Running head: STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Artifact 3

Students Rights and Responsibilities

Seidy Portillo

College of Southern Nevada

STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

Abstract

This paper will evaluate the rights and responsibilities a student has while in public

school. High school student Bill foster was suspended for wearing ear jewelry. The school

created a policy that banned students from wearing “jewelry, emblems, earrings, and hats that

could be related to gang activity.” Bill filed a lawsuit against the Northeastern high school after

being suspended.

The first and fourteenth amendment and the following court cases will be discussed to

evaluate whether Bill had the right to file a lawsuit against the school: Tinker v. Des Moines

Independent Community School District, West Virginia State Board of Ed. Versus Barnette, B.H.

versus Easton Area School District, and Chalifoux v New Caney School District.
STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

Artifact 3

Students Rights and Responsibilities

Plaintiff Bill Foster felt that the school violated his first amendment right to freedom of

expression after he was suspended for wearing an earring. Bill was not participating in any gang

related activities, he simply wanted to attract the girls in school. Bill was expressing himself

through jewelry and did not interfere with the rights of anyone else.

The Tinker case would help make the argument that his decision to file a lawsuit was

completely reasonable. In the1969 Landmark case of Tinker v. Des Moines, three students

decided to wear black arm bands as a symbol of protest the Vietnam War. They were ultimately

suspended after the Principal had prohibited them from doing what they had planned. Supreme

Court eventually ruled that

Students may express opinions on controversial issues in the classroom, cafeteria, or any

other place, so as long as the exercise of such rights does not “materially and

substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of

the school” or collide with the rights of others (McCabe et. al.).

Plaintiff could also use the 2011 case B.H v. Easton Area School District to support his claim,

because his expression was appropriate and non-disruptive. The issue was that middle school

students were wearing “I love Boobies! (Keep a Breast)” bracelets at school, which teachers and

other staff members found to be very lewd and a potential distraction. The case almost made it to

Supreme Court, but it was unnecessary as the courts used prior cases Tinker and Bethel to

analyze whether the bracelets were lewd and offensive. The difference in this case is that the

word offensive needed to be more clearly defined. It was ultimately ruled that the phrase was not
STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

profane or offensive, as they were worn in October in support of Breast Cancer Awareness

month.

However, one must remember that Fosters goal was to attract female students, which can

cause a distraction and halt their learning. The 1997 case of Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent

School District was more closely related to this than any other case, as it deals with school dress

code in relation to gang activities. The NCISD had a strict dress code handbook prohibiting

students from wearing “gang related apparel in school or at any school related function.”

Plaintiffs David Chalifoux and Jerry Robertson were high school students who wore rosaries and

were told to tuck them under their shirts and not expose them. This was only said in regard of the

student’s safety. Yet the boys were never approached by any one gang related and were not

affiliated with any gangs. They also did not cause any disruptions or altercations while wearing

their rosaries. The courts ruled that the schools dress code did not directly state rosaries in the

handbook, meaning that it was in violation of the plaintiff’s first amendment right of free

exercise of religion and right to free speech. This case would help defendants prove that Bills

intentions were to cause a disruption, and that staff members were concerned for his safety,

rather than trying to infringe on his first amendment rights. Unlike the Chalifoux v. New Caney

Case, Bills school handbook specifically stated that jewelry such as earrings were prohibited in

school. Suspending him was fair, as he was breaking school rules and violating the dress code.

The West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette was a 1943 case in which the Supreme

Court ruled that students cannot be forced to pledge their allegiance to the American Flag. This

involved the free speech clause of the first amendment, as it protects students from being forced

to say or salute something that could be a breach on their religious beliefs. This case reinforces
STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

that Bills first amendment right to freedom of expression were not infringed, as he was not

expressing religion, and his jewelry was clearly banned from the schools’ dress code.

Bill would have lost he lawsuit, as he clearly disobeyed the schools dress code that was in

the handbook. If he felt that his rights were being violated, he could simply move to another

school that did not prohibit jewelry. The only reason the school had that policy was to protect the

students and school from gang related activities. Furthermore, he was not trying to express his

religion nor personality, his only reason for wearing jewelry was because he thought it would

attract female students. That would prove to be a disruption to students learning environment.
STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

References

DeMitchell, T. A. (n.d.). PDF. Education Law Association. B.H. v. Easton Area School District

McCabe, N.H, McCarthy, M.M, Eckes, S.E. (2014) Teachers Substantive Constitutional Rights.

Legal Rights of Teachers and Students (pp.58-210). Bloomington, Indiana. Pearson

Education.