Running head: A REVIEW OF STUDENT RIGHTS 1

A Review of Student Rights and Limitations Regarding Freedom of Expression, To Earring Or

Not To Earing

Bianca Yegutkin

College of Southern Nevada

A REVIEW OF STUDENT RIGHTS 2

Policies were put into place at a high school that restricted the attire that students could wear

(Webb, n.d.). This United States high school had a large population of students and was in the

northeastern area of the U.S. The policy set forth by the school limited the wearing of specific

articles or accessories such as but not limited to hats, jewelry, and items from particular brands.

This procedure was established because gangs were very active at the school. A student, Bill

Foster, wore an earring to school, which was against school policy; he was ultimately suspended.

Foster did not have gang affiliations, but only wore the jewelry as a fashion statement and way of

self-expression. After his suspension, Foster sued the school for violating his right to freedom of

expression.

In Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, the court ruled in favor of a

student who was disciplined for sporting a tattoo; which she eventually had medically removed

(Gangs, Tattoos, and Symbolic Speech, n.d.). Ultimately the appeals court said the schools’

policy was too vague and left too much control to administrators. In their judgment, the Court

wrote that, “. . . District regulation suffers from an additional defect because it allows school

administrators and local police unfettered discretion to decide what represents a gang symbol

(Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 1997). In the case of Foster, an earring

may be considered a too vague and broad representation of what can be regarded as gang

apparel.

In Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board, a middle school student was disciplined

for wearing a tee-shirt that had outlines of men with guns, including the NRA acronym (Newsom

v. Albemarle County School Board, 2003). The student had obtained the tee-shirt at a camp; the

administrator that confronted him felt it was not appropriate and may promote gun violence in

the school (Newsom Wins One. (n.d.). The Circuit Court decided in favor of the student because
A REVIEW OF STUDENT RIGHTS 3

there was a lack of proof that the article of clothing the student was wearing encouraged or

caused violence in school. In the case of Foster, there may not be proof that the wearing of

earrings promotes gang violence or symbolizes gang affiliation.

In the case of Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education, a high school student’s parent

brought an example to the courts after the student was told he could not wear a tee-shirt to school

(Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education, 2000). The tee-shirt was merchandise from the

rock group Marilyn Manson and depicted visual and written images that were anti-religious. The

court ruled in favor of the school because they deemed the material in question as offensive and

contradictory to the school’s standard for an educational setting (First Amendment Schools). In

the case of Foster the school may be able to prove that the wearing of earrings is offensive or

violates the school’s objectives in creating its learning environment; especially if it already has

explicitly written policies.

In the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, students who wrote for the school newspaper

filed a lawsuit against their school for violating speech rights (Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier). The

principle had taken out written material of the final version of the school paper because he felt

the two of the subjects were inappropriate, namely teen pregnancy and divorce. The Supreme

Court ruled in favor of the school because the newspaper was part of the school’s curriculum and

therefore they were allowed more control over the content (Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier). In the case

of Foster, the school may be able to say that they did not violate rights of speech because policies

written prohibiting the wearing of earrings and are part of the curriculum.

Per Webb & Underwood, many northeastern states already have laws restricting schools

from limiting dress because it is considered freedom of expression (Webb, D. L., Underwood, J.

2006, p 124). Also, an earring is an article of clothing that is worn by many people, including
A REVIEW OF STUDENT RIGHTS 4

teachers. Unless the school can prove the wearing of earrings and Foster, the student in question,

are affiliated to gangs, I do think that Foster has a case. Unless there are more specifics rather

than just an earring, maybe a specific type, or where it is worn, that can prove gang activity I

think the courts would rule against the school in taking disciplinary action against Foster.
A REVIEW OF STUDENT RIGHTS 5
A REVIEW OF STUDENT RIGHTS 6

References

Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education., (2000). FindLaw’s United States Sixth Circuit case

and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2017, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-

circuit/1210620.html

First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2017,

from http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=1685

Gangs, Tattoos, and Symbolic Speech | www.streetlaw.org. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2017, from

http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/241/Gangs_Tattoos_and_Symbolic_Speech

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier., (1988). Facts and Case Summary - Retrieved April 2, 2017. (n.d.).

from http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-

case-summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier

Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board., (2003). Retrieved April 2, 2017, from

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/031125p.pdf

Newsom Wins One. (n.d.). Retrieved April 3, 2017,

from http://www.nationalreview.com/article/209063/newsom-wins-one-dave-kopel

Purdue OWL: APA Formatting and Style Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2017, from

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District., (1997). FindLaw. (n.d.). Retrieved April

2, 2017, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1097522.html

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., (1969). (n.d.). Retrieved April 2,

2017, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503

Webb, D. L., Underwood, J. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

A REVIEW OF STUDENT RIGHTS 7

Webb, N. Portfolio 4 overview: Students’ rights and responsibilities. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2,

2017, from https://csn.instructure.com/courses/1282957/pages/portfolio-4-

overview?module_item_id=12414871
A REVIEW OF STUDENT RIGHTS 8