Student's Rights and Responsibilities

Artifact # 4

EDU 210

Avery Proffit

Professor Celia Isbell

May 4, 2017

In the case we will be discussing this time, there was a big school among the northeastern

United States that made a policy that does not allow the wearing of gang-related symbols such as

jewelry, emblems and athletic caps. This policy was made due to gang activities happening in

school. Our student, Bill Foster was not part of any gang and wore an earring to school as a way

of expressing himself. He thought that this look would attract the young ladies in school.

Unfortunately, he was suspended for wearing the earring. In response to his suspension, he filed

a suit.

On the supporting side for Bill Foster, there is the Tinker v. Des Moines court case that

talks about students freedom of speech rights through accessories worn on their personal selves.

In the Tinker court case, decided in on February 24, 1969, sixth grader Mary Beth Tinker, 16-
year-old Christopher Eckhardt and John Tinker, all participated in wearing an armband that

symbolized their support for a truce in the Vietnam War (Tinker). Beth and her friend,

Christopher, were sent home by the school after they were asked to remove the armbands but

refused to do so. The next day, Beth’s brother, John Tinker wore the same armband to school and

he too was sent home for refusal to remove the band. The three kids then filed a suit through

their parents claiming that the disallowing wear of an armband related to symbolic protest,

violated their freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment (Tinker). The

court agreed that yes, the kids freedom of speech rights were violated by not allowing them to

wear the armbands for their own personal support and beliefs. The court stated that the armbands

only showed true, pure speech and not the actions of one participating in such a thing (Tinker).

Since the students’ armbands were not proven that they “Materially and substantially interfered,”

with school instruction, they were violated of their rights to wear them. We get the point overall

about Tinker. Bill in his case is related to Tinker because his reason for wearing the earring is to

express himself as a person and to attract young women, not for gang related purposes. It would

most likely violate his freedom to express himself as he wants. Unless the school has evidence

that the earring he wore was causing a disturbance to school instruction, then the case should be

settled on Bill’s side.

For the next supporting side for Bill, the court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio, decided in

1969, was a case about a Ku Klux Klan leader that gave a speech at a Klan rally and was later

convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law (Brandenburg). The court ruled that Ohio’s

law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. Ohio’s law made illegal advocating "crime,

sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or

political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons
formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." (Brandenburg). In the case,

the court used a two-pronged test asking, 1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting

or producing imminent lawless action" and 2) it is "likely to bring in or produce such action." So

basically, the leader had every right to his freedom of speech in this case. Sam goes for Bill, as

he has freedom of his own speech/expression.

For the other side of the case for the school, there is the United States v. O'Brien court

case, decided in 1968 where David O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston courthouse. He

claimed that he was expressing his opposition to war. He was held under a federal law that made

the destruction or mutilation of drafts card a crime (O’Brien). The court question here was, was

the law coming out as an unconstitutional infringement of O'Brien's freedom of speech? The

court ruled in favor of no, that it was not an unconstitutional infringement to his freedom of

speech because the governmental regulation involving symbolic speech was not justified. The

chief stated and i quote, “that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the

constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental

interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the

incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the

furtherance of that interest." (O’Brien). This case was a bit more confusing and complicated but

basically they ruled in favor of the state because O’Brien went against the state law

unreasonably. This case is related to the school sending Bill home, because even though Bill was

just expressing his personal expression and beliefs, he did go against school policy and failed to

follow it.

For the last supporting court case on the school’s side of the case, there is the Debs v.

United States court case, decided in 1919, stated that The Espionage Act of 1917 made it a crime
to "give information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of

the United States or to promote the success of its enemies." (Debs). In 1918 Eugene V. Debs, one

the leaders of the Socialist Party of America, made a speech in Canton, Ohio protesting

involvement in World War I. In the speech, he discussed the rise of socialism and praised people

that did not serve in the military and obstructed military recruiting (Debs). After this speech,

Debs was arrested and charged with violating the Espionage Act. at the court trial, Debs argued

the Espionage Act violated his right to free speech under the First Amendment. A federal district

court rejected his claim and sentenced Debs to ten years in prison (Debs). The court ruled that his

rights were not violated and that his case was related to the court case, Schenck v. United States

(1919). In that court case, the court had concluded that the arrest of an individual for distributing

leaflets encouraging readers to oppose the draft was constitutional. Being that Deb’s court case

was in the same case scenario,the conviction was upheld (Debs). It’s tough to relate this to a

complete different situation like our court case with Bill and the school policy, but the court was

able to prove that he went against the state law so he was punished for it, just as Bill would be

punished for going against school policy and refusing to obey it.

After going over all the court cases for each side, I take side with Bill Foster and support

of the Tinker v. Des Moines court case where three students wore armbands symbolizing their

support for truce on the Vietnam War. The students were sent home and they all filed a suit

through their parents fighting for their freedom of speech under the first amendment. The kids

won the case and Ms. Tinker still continues to encourage students to stand up for their freedom

of speech rights today and speak out for themselves. Bill meant no harm by wearing the earring

and he had no intention to wear it for gang relations. Unless the school can prove that he was

ever affiliated with any gang-related activity in or around school grounds or violence, then they
technically have no supporting evidence against him. So, the case is pretty clear that it most

likely will rule in favor of Bill!

References

Brandenburg v. Ohio. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 6, 2017, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492

Debs v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 6, 2017, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us211

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 6,

2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21

United States v. O'Brien. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 6, 2017, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/232