Running head: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities 1

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Arleesia Herrera

College of Southern Nevada

Students’ Rights and Responsibilities

Due to a rise in recent gang activity, a high school in northeastern United stated, instated

a strict dress code policy. The policy was put in place in order to curb the rising gang activity

taking place in the school. Part of that policy prohibits the wearing of jewelry, emblems, earrings

and athletic caps. Bill Foster, a student at this school, wore an earring to school as a form of self-

expression and under the impression it would attract girls. Even though he was not in a gang, he

was suspended for breaking the dress code policy. Subsequently Bill Foster sued the school.

Students’ Rights

In the landmark case of Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), it was decided that

students do not give up their first amendment rights at the school gates. Students are still citizens.

There are several other cases that not only reinforce the courts standing in the Tinker v. Des

Moines School District case but help Bill Foster’s case against his school district as well. In the

case of Guiles v. Marineau (2006), seventh grade student Zachery Guiles wore a shirt that

depicted former President Bush as a chicken hawk, drinking martinis and preparing lines of

cocaine. Mr. Guiles wore the shirt on average once a week for approximately two month (Guiles

v. Marineau, 2006). In that time the shirt did not provoke any fights or disruption but, did elicit

conversation. One student, who had opposing political views, complained about that shirt but

was told since it is political speech that the speech was protected. The mother of said student had

also seen the shirt on a field trip and also complained about it. This time the shirt was determined

to be in violation of the dress code because of the images of drugs and alcohol. Guiles sued the

school for violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights (Guiles v. Marineau, 2006). The

court found in favor of Guiles since he had worn the shirt several times prior and there was no
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

disruption to school activities. For Bill Foster, this means he has the right to express himself and

the school cannot ask him to dilute his self-image.

In another case Scoville v. Board of Education of Joliet Township High School District

(1970), two high school students were expelled for circulating an underground newspaper.

Raymond Scoville and Arthur Breen, students at Joliet Central High School, created a newspaper

called “Grass High”, that contained essays, poetry, record and movie reviews, and a critical

editorial of school policies (Scoville v. Board of Education of Joliet Township High School

District, 1907). They distributed the paper to sixty students and staff. The students were removed

from the regular school paper, removed from debate team, advised they could not take their fall

exams and suspended for five days. After the suspension the dean recommended expulsion

because the students exhibited “gross disobedience and misconduct” (Scoville v. Board of

Education of Joliet Township High School District, 1970). The students filed suit following the

expulsion believing they had been adequately punished enough and they didn’t want to further

disrupt their education. The court found in favor of the students. While the underground

newspaper contained language offensive to the school board, they cannot punish students for

expressing their disapproval with the school or its policies. Further, the school could not prove a

“reasonable forecast of substantial disruption” (Scoville v. Board of Education of Joliet

Township High School District, 1970). What this means for Bill Foster is the school needs to be

able to prove that wearing an earring would cause a substantial disruption to school activities.

Students’ Responsibility

Although students do not abandon their citizenship at the school gate, they are at school

for a purpose and that is to learn. A school needs to be able to fulfill its primary function as a

place of learning and students have the responsibility to learn. In the case of Canady v. Bossier
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

Parish School Board (2001), a Louisiana parish school board enforced a strict dress code and

mandatory uniforms. The school board believed that in doing so it would reduce disciplinary

issues and improve the educational environment. Several students and parent challenged the

school boards new dress policy stating it violated students’ rights to freedom of expression.

However, the school was able to provide evidence that school performance had increased, and

disciplinary problems had decreased since the implementation of the dress code (Canady v.

Bossier Parish School Board, 2001). The courts ruled in favor of the school board finding that it

did not suppress the students’ free speech. The panel had concluded that "Although students are

restricted from wearing clothing of their choice at school, students remain free to wear what they

want after school hours” (Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board, 2001). For Bill Foster this

means that a school has the right to create and enforce a dress code and that a dress code does not

infringe on students’ right to free speech or “bar the important 'personal intercommunication

among students' necessary to an effective educational process” (Canady v. Bossier Parish School

Board, 2001).

In the case of Wynar v. Douglas County School District (2003), Landon Wynar had

posted several violent messages on his MySpace social media page. On this page he listed

students he would sexually assault, students he’d kill and when he’d “shoot up” the school.

There were a few fellow students he had told this to, who decide to talk to their coach and

administrators. Mr. Wynar claimed all the messages on his MySpace page were jokes and that he

had no plans of committing a mass shooting at the school. The school decided to suspend him for

ten days. His parents sued saying that suspension was not warranted since Mr. Wynar had not

done anything and they had violated their sons right to freedom of speech. The school argued

that he had violated a rule that prohibits a student from extorting or threatening another student, a
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

teacher or any school employee (Wynar v. Douglas County School District, 2003). They also

argued that “School officials have a difficult task in balancing safety concerns against chilling

free expression” (Wynar v. Douglas County School District, 2003). The courts ruled in favor on

the school board and upheld the suspension of Mr. Wynar. While Bill Foster did not threaten

anyone with the wearing of an earring, this case relates to his due to the potential of violence.

Schools have the right to discipline students based on the potential for disruption and violence.

Ruling

Schools have a duty to its students, to educate them. Students have the responsibility to

learn while in school. Students don’t give up their rights to free speech or expression in school,

but freedom of speech in the public school is limited. In a school that has a gang problem that

interferes with student learning, students may be asked to comply with stricter rules in order for

the school to fulfill its main duty of educating and to keep students safe. The school had every

right to institute and enforce a strict dress code to curb gang violence within the school walls.

Bill Foster violated that explicit dress code designed to keep students safe. His affiliation with a

gang is irrelevant. His suspension was not an infringement on his rights to freedom of speech or

self-expression, it was out in place to ensure he had a safe place to learn. Bill Foster’s suspension

was just.
 STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6

References

Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board (United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. January 23,

2001).

Guiles v. Marineau (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit August 30, 2006).

Scoville v. Board of Education of Joliet Township High School District (United States Court of

Appeals, Seventh Circuit -- Scoville v. Board of Education, 425 F.2d 10, 10 (7th Cir. 1970) April

01, 1970).

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (February 24, 1969).

Wynar v. Douglas County School District (United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit August 29,

2003).