Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

RUNNING HEAD: Portfolio Artifact #3

Springer, Miranda Portfolio Artifact #3 1

Portfolio Artifact #3
Miranda Springer
College of Southern Nevada

Springer, Miranda Portfolio Artifact #3 2


Portfolio Artifact #3
A large high school in the northeastern United States initiated a policy prohibiting the
wearing of gang symbols such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. This policy was
developed based on gang activities that were prevalent in the school. Bill Foster, who was not
involved in gang activity, wore an earring to school as a form of self-expression and a belief that
the earring was attractive to young ladies. He was suspended for his act. Consequently, he filed
suit.
1. Were Bills freedom expression rights violated in this case? Why or why not?
Due to the administrations lack of procedures, Bill Fosters first amendment rights were
violated because he did not receive the list of school policies. Under the Symbolic
Expression Policy, the following are procedures for administration to follow if the
administration believes the symbolic expression is a violation of other student rights or
disrupting to school harmony:
Initial contact with leadership of party (either individual or group leader);
Understand the purpose of the symbolism; and
Explain administration concern and applicable law (First Amendment Schools
[FAS], n.d.).
Another similar case involving students freedom of expression rights occurred in 1965
(FAS, n.d.). Mary Beth Tinker, a middle school student in Des Moines, Iowa, had her
freedom of expression right violated when she was suspended for expressing her protest of
the Vietnam War (FAS, n.d.). Tinker wanted to fit in with a group of other students at her
school who all worse black wristbands as a protest against the war (FAS, n.d.). The case went
all the way to the Supreme Court (FAS, n.d.). Based on the courts decision in 1969 about the
Tinker case, the ruling was as long as no other student was affected by the speech, either by
the disruption of peace in school and/or their rights, the symbolic speech was protected

Springer, Miranda Portfolio Artifact #3 3


(Underwood & Webb, 2006, p121; FAS, n.d.). Therefore, like Tinker, Foster did not violate
the Prior Restraint policy or the ruling for Tinker.
2. Would the courts support Bill? Why or why not?
The court will support Bill Foster because the schools decision to suspend him was against
his rights. This is because the school not only violated the students first amendment rights but
also his fourteenth amendment right to due process (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p172). The Prior
Restraint Policy is void when rights are violated. The school violated Fosters rights to due
process by simply suspending him without:

Oral or written notice of charges;

Opportunity to explain actions; and

Decision based on procedural due process (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p172).

None of this was given to Bill Foster prior to suspension, therefore invalidating his
suspension. Although not directly protected by the federal constitution, education is considered a
property interest; and for a life, liberty, or property to be taken away, sufficient due process
must take place under the fourteenth amendment (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p168; U.S. Const.
Amend XIV, Section 1). Similarly, in the case Goss v. Lopez, student due process rights were
violated.
In 1971, innocent bystander, Dwight Lopez was suspended for ten days without notice or
a hearing (411show, 2008). Lopez filed a law suit against superintendent Norval Goss for
violating his dues process rights. The Supreme Court ruled that any student being suspended
must have written or oral notice of charges, opportunity to explain or deny actions, and the right
to a hearing prior to suspension (411show, 2008). Those hearing Fosters case will use this as a

Springer, Miranda Portfolio Artifact #3 4


prior ruling due to the fact that both students had their due process rights violated. This is why
the court will support Bill Forster.

Springer, Miranda Portfolio Artifact #3 5


References
411show. (2008, September 1). Supreme Court Cases Affecting Youth Part 2 - YouTube .
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. . Retrieved June 23, 2012, from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2FY_umMZVI&feature=player_embedded
First Amendment Schools : Resources - Sample Policies. (n.d.). First Amendment Schools:
Resources for Students, Teachers, Administrators and the Community. Retrieved June 23,
2012, from http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/resources/policy.aspx?id=13888
First Amendment Schools: Resources - Handout 1A. (n.d.). First Amendment Schools: Resources
for Students, Teachers, Administrators and the Community. Retrieved June 23, 2012, from
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org//resources/handout1a.aspx?
id=13968&SearchString=Case_Summary:_Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Commun
ity_School_District
Underwood, J. and Webb, L. D. (2006), "Legal Framework for the Public Schools." School law
for teachers: concepts and applications. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice
Hall.121, 168, 172. Print.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen