Running head: STUDENT RIGHTS
Student Rights
Sandra Lopez
College of Southern Nevada
Prepared for: Education 210, Professor Herington, Fall 2014
STUDENT RIGHTS
Abstract
Bill Foster was a high school student attending a high school that
prohibited the wearing of certain symbols, jewelry, and earrings to
school because they represented gang relation. This high school had
previous problems with gang related issues. One day Bill Foster
decided that he was going to wear an earring as a way of expressing
himself and it ended up in him getting suspended from school for such
a decision. With the help of the Bethel v. Fraser, Tinker v. Des Moines,
Chailfoux v. New Caney and Olesen v. Board of Education cases we will
be able to determine and give the conclusion that there was a lack of
proper due process on behalf of the high school that Bill Foster
attended and that although the principal was only providing policies
that would make for a safer and more secure school, the lack of proper
due process for Bill Foster the court would grant him the win in the
case.
STUDENT RIGHTS
Bill Foster was a teenager student who attended a large high
school in the northeastern U.S. The high school that he attended had
previous encounters with gang related problems. Due to such problems
the school had a strict policy that denied students the wearing of
certain things like; gang symbols, jewelry, earrings and other
prohibited items that might represent gang affiliation. Bill Foster
decided that he was going to wear an earring to school as a way of
self-expression. Foster was not in any gang or gang related situations,
however due to such decision and school policies he was suspended.
After his suspension Bill Foster decided to file a lawsuit.
Bill Fosters case relates to the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines case
where students wore black wristbands as propaganda for the end of
the Vietnam War. This case ended up in favor of the students because
it denied their freedom rights and it gave them the opportunity to let
them and others express their beliefs on matters like such. The
Chalifoux v. New Canney case also relate to Bill Fosters because in this
case a student wore rosary beads to school where it was prohibited by
the school. This case ruled that it did deny Rodrigo Avilas (the student
wearing the beads) freedom rights. Going back to Bill Fosters case it is
relatable to these because Bill Foster only wanted to wear the earring
to school as a way of expressing himself. He was not trying to harm
anyone. Bill Foster and his case could also argue the lack of Procedural
Due Process for Student Suspensions. Proper procedural due process
STUDENT RIGHTS
for student suspensions goes like this; first the students must be given
a written and or oral notification stating the violation and the intended
punishment. Next the students are given an opportunity to prove that
they are not in the wrong. Lastly evidence may be given in order to
stop discipline actions. Therefore Bill Foster could reasonably argue
that he was suspended immediately and not given proper due process.
If Bill Foster were to argue that and prove it he could potentially win his
case.
It too however could be argued that the case goes in favor of the
school. School policies are school policies and should be respected and
obeyed. The school policies are made for specific reasons such as
safety and security for the students. Bill Fosters case can also relate to
the Olesen v. Board of Education case. In this case a student took his
school to court because he thought that a school policy denied his
freedom rights. The policy denied male students the wearing of
earrings. The court ruled that this did not deny his freedom rights or
equal protection rights. Also the Bethel Sch. Dist. V. Fraser can too
relate to Bill Fosters case because in the case Mathew Fraser gave a
speech about a fellow classmate as he was running for a school
campaign. His speech included vulgar language he was punished and a
lawsuit was started. The court ruled that the school was in the right for
prohibiting vulgar language. These relate to Bill Fosters case because
they punished him for not obeying a school policy. School authorities
STUDENT RIGHTS
can censor student expression in school publications and other schoolrelated activities as long as the censorship decisions are based on
legitimate pedagogical concern(98). The principal and school policy
was only protecting him and the school from gang related issues that
couldve possibly restarted if Bill Foster was able to wear the earrings.
The school policy was for the best interest of the school and students.
Conclusion
The conclusion for Bill Fosters case could ultimately go in his
favor or in favor of his school and principal. I personally believe that
the principal and the school should win this case because they were
only looking out for the best interest of the students. The school and
school policies were only providing such rules so that the students
would be safe in their school, so that they could have a safe learning
environment. The principal has the right to deny certain things that
could be potentially disruptive or harmful for the students and their
education, and that is exactly what the principal did. I dont think Bill
Fosters freedom of expressions rights were violated because he wasnt
able to wear the earring. I mean for all we know the students could
have been able to wear such items before school started and after
school finished just not during school hours. However I think the case
would rule in favor of Bill Foster. If he correctly argued the lack of
STUDENT RIGHTS
proper due process in his case he could win. A student cant be denied
proper due process because that would be like denying them the
Fourteenth Amendment. That is why I think that the court would rule in
favor of Bill Foster.
STUDENT RIGHTS
References
Bethel Sch. Dist. NO. 403 v. Fraser, 478. U.S. 675 (1986)
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser | The Oyez Project ... (n.d.). Retrieved October 24,
2014.
Cambron-McCabe, N., McCarthy, M., & Thomas, S. (2004). Legal Framework of Public
Chalifoux V. New Canney 976 F.Supp. 659 (1997)
Education. In Legal Rights of Teachers and Students (Second ed.). Pearson Education.
Hudson JR., D. (n.d.). Students should be free to wear rosary beads.
Olesen v. Board of Education, 676F. Supp. 820 (1987)
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
