1

Running Head: Student’s Rights and Responsibilities

Portfolio Artifact #4

Taylor Dickson

College of Southern Nevada

2
Students Rights and Responsibilities
In the North Eastern region of the United States there was a large high school in which

initiated a policy that prohibited wearing gang symbols on jewelry, emblems, earrings, and any

type of baseball hat. That policy was developed based on the gang activities that were so

common in that school. A student named Bill Foster, who was in no way involved in the gang

activity, had worn an earring to school in the form of self-expression and had believed that the

earring would have attracted the females in the school, was suspended for wearing that earring to

school. As a result, he had filed a suit against the school for the suspension over the so-called

gang related earring he wore. Bill’s freedom expression rights were violated in this case because

he himself did not view that earring he chose to wear to school as gang related but the school had

taken it upon themselves to deem it a gang related piece of jewelry.

In favor of Bill’s side of this case the school had basically taken it upon themselves to

just say that he was involved with the gang activity that was happening within the school due to

the earring that he had chosen to wear as a form of self-expression to school that day. The case

of Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District is a perfect example on how

student’s freedom of expression rights was violated. The school had banned wearing black

armbands to school and if any students were caught wearing them they would be suspended, just

as how the school in the North Eastern region of United States had banned any article of

clothing, jewelry, emblems, earrings, and any type of hat that would have been related to gang

activities. This case happened in 1969 during the Vietnam War, the students had worn black

armbands to protest what they saw as an unjust struggle.

A second case that also is in favor of Bill’s side of his case would be Morse V. Frederick.

In Morse V. Frederick, the student, Joseph Frederick was at a school-supervised event in which

he had held up a sign that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” written on it, was suspended for ten days and
3
Students Rights and Responsibilities
had the sign taken away from him by the Principal Deborah Morse. The principal had justified

her reasoning for taking away Frederick’s sign as a violation of the schools’ policy against the

display of any material in which promotes the use of illicit drugs. At first the court had ruled in

favor of Morse, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had reversed that by citing

the Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, in which it extended the

First Amendment protection to student speech except where the speech would cause a

disturbance. This case is also a reason showing how the students are unfairly suspended or

reprimanded for using their freedom of speech without actually causing a disturbance but the

school sees it unjustly and acts before they think deeper into what the student may or may not be

doing by what they say or wear.

As for the school’s side of this argument the reasoning of not wanting the gang related

symbols being present throughout the school and on students’ clothing or jewelry is a fair thing

to have due to the fact that they do not want to promote that type of behavior in their schools.

With that being said schools decide to make these rules for a reason in order to keep their

education rank higher and not more focused on the kids who are starting big problems

throughout the school. The case of Bethel School District V. Fraser was in favor of the school’s

decision to suspend Fraser for his actions because his actions did not violate the First

Amendment Rights. In this case the reason for the suspension was over the use of vulgar and

offensive speech when nominating a fellow classmate for student office but in his speech, he had

violated the school policy against the use of that behavior and language in his speech. This

would be against the case in which Bill Foster was using his First Amendment rights to express

himself with a piece of jewelry in which he did not believe it was gang related.
4
Students Rights and Responsibilities
The second case that would support the school side of Bill Fosters case would be the

Island Trees School District V. Pico. In this case the Board of Education had stated that there

were books that should not be in a school, which in total was nine books, only two were returned

to the school libraries. This supports the school side of the Foster case, the school itself did not

want those books just as the case against Foster where they did not want any gang related

clothing or accessory items in their school, just as these books were not wanted at the schools in

their libraries.

In conclusion, I personally believe that this case will be ruled in favor of Bill Foster as he

was just using his First Amendment rights to express himself through wearing that earring and he

was just trying to attract the other females in the school. The only reason I feel as though the

court will rule in favor of Bill Foster and not the school is mainly the fact that he was just trying

to express himself whether he thought that the earring was gang related or not and this earring

was not related to gang activities it was just an expression of who Bill felt he was. This case

should be ruled in favor of Bill Foster due to the fact that as a student he was expressing his First

Amendment rights and he had just wanted to express himself but the school automatically had

suspended him and jumped to conclusions about the earring he was wearing and assumed it was

gang related, when in reality it was not.

5
Students Rights and Responsibilities
References

Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 21 (8th Cir. 1969)

Morse V. Frederick, 06-278 (9th Cir. 2007)

Bethel School District No. 403 V. Fraser, 84-1667 (9th Cir. 1986)

Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 V. Pico by Pico, 80-2043

(2nd Cir. 1982)