A large high school in the northeastern United States initiated a policy prohibiting the wearing of gang symbols such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. This policy was developed based on gang activities that were prevalent in the school. Bill Foster, who was not involved in gang activity, wore an earring to school as a form of self-expression and a belief that the earring was attractive to young ladies. He was suspended for his act. Consequently, he filed suit.
1. Were Bill's freedom of expression rights violated in this case? Why or why not?
2. Was his suspension justified? Why or why not?
3. Should Bill have been permitted to wear the earring, since he was not involved in gang activity?
4. As principal, what factors would you weigh in determining whether Bill would be permitted to wear an earring? (Be specific.)
5. Would the court support the school officials? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kevin
ReplyDelete1. Bill's freedom of expression rights were not violated in this case since the District had adopted a policy prohibited the wearing of earrings.
ReplyDelete2. His suspension was justified since the District had written policy and wearing earrings was in violation of that policy.
3. A School District has the responsibility to create a safe learning environment. Gang activity and gang related dress disrupt the educational environment. Districts would be discriminating against some students if they enforced the policy on some students and not all students.
4. In order to determine what Bill would be permitted to wear on school grounds I would follow Board Policy and would enforce the Code of Conduct when policy is violated.
5. The courts would support the school officials if they followed policy.
1. I agree with Kevin that his rights were not violated because there was a district policy that all of the students should be responsible for following.
ReplyDelete2. His suspension was justified but I hope that it was an in-school suspension and not out-of-school.
3. He could not have been allowed to wear the earring because then they would be discriminating against others. A policy needs to be followed by all.
4. It is crucial to follow the policy and Code of Conduct in order to remain nondiscriminatory and keep the focus on education.
5. The courts would support the school because they followed the school policy and procedures.
1. I disagree; a blanket policy against the wearing of earrings in the school violates student’s first amendment rights. Also this policy seems unproductive and disruptive to the school climate. Unless all students including females are suspended for merely wearing earrings then suspending Bill Foster appears to be harsh and gender bias.
ReplyDelete2. I don’t think the suspension is justified. I believe that this action is severe and should have been at most a dress code violation with the student receiving detention. The policy does not specifically mandate suspension.
3. I agree that the school has a responsibility to create a safe environment but the policy should not violate students’ rights. Bill should be able to wear his earring since the policy refers to gang symbols not just earrings.
4.Board policy should be adhered to when determining issues of this nature, but I believe that the policy only was referring to gang symbols. School climate should be weighed carefully in this case as not to promote unnecessary anxiety among the student body.
5.The courts will probably state that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school doors.