Artifact #3 Student’s Rights and Responsibilities

Artifact #3

Student’s Rights and Responsibilities

Rayana Wilder

Professor Herrington

EDU 210- 1005

4 May 2019
Artifact #3 Student’s Rights and Responsibilities
1
A high schooler, named Bill Foster, wore an earring that he wears just because he liked it,

and he thought the ladies at the school would admire it too. There is a policy at the school that

doesn’t allow students to wear anything gang related, or anything that might symbolize it.

This includes items like earrings, hats, jewelry, and emblems. Gang affiliated activities were

going at the school, so that is the reason the policy was put in place. Due to this rule Bill was

suspended, and a suit was filed against the school.

The school could argue that the policy was put in place, that no one is exempt from it.

The student could have been put in danger by wearing that earring. Rules are put in place to

make the school safer, and to allow students to learn in an environment that they do not fear

coming to. The school is responsible for all the students, and they have to be careful because

they could be liable if anything happens. They had to make that rule, so they won’t be seen as

neglectful.

In the Bethel v Fraser case, a student used vulgar language in his speech, nominating a

classmate for office. There was a rule that was made that prohibited students from using such

language or even gestures. Matthew Fraser was given a two-day suspension, and the court ruled

that it was very much right to suspend him because his use of language was unacceptable in an

educational setting. The school could use this to argue their point that wearing gang

representation, against school policy, is not appropriate in a school environment. In the Tinker v

Moines Independent Community School District, a group of students decided to wear black

bracelets to school to represent a truce in the Vietnam war that they supported. They were

suspended due to a new policy create that stated the consequence if the students did not take of

the bracelets at school. The students stayed out of school until the end of the protest, on New

Year’s Day. The courts ruling was the same as the other case. It was considered a distraction to
Artifact #3 Student’s Rights and Responsibilities
1
other students, school staff. An argument could be made using this case for the school, saying

that the earring Foster wore is a distraction to others.

Bill could make a point about how he didn’t wear the earring to represent a gang, but to

show who he is as a person and his type of style. He was trying to impress the girls at his school,

not to impress other gang members. Foster could say that he is being deprived the right of

freedom of speech, under the first amendment, which also includes expression in clothing as

being a form of speech. The first amendment says that everyone is entitled to this right, and it

should not be taken from them. He should be able to express himself with his clothing without

getting in trouble.

Under due process, Bill also has the right to fair treatment, in which is side is heard and

has an opportunity to defend himself. Due process goes along with the fourteenth amendment,

which says that no one can be deprived of the freedoms given to them, without equal protection

or due process of law. In B.H v Easton Area School District case, A couple of middle school

students wore bracelets that said, “I Love Boobies!”, as a ware to bring more awareness to breast

cancer. No one said anything before about the bracelets, but when “Breast Cancer Awareness

Day” was approaching the school wanted to make it an issue. When the case was brought to

court, they ruled in favor of B.H. They concluded that her freedom of speech was protected

because the bracelet was a general statement about breast cancer. If it was a different statement,

then things would have gone differently. Bill could use that case to argue that his earring does

not represent anything else, but himself. It isn’t making any offensive statement towards others.

In the Chalifoux v New Caney Independent School District case, two students wore white

rosaries as an expression of their religion. They were told that the necklaces were gang

representation and was not allowed to be worn at school. However, it was nowhere to be found
Artifact #3 Student’s Rights and Responsibilities
1
that wearing a rosary was gang affiliated. The courts ruled that this was interfering with the

students of freedom of speech and exercise of religion. Foster could use this case to argue that

his earring is not gang representation, as said before, and that his freedom of speech is being

violated.

I believe Bill’s rights were being violated. Earrings shouldn’t matter, maybe clothing and

hats though. The school should be worried if he was actually in a gang or did something that

really disrupt another student’s education. I feel as though the court would rule in Bill Foster’s

favor. There are cases backing him up, and he has the first and fourteenth amendment on his

side.
Artifact #3 Student’s Rights and Responsibilities
1

Citation Page

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). (n.d.).

Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/#tab-opinion-

1947774

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

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

courts/FSupp/976/659/1582548/

User, S. (2017, July 15). Super User. Retrieved from https://www.educationlaw.org/featured-

caselaw/6511-bh-v-easton-area-school-district

Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/675/#tab-opinion-1956781