Running Head: Artifact #4 1

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities in Schools

Cynthia Gubler
College of Southern Nevada
Artifact #4 2

Bill Foster, a high school student, was suspended for wearing an earring to school. Bill’s

high school had initiated a policy that prohibited wearing gang symbols such as jewelry,

emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. The high school claims that this policy was implemented

in order to cut back on gang activity that was prevalent in the school. Bill is not involved in a

gang and says that he wore the earring as a form of self-expression and to impress the girls in his

class. Bill is suing the school district for violating his first amendment rights since they

suspended him for wearing a piece of jewelry as an act of self-expression. There have been

several well-known court cases that involve the subject of student’s wearing clothing and jewelry

to express themselves with different results.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is the most well-known

case that has set the precedent for many similar cases. In 1965 a group of high school students in

Des Moines, Iowa decided to wear black armbands to show their support of a truce in the

Vietnam War. The students decided that they would wear the armbands from the end of

December until the New Year began. Upon learning about their decision to wear the black

armbands, the principal implemented a policy that students were not allowed to wear them and if

they refused to remove it then they would be suspended. Two students disregarded this policy

and wore their armbands to school where they were sent home. The following day one of the

student’s brothers wore an armband and was also sent home. The students and their parents sued

the school district for violating the student’s rights to freedom of expression through the first

amendment. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the students, stating that just because a

student was on school property did not mean that they lost their right to freedom of speech.

They also stated that in order for a school district to suppress speech they had to prove that the

material in question would interfere with the operation of a school.

Artifact #4 3

In Guiles v. Marineau, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of a

student’s right to freedom of speech by using the precedent that was set in Tinker v. Des Moines

Independent Community School. In this particular case a middle school student in Vermont had

worn a T-shirt that displayed a picture of George W. Bush that implied that the president was a

drug addict and addicted to drugs. The student had worn the T-shirt on numerous occasions at

the school without any issues until a student complained to a teacher. The student was informed

that the T-shirt was protected under free speech but the issue was again raised when a parent

complained to the school. The teacher asked the student to cover up the parts of the shirt that

involved drugs and alcohol and the student refused. After his father met with the superintendent

the student was sent home and the father decided to sue the district. The Second Court of

Appeals decided that the student’s T-shirt was protected under the first and fourteenth

amendments. The court stated that the precedent in Tinker made it clear that in order for a

district to suppress speech they had to prove that the material in question was disruptive to the

operation of the school; this student had worn the same shirt on several occasions and it never

caused a disruption to the school. The court also held that when the school asked the student to

cover up parts of the shirt, they were diluting its political message which was in direct violation

of his first amendment rights.

In Broussard v. School Board of Norfolk, the District Court ruled against a student. The

student was a twelve-year old middle school student in Norfolk Virginia. One day she wore a

graphic T-shirt that had the phrase “Drugs Suck” on it. The student refused requests from her

homeroom teacher and also the dean to change the shirt or to flip it inside out. As a result of her

refusal the school suspended the student. The student and her mother sued the district stating

that they had violated her first amendment right to free speech. The school claimed that the shirt
Artifact #4 4

was against their dress code because it contained a vulgar word that had sexual connotation

behind it. The District Court ultimately ruled in the school district’s favor stating that in regards

to other court cases and using the “Tinker test”, it was proven that the shirt was disruptive to the

school’s operation and also infringed on other students’ rights. The court explained that since

the language on the shirt was vulgar and contained sexual connotations then the school had the

right to protect the other students from this language.

In Scicchitano v. Mt. Carmel Area School District, the District Court ruled that two

middle school students in Pennsylvania were not protected under the first amendment for

wearing clothing in protest of the school’s dress code. The school had implemented a new dress

code where students were only allowed to wear certain color polo shirts. The Scicchitano

siblings stated that due to religious beliefs they could not wear the color polo shirts that the

school was requiring. The school came to an agreement with the family that as long as they wore

polo shirts then they were allowed to wear different colors than those described in the dress code.

The students began abusing the policy by wearing graphic tees that were in direct violation of

this policy and were subsequently punished and eventually expelled from the school district.

Their mother sued claiming that the district was infringing on the students’ right to free speech.

The District Court ruled in the school district’s favor due to the fact that the school had made

proper accommodations for the student’s religious beliefs but the students had disregarded the

school’s policy that graphic T-shirts were not allowed. The court also essentially stated that

students did not get to pick and choose when they followed a dress code and the policy must be

fair and just to all students.

In Bill Foster’s case I believe that the court will ultimately side with the school district.

Bill Foster definitely has the right to free speech and expression; however, when we use the
Artifact #4 5

“Tinker test” that was set up in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,

we can see how Bill Foster’s actions are potentially disrupting the operation of the school. Other

similar court cases such as Guiles v. Marineau and Broussard v. School Board of Norfolk, the

courts used the precedent of Tinker in order to determine if the actions disrupted the school

operations. The school district implemented the dress code policy in order to keep the students

safe from gang violence. Although Bill Foster is simply wearing the earring as a form as self-

expression, other gang members may not necessarily see it this way and he or other students

could be injured. As evidenced in the court’s ruling in Broussard v. School Board of Norfolk,

there is also a precedence to protect the other students- whether this is in the form of vulgar

speech or potential violence. In Scicchitano v. Mt. Carmel Area School District, we saw how

students are allowed to have exceptions to the rules due to religious reasons but this is not the

case for Bill Foster. In the Scicchitano case the court also set the precedent that students do not

get to pick and choose when they follow dress codes or which parts of it they want to adhere to.

If Bill Foster were allowed to wear the earring then not only would the school have to allow

every student to wear an earring, Bill Foster and other students could potentially decide to wear

athletic caps and other items that are on the list of prohibited items. Since Bill Foster’s earring

could possibly endanger other students and cause a disruption to the school environment I

believe that the school district is right in their decision to suspend him for violating the dress

code.
Artifact #4 6

References

BROUSSARD BY LORD v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk, 801 F. Supp. 1526 (E.D. Va. 1992).

Guiles v. Marineau, 461 F.3d 320 (2d Cir. 2006).

SCICCHITANO v. MT. CARMEL AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. 4: 09cv638 (M.D. Pa. Sept.
27, 2011).

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L.
Ed. 2d 731 (1969).