be

restricted if it causes harm to other students, even though it may not be disruptive (Underwood et

al., 2006, p.121). Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier (1988) sufficiently defends the school

district's case due to Bill Foster's choice of expression. The school passed a policy preventing the

wearing of earrings, meaning the earrings were causing harm to the students. Regardless whether

Foster was in a gang or not, the earring was a symbol of a gang and therefore the school district

should not be charged for Foster's suspension.

The second case to assist the school district in not getting charged for Foster's suspension

is Boroff v Van Wert City Board of Education (2001). In this presented case, a senior at Van

Wert high school came to school in a Marilyn Manson shirt that included phrases such as, "See
Artifacts #4: Students' Rights and Responsibilities 3

No Truth. Hear No Truth. Speak No Truth." And "LIE" ("Boroff v Van Wert", 2001). The Chief

Principal's Aide told the senior, Boroff, that his shirt was offensive and against their new dress

policy. Boroff was given three options of how to handle his shirt, he chose the third which ended

with him as a truant. He continued to wear Marilyn Manson shirts for the next few days, until he

was told he could not wear those shirts to school anymore, so he stopped coming. His mother

stepped in on his fifth day from school and filed against the school ("Boroff v Van Wert", 2001).

The courts ruled in favor of the school stating that they can prohibit students from wearing

Marilyn Manson shirts if it is an opposition and offensive to their educations mission

(Underwood et al., 2006, p.124). Boroff v Van Wert City Board of Education (2001) sufficiently

defends the school district's case due to the earring Foster wore. It was in opposition with the

school's new policy, preventing the wearing of gang related symbols including earrings.

Therefore, the school district should not be charged for Foster's suspension.

The first case presented in favor of Bill Foster is Tinker v Des Moines Independent

School District (1969). In Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District (1969) three students

were protesting the Vietnam War. In doing so the students went to school wearing black

armbands and they got suspended. The courts ruled in favor of the students, stating that students

have rights to freedom of speech (Underwood et al., 2006, p.121). Tinker v Des Moines

Independent School District (1969) properly supports Bill Foster's case, because just as the

students were expressing their freedom of speech through their armbands, Foster was expressing

his free speech by wearing an earring. He had no negative intentions, he just wanted to attract a

few ladies.

The second case presented in favor of Bill Foster is Doe v Brockton School Committee

(2000). In Doe v Brockton School Committee (2000), a male student has a gender identity
Artifacts #4: Students' Rights and Responsibilities 4

disorder causing him to feel he should be female. Due to his disorder, he feels the need to wear

feminine clothing. He wore his choice of feminine clothing to school and preferred to be called a

girl. The school didn't approve of this cross-dressing and took him to court ("Doe v Brockton

School Committee", 2000). The courts ruled in favor of the student because the cross-dressing

wasn't causing a disruption to the school (Underwood et al., 2006, p.124). Doe v Brockton

School Committee (2000) defends Bill Foster's case, because just like this gender identity

disordered student wore clothing that expressed his true self, Foster wore an earring that

expressed who he truly was. Foster was expressing what he thought would get him more

attention not cause a disruption to his schoolmates.

My decision regarding this case is for the school district in suspending Bill Foster, with

the use of Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier (1988) and Boroff v Van Wert City Board of

Education (2001). Although Foster was not involved in a gang he still wore an earring which he

knew was against the new school policy of gang symbols. Under Hazelwood School District v

Kuhlmeier (1988) the school has the right to put restrictions on harmful and not disruptive

speech. The symbol behind Foster's expression was harmful to the school, considering they had

previous gang issues which caused the creation of the policies ("Hazelwood School District v

Kuhlmeier", 1988). Boroff v Van Wert City Board of Education (2001) added further clarification

to the school's duties. The school can prevent students from wearing clothes that are is

opposition with their learning environment (“Boroff v Van Wert", 2001). Foster should not have

worn an earring knowing the school's policy. His dress was in opposition with the school's

educational mission to keep students safe without gang troubles and fear. He failed to follow the

school's policy and should therefore be responsible for his suspension.

Artifacts #4: Students' Rights and Responsibilities 5

References

"Boroff v Van Wert City Board of Education". (2001). Find Law. Retrieved from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1210620.html

"Doe v Brockton School Committee". (2000). Mass Gov. Retrieved from

http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/lawlib/docs/yunits.pdf

"Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier". (1988). United States Courts. Retrieved from
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-
summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier

"Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District". (1969). Justia U.S. Law. Retrieved from
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/case.html

Underwood, J. & Webb, L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.