Running Head: Artifact #4 1

Rights and Responsibilities Assignment

Kristine Morales

College of Southern Nevada

Running Head: Artifact #4 2

A high school in the Northeastern United States has a policy prohibiting students from

wearing any gang symbol in their jewelries, emblems, earrings, athletics caps, and other more.

This policy was made because of the gang activities that keeps occurring around the school. A

student named Bill Foster, who was not involved in any gang activity in school, wore an earring

to school to simply express himself and with a belief that the earring will attract some of the

young ladies at school. He was then suspended for his act, and so, he filed a suit to battle his

punishment.

There are many different ways that a student expresses themselves at school, and

however they do so, it is very important because that is how they like to be seen and understood

by others. However, some students can express themselves in a very inappropriate manner. That

is why schools have different policies for student to follow so that students can express

themselves appropriately for school. The first amendment protects our rights to free speech and

freedom of expression, and the fourteenth amendment protects us against laws that abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens. With this being said, Bill Foster’s first amendment has been

violated as he was not allowed to express himself by wearing his earrings.

One case in favor of Bill’s side of the argument is the B.H. vs. Easton Area School

Districts case. This case is about a school district and two students wearing a “I Love Boobies”

bracelets to school, and the school decided to ban them for disrupting and for having

inappropriate language on them. The court ruled in favor of the two students because the

bracelets were not disruptive to the school. Also, the right to wear the bracelets were protected

because the writing/ saying was a part of a public discussion (educationlaw.org). The court could

say the same thing for Bill’s case. The earrings are not disruptive to school and the earrings were
Running Head: Artifact #4 3

not gang related. He was not trying to create any conflict, and he simply trying to express

himself.

Another case is the Chalifoux vs. New Canny School District case. It’s about a couple of

young men who were wearing rosaries to represent or show their beliefs. However, the school

had a policy prohibiting anything with gang related apparel (law.justia.com). They were then

forced to remove them. This case is fairly similar to Foster’s case because the school also had a

policy prohibiting students to wear anything that relates to any gang representation. The court

decided that the school district’s policy is flawed or applying their policy wrongly because the

students were not involved with any gangs. Also, the rosaries that these students were wearing

was not a sign for any gangs. They have the right to express their religious views. Bill can reason

the same way as these young men did.

On the other hand, case that works against Bill is the Bethel School District vs. Fraser

case. Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office, and in his

speech, others believed that he used some sexual metaphors for the candidacy. He was suspended

for two days as his punishment. He lost this case because the school had the right to take action

for his vulgar speech, and it was disruptive towards the school and the students (oyez.org). This

is a good case that could help the school district’s side because Bill’s earring is not a political

stance, and just like Matthew’s comment his right is not protected under these circumstances.

The last case is the Tinker vs. Des Moines case. This case talked about constitutional

rights or students in public schools. Tinker and other students were going to wear arm bands in a

protest against the war in Vietnam. The school then heard about this plan, so the school banned it

so that students wouldn’t be able to do it any longer. However, Marybeth Tinker was one of the

students that still went through this plan. She was then punished by the school, and she
Running Head: Artifact #4 4

challenged the school at court. The court decided to side with Tinker at the fact that student don’t

lose their constitutional rights at the school’s gate (oyez.org). However, Bill’s symbol was not in

form of any political speech, and it was simply to express and impress young women at school.

He never intended to make a disturbance or to distract others.

In conclusion, I believe that the courts will favor Bill for the exact same reason that the

court sided with the students at the Chalifoux vs. New Canny School District and B.H. vs. Easton

Area School District case. The students in these cases were simply just trying to express

themselves and their beliefs, and even though Bill’s earrings were not a symbol or religion or a

form of political protest, Bill never intended to do harm towards the school nor the students of

the school.
Running Head: Artifact #4 5

References

B.H. v. Easton Area School District

DeMitchell, T. A. (2017, July 15). B.H. v. Easton Area School District. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://educationlaw.org/featured-caselaw/6511-bh-v-easton-area-school-district

Chalifoux v. New Canny School District

Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School Dist., 976 F. Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997).

Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-

courts/FSupp/976/659/1582548/

Bethel School District v. Fraser

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved September 30, 2019, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667

Tinker v. Des Moines

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved

September 30, 2019, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21