Running head: Artifact #4 Student’s Rights and Responsibilities 1

Artifact #4

Student’s Rights and Responsibilities

Callie L. McLean

College of Southern Nevada

October 7th, 2017

Running head: Artifact #4 Student’s Rights and Responsibilities 2

Bill Foster was a highschool student in the northeastern United States. Foster’s school

had a history of gang related incidents that impacted the students and the surrounding

community. In order to combat the gang related activity the school cracked down on the display

of gang symbols such as: articles of clothing, emblems, signs, or jewelry. Foster in a matter of

self-reflection wore an earring to his school and was then suspended by the school for not

following procedure. Foster then filed suit against the school claiming his rights to freedom of

expression had been violated.

In the case of Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education (2000) Nicholas Boroff walked

into his high school wearing a “Marilyn Manson” t-shirt that depicted a three faced Jesus and on

the back was expressed the word “BELIEVE” with “LIE” being accented. Seeing that their

school had a strict policy on dress code which included articles of clothing that have offensive

material and drug or alcohol references. Boroff’s principal explained to him that his shirt was

offensive and that he could either turn it inside out, go home and change, or leave and be

recorded as truant. Boroff feeling his first amendment rights had been violated left the school.

For the next three days Boroff came to school each time in a different “Marilyn Manson” t-shirt,

after which through his mother, Boroff filed suit against the Van Wert City Board of Education

claiming his first amendment rights had been violated and that he was not granted due process.

The courts however, ruled in favor of the school citing that while in the case of Tinker v. Des

Moines (1969) “students don’t shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and

expression at the school house gate” the school does have a right to prohibit and discipline

students who display or use offensive and disruptive attire. In the scenario regarding Bill Foster,

Boroff’s case can be used in understanding the rights of the students in relation to the rights the

school has in maintaining a safe and welcoming environment. Seeing that a “Marilyn Manson” t-
Running head: Artifact #4 Student’s Rights and Responsibilities 3

shirt can be seen as offensive and that Van Wert High School was justified in prohibiting such

attire, then in a very similar scenario Bill Foster’s High School has a right to prohibit jewelry on

the account that it can be taken as “gang related” and therefore can be seen as a distraction to the

safety and function of the school.

In the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) during a school assembly Matthew

Fraser was addressing his fellow body students of approximately 600 pupils at Bethel High

School. During the speech Fraser made what numerous witnesses understood to be a lude sexual

reference in attempt to promote one of his friends in upcoming elections. Seeing that the school

had a disciplinary code that prohibited the use of vulgar and obscene language or gestures, the

school suspended Fraser for two days due to his wrongful actions. Fraser appealed to the District

court claiming his first amendment rights had been violated. The court ruled in favor of the

school stating that while students do have a right of free speech it is in the school’s rights to

prohibit any such speech that can be seen as disruptive and cause secondary impacts on the

student environment. This case helps distinguish the relationship between a student’s rights and

the responsibility of the school to ensure a safe and non-disruptive environment. The court

explained “it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of

vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse” Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986). This

case highlights the importance of the school’s role in determining the environment of which a

student’s rights can or cannot be violated. In the scenario involving Bill Foster the school may

choose to prohibit the wearing of gang related attire to ensure the safety and well being of its

students. Because gang attire can adapt and change it is then the school’s responsibility and duty

to prohibit and discipline as they see fit.

Running head: Artifact #4 Student’s Rights and Responsibilities 4

In the case of Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District (1997) David

Chalifoux and Jerry Robertson are students of New Caney High School of Montgomery County,

Texas. Both Chalifoux and Robertson had worn white plastic rosaries on the outside of their

shirts as an expression of their religious faith and had done so without disruption for several

weeks on school campus. But following shortly after, two NCISD police officers, Eddie

Gampher and Troy Woollen, approached Chalifoux and Robertson and insisted they wear their

rosaries inside their shirts as to not be seen and related to gang activity. Chalifoux and Roberts

saw this as a direct violation of their religious freedoms and filed suit seeking damages and

injunctive relief. This case is a prime example for understanding the rights of students and can be

used to better understand the rights of Bill Foster. While Foster’s earring may not be a religious

garment it is neither a gang related attire. Had Foster’s high school found a direct relation to

wearing an earring and being affiliated in a gang, that attire could be seen as disruptive and

damaging to the school. But the High School lacks that burden of proof and therefore the earring

is no more than just an expression of self for Foster and any suspension due to him wearing it

would be in direct violation of his first amendment rights.

In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) junior high student Mary Beth Tinker and four

other students were suspended for wearing black armbands in attempt to protest the Vietnam

War. When Tinker first arrived at her school wearing the armband she was asked to remove it,

when she refused she was sent home and put on suspension. This case will forever be a milestone

in the rights and freedoms of both the students and the teachers in the classroom. For in Tinker v.

Des Moines the Supreme Court declared, “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers

shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the school house gate”

(Underwood & Webb, 2006). Therefore because of the outcome of this case no student can be
Running head: Artifact #4 Student’s Rights and Responsibilities 5

rightfully suspended for exercising their freedom of expression as so guaranteed by the U.S.

Constitution. When analyzing the scenario involving Bill Foster the case of Tinker v. Des Moines

(1969) is the prime example of the rights students have within in the classroom. Seeing that

Foster has every right to express himself as long as it isn’t offensive or damaging to the school,

Foster should in no way be prohibited or disciplined for his display of self expression. His

earring lacks any correlation to gang violence and therefor is nothing more than a statement of

his own idea of self, which according to Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and Chalifoux v. New

Caney Independent School District (1997), Foster has every right to.

In view of this case I lean in favor of Bill Foster. When analyzing the numerous cases

that coincide with the rights of students in the classroom, I feel the case, Tinker v. Des Moines

(1969) best supports the argument that Foster’s choice to wear an earring is a matter of identity

and not gang related. Had the school been able to directly correlate Foster’s earring to a possible

gang affiliation the school would be justified in prohibiting and disciplining Foster for his attire.

In the case of Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District (1997) the rosaries Chalifoux

had worn were also being worn by known gang member, yet because the rosaries are a matter of

religious expression the court ruled in favor of Chalifoux and did not uphold the school’s

implemented dress code. Seeing that the school failed to prove a rational relationship between

Foster’s earring and a possible gang related symbol, Foster has every right to wear his earring

and any suspension on the matter would be a direct violation of his civil rights.
Running head: Artifact #4 Student’s Rights and Responsibilities 6

Reference

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 7, 2017, from

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

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

October 07, 2017, from

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/976/659/1582548/

FindLaw's United States Sixth Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved October 07, 2017,

from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1210620.html

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

7,

2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21

Tinker v. Des Moines - Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Behalf of Student Expression.

(n.d.).

Retrieved October 07, 2017, from

https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-

stud

ent-expression?redirect=tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-

student

-expression

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers' Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle

River: Pearson Education.

Running head: Artifact #4 Student’s Rights and Responsibilities 7