Student’s Rights 1
Artifact #4
Student’s Rights
Noelle Young
College of Southern Nevada
November 10, 2019
Student’s Rights 2
A high school in the United States initiated a policy prohibiting wearing gang symbols
such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. Bill Foster, who was not involved in gang
activity, wore an earring to school as a form of self-expression. He was suspended for his act and
filled for an appeal.
Bill Foster would insist that his First Amendment right of freedom of expression was
violated when the school suspended him for wearing an earring. He would use Tinker v Des
Moines as evidence. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, Mary Beth Tinker was a junior high
school student when she and a group of students decided to wear black armbands to school to
protest the war in Vietnam. The school board got wind of the protest and passed a preemptive
ban. She was then suspended. The court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional
rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Supreme Court
recognized the students’ constitutional rights and found the suspensions were unconstitutional
(Tinker v Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). As in the Tinker case, Foster had a constitutional
right to wear his earrings on school premises. His earring did not cause disruption or interfere
with the rights of other students.
Similarly to the Tinker case, the court case of Chalifoux v New Caney showed that
schools were not allowed to violate student’s freedom of expression. In Chalifoux v New Caney,
two students were suspended for wearing rosaries while on school premises. According to the
school, the rosaries were considered gang related expression, however the Court found the
school’s prohibition violates the student’s rights to free speech and free exercise of religion
(Chalifoux v New Caneyt, 976 F.Supp. 659 (1997). Bill Foster wore his earrings as a form of
self-expression and not to cause any interference in school activities.
Student’s Rights 3
The school will likely use the court case of Botoff v Van Wert City Board of Education
as evidence to suspend Foster. In Botoff v Van Wert City, the Court agreed that the school could
ban a student from wearing a Marilyn Manson T-shirt as it is considered offensive based on the
band’s promotion of values contrary to the school’s educational mission (Botoff v Van Wert City
Board of Education 532 U.S. 920 (2001). I do not believe that a simple earring is grounds
enough to suspend, and using this case would not be substantial enough evidence as a Marilyn
Manson shirt is a lot more distracting than a simple earring.
I also think the school will use the case of West v Derby Unified School District to justify
suspending Foster, however, an earring does not hold the same signfigance as the Confederate
flag. In this case, the Court found the school had properly suspended a student for drawing the
Confederated flag in class. The school had a policy that prohibits racial harassment or
intimidation and the Confederate flag was one of the items listed in their policy (West v Derby
Unified School District, 206 F.3d 1358 (2000). The Confederate flag is a hate symbol and is
classified as such, a simple earring could not possibly hold as much signigance, even if there is
the evidence gangs wear earring, they also wear pants, so does everyone. Although the school
deemed it a gang symbol, the earring is not substantial enough evidence to prove Foster was in a
a gang.
Foster was not in a gang and the presence of an earring is not grounds enough to be in a
gang. He wore an earring as a form of self-expression. The First Amendment protects against
freedom of expression and the cases of Botoff v Van Wert City Board of Education and West v
Derby, the presence of a Marylin Manson shirt and the Confederate flag were proven to be
disruptions to learning. However, I think the court will follow the ruling of Tinker v Iowa as
Foster’s earring did not have substantial evidence of it interfering with schoolwork or discipline.
Student’s Rights 4
Student’s Rights 5
References
Botoff v Van Wert City Board of Education 532 U.S. 920 (2001).
Chalifoux v New Caney Independent School District, 976 F.Supp. 659 (1997).
Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
West v Derby Unified School District No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358 (2000).
