Portfolio Assignment 4

1 PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #4: STUDENTS’ RIGHTS

Portfolio Assignment #4: Students’ Rights Margaret E. Lewis College of Southern Nevada

2 PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #4: STUDENTS’ RIGHTS Introduction A high school student, Bill Foster, violated his school’s dress code by wearing an earring to school. As a result, he was suspended. Due to gang activity in the area, the school had banned certain clothing items, such as earrings, that could be construed as gang symbols. Bill wore his earrings not to promote a gang, but to express himself. Feeling that his freedom of expression rights had been infringed upon, Bill filed suit. In the following paragraphs, I will present four different court cases to provide evidence both in support of and against Bill’s claim, and determine whether or not his freedom of expression rights were indeed violated. Cases Supporting Bill Tinker v. Des Moines will be the first case to support Bill’s claim that his rights were violated. A widely known landmark case, Tinker v. Des Moines involved middle school students who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Having learned that the students were planning to do this, the principal of the Des Moines school preemptively put a ban on these armbands, threatening suspension to anyone who chose to wear the armbands anyway. Students Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt disregarded the rule and wore the armbands to school during the planned protest times, resulting in their suspension. Like Bill, they felt that the school had infringed upon their right to express themselves and with the help of their parents, they sued the school district. The courts ruled that the school could not prohibit students from wearing the armbands, stating that, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” as long as the students were not expressing themselves in a manner that

3 PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #4: STUDENTS’ RIGHTS would be disruptive to school activities. This landmark decision supports Bill’s claim, as his earring could hardly be considered disruptive. The next case I will be presenting in favor of Bill’s claim is Gillman v. School Board for Holmes County. In this case, Heather Gillman, a student at Ponce de Leon High School, was concerned that her freedom of expression rights were being violated by her school, so she took legal action against the school through her mother. At Bill’s school, the wearing of earrings and other gang-related paraphernalia was banned. At this school, it was the wearing of clothing or accessories that contained pro-gay symbols that was banned. The two cases relate very much in that clothing items that bear symbolism of a group of people was banned, the only difference being Bill’s school prohibited gang-related clothing and this high school prohibited pro-gay items. The courts ruled that such articles of clothing did not adequately disrupt school activities to warrant being banned, so it was found that the dress code did violate free speech rights. Cases Against Bill The first case to be used against Bill is that of Pyle v. South Hadley School Committee. This case involves two high school students, Jonathan and Jeffrey Pyle, who sued their principal for violation of their First Amendment rights. Both students had, at different times, been suspended for wearing shirts that violated the school dress code. These shirts were against dress code because they contained messages that the school considered to be obscene; one shirt in question read, “Coed Naked Band:  Do It To The Rhythm,” while the other was emblazoned with the words, “See Dick Drink. See Dick Drive. See Dick Die. Don't Be A Dick.” This relates to Bill’s case in that the clothing worn could be seen as vulgar, as could an earring that potentially has ties to a gang. The courts eventually ruled that nothing in the Constitution,

4 PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #4: STUDENTS’ RIGHTS state or otherwise, prevented the South Hadley School from banning clothing items that the school deemed obscene, even if the clothing in question did not cause a disruption. This provides evidence that Bill’s earring, though it may not cause a disruption, could still be just cause for Bill’s suspension. The final case to be used in the analysis of Bill’s dress code violation is that of Hines v. Caston School Corp.; this case also has evidence against Bill’s claim. Hines v. Caston School Corp. involves a fourth grade student, Jimmy Hines, who started wearing a single gold earring to his elementary school. Though the elementary school had no written dress code, the junior high and high school in the same facility had a rule that earrings could not be worn by male students, and as such, Jimmy was in violation of school dress code and was suspended from school. The Hines family filed a complaint against the school, but the courts ruled in favor of Caston School Corp., stating that the school had, "showed affirmatively that their policy was not irrational or arbitrary." Caston Schools proved this by claiming an earring worn by a male could suggest drug use, homosexuality, or membership in gangs and cults, a sentiment shared by Bill’s school. Conclusion Though the cases Tinker v. Des Moines and Gillman v. School Board for Holmes County provided evidence to suggest that Bill’s First Amendment rights may, indeed, be compromised by his school’s dress code, I must come to the conclusion that his school has the right to uphold their dress code policy. As evidenced by Pyle v. South Hadley School Committee, even if an article of clothing does not actively disrupt classroom activities, the school may still enact a policy against the wearing of such clothing. Though Bill’s earring may not have caused any kind

5 PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #4: STUDENTS’ RIGHTS of disruption, it still was against the dress code policy, a policy that the school is well within its rights to enact. In Hines v. Caston School Corp., it is shown that when the school can provide a reasonable explanation for the prohibiting earrings, the school has not violated the students’ freedom of expression rights. Though Bill may not be associated with any gangs, the wearing of earrings is associated with gangs, and the school should be able to suspend him for going against school policy.

6 PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #4: STUDENTS’ RIGHTS

References Tinker v. Des Moines (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit February 24, 1969) (Oyez, Dist. file). Gillman v. School Board for Holmes County (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida April 25, 2008) (FindaCase, Dist. file). PYLE v. SOUTH HADLEY SCHOOL COMMITTEE (United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit. May 26, 1995) (FindLaw, Dist. file). Hines v. Caston School Corp. (Court of Appeals of Indiana. June 8, 1995) (Justia, Dist. file).