Running head: STUDENT’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Student’s Rights and Responsibilities

Mareli Castañeda

College of Southern Nevada

Abstract

Bill Foster is a high school student where his school made a policy prohibiting the wearing of

gang symbols like jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. He wore an earring to school as

a form of self-expression and a belief that it may be appealing to young ladies, causing him to

get suspended for his act. There are two cases that support the scenario: Olesen v. Board of

Education School District and Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District. In Olesen v.

Board of Education School District a student wore an earring to school because he believed it

expressed his uniqueness and might have been appealing to young ladies in his school. Due to

his act, he got suspended. The next pro case is Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School

District. In this case two students wore rosaries on the outside of their shirts as a means of

showing religious faith. Two school officers prohibited the students of showing off their rosaries,

and were only allowed to wear them inside their shirts where they were not visible to others.

There are two cases that do not support the scenario: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent

Community School District and Bethel v. Fraser. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent

Community School District a few students wore dark armbands to school to support ceasefire in

the Vietnam War and got suspended. Next, Betherl v. Fraser a student gave a speech nominating

a fellow student for elective office and used graphic sexual content and profane language causing

him suspension for two days. Personally, Bill Foster was violated of his rights to the first and

fourteenth amendment and I stand with him on suing the school.

Student’s Rights and Responsibilities

An expansive high school located in the northeastern region of the United States started a

policy prohibiting the wearing of gang symbols, for example jewelry, emblems, earrings, and

athletic caps. This approach was created based on gang activities that were pervasive in the

school. Bill Foster, who was not included in gang activity, wore an earring to school as a type of

self-expression and a conviction that the earring was appealing to young ladies. He was

suspended for his act. Subsequently he filed suit.

In this particular scenario, Bill Foster wore an earring as a form of self-expression and a

belief that it was attractive to young ladies. He did not wear the earring as a form of any gang

related activity; therefore, his freedom of expression rights were violated. Now, just because the

school made a policy prohibiting the wearing of gang symbols like jewelry, emblems, earrings,

and athletic caps, does not mean Bill Foster wearing a earring fell under this. It was wrong that

he got suspended for expressing himself. He is protected under the First Amendment for the right

of speech and expression and under the Fourteenth Amendment for his right to equal protection.

This case is very similar to the Olesen v. Board of Education School District (1986). This case

involved Darryl Olesen, a student who wore an earring to Bremen because he believed it

expressed his uniqueness and might have been appealing to the young ladies in his school. He

had worn his earring to school on several occasions, each time with indistinguishable results, and

he was suspended. Olesen challenged the constitutionality of the school rule, claiming that it

violated his right of free speech and expression under the First Amendment and his entitlement

to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Olesen looked for a directive against the

enforcement of the school policy and expungement from his school records of all disciplinary

action made against him under the school rule. In both cases the students wore earrings as forms
STUDENT’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

of self-expression and both thought doing so was attractive to young ladies. And, both of the

students are protected under the First Amendment for freedom of expression and under the

Fourteenth Amendment under the rights to equal protection.

The next case that supports the scenario is Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School

District (1997.). This case involved David Chalifoux and Jerry Robertson, students who were

enrolled at New Caney High School in New Caney, Montgomery County, Texas. During early

1997, both students started wearing white plastic rosaries on the outside of their shirts as a means

of showing religious faith. The students wore the rosaries for several weeks on the New Caney

High School grounds without remarks from the school administrators. Neither of the young men

were members of any criminal gang operating in the NCISD. In addition, during the period that

they wore the rosaries, they were never approached by gang members because of wearing them.

Nor did they show off their rosaries or cause disruptions or altercations at New Caney High

School. On March 6, 1997, NCISD police officers Eddie Gampher and Troy Woollen approached

the young men on campus and told them they could not keep wearing their rosaries outside their

clothing, but that they could wear them inside their shirts where they could not be visible to

others. Officer Woollen told them that the school had identified rosaries as “gang-related

apparel,” and therefore, their display on campus had been denied. Officer Woollen did not accuse

them of being gang members or of wearing rosaries to identify themselves as gang members. In

fact, the defendants do not question Chalifoux and Robertson’s non-gang status. Rather, officer

Woollen told them that prohibiting them from showing their rosaries, was out of concern for their

wellbeing. This case is also similar to the current case in question because both Chalifoux and

Robertson’s First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression were violated. Bill

Foster’s first amendment rights to freedom of expression were similarly violated.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) is a case that is not

so cut and dried as the above two. In December 1965, a gathering of students in Des Moines held

a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to arrange a public showing of their

support for a ceasefire in the Vietnam War. They chose to wear dark armbands all throughout the

holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year’s Eve. The principals of the Des

Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any

student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in

suspension. On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands

to class and were sent home. The next day, John Tinker did the same and was sent home. The

students did not return to school until after New Year’s Day, the arranged end of the protest.

Through their parents, the students sued the school region for disregarding the students’ right of

expression and looked for a directive to keep the school district from disciplining the students.

The district court dismissed the case and held that the school district’s actions were sensible to

maintaining school discipline. The U.S. court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit backed the

decision without opinion. This particular case does not have many similarities with Bill Foster’s

case, even though Tinker and Eckhardt’s rights of free expression were violated. Because in this

case the students wore armbands to show their support for ceasefire in the Vietnam War. Bill

Foster, however, wore an earring as a form of self-expression. Besides he merely thought it was

attractive to young ladies, and wore it as a sort of self-adornment, not as a political anti-

government symbol.

Bethel v. Fraser (1986) is the last case I believe does not support the scenario. At a school

get-together of around 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser discoursed, nominating a fellow

student for elective office. In his discourse, Fraser utilized what some observers believed was a
STUDENT’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As a component of its

disciplinary code, Bethel High School authorized a rule prohibiting conduct which “substantially

interferes with the educational process…counting the utilization of indecent profane language or

gestures.” Fraser was suspended from school for two days. This particular case does not support

Bill Foster’s case because Matthew Fraser made a speech to high school students that included

graphic sexual content and profane language. I am also sure this case would not be protected

under the First Amendment nor the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, a speech is very different

from wearing an earring as a sign of self-expression.

Having considered the pros and cons of somewhat similar cases above, and based on their

rulings, I am of the opinion that Bill Foster had the right to wear a earring to school. He was not

involved in gang activity at all, so suspension for wearing a earring as a form of self-expression

and the belief that the earring was attractive to young ladies was uncalled for. It is similar to a

student being suspended for having a tattoo, which would be downright bizarre. I am pretty sure

most individuals will agree that it is unacceptable to be suspended for expressing oneself in a

reasonable fashion. Now the high school made it a policy to prohibit the wear of gang symbols

like jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. But, in Bill Foster’s case it was not gang-

related, and as mentioned before his first amendment rights of speech and expression along with

his fourteenth amendment right to equal protection were certainly violated. Just as in the Olesen

v. Board of Education District case, I am sure Bill Foster will also sue the school for violating his

first and fourteenth amendment rights.

References

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser. (1986). from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667

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

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

Olesen v. Board of Educ. of School Dist. No. 228, 676 F. Supp. 820 (N.D. Ill. 1987). (1987).

from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/676/820/1626122/

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. (1969). from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21