Running Head: EDU 210 PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #4 1

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #4

Jessica Brooks

CSN Online Campus

Running Head: EDU 210 PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #4 2

Students are protected under the First Amendment to be able to express themselves at

school. The rules of all the schools should be made very clear to all students, parents, and

faculty. In north east America, a student was found wearing an earring as a form of self-

expression because he thought the girls liked it. Prior to the student wearing the earing the school

had added a new policy banning the use of all gang symbols, emblems, earrings, and athletic

caps. The student, Billy, at the high school was later suspended for wearing the earring, and filed

a suit against the school. I believe that the schools have the right to deny him the self-expression

at school.

In the court case Tinker V Des Moines Independent School District three students were

suspended for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The school said that the

students were being disruptive and that the school was no place for the students or staff to voice

their political opinion. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the students to

be suspended because they had the right to freedom of speech and expression even at the school.

This case is like Billy’s at the high school for the students to have the right to express

themselves. The school should not have suspended Billy from attending school because he wore

an earring. Also, the intentions behind wearing the earring at school was not gang related as the

school stated they have been trying to avoid any gang related activity. Billy wore the earing to

impress the girls at the school and was not in protest of the school or any political controversies

that had been going on.

Another case that is like Billy’s is that of Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education.

Boroff the student wore a Marilyn Manson T-shirt to school and was given the option of turning

the t-shirt inside out or going home and changing. The student then left school. The next three

days the student wore different Marilyn Manson t-shirts even after a conference with his mother,
Running Head: EDU 210 PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #4 3

the principal, and the superintendent about wearing the shirts to school. The student then

continued to wear the t-shirts for the next three days and was suspended for four days. The

mother then began the law suit that her son was not able to express himself at school. The school

claimed that the t-shirts were disruptive and against school policy which that had enacted to

avoid and vulgar or offensive clothes from students. In turn the Supreme Court ruled that the

school officials cannot prohibit students from wearing a t-shirt to school. In Billy’s case, he wore

an earring that was for self-expression just as Boroff had done. Billy should not be suspended

from school because his earing was not disruptive and did not give off any message just like how

the t-shirt did not give off any message. The school are not allowed to suspend a student for their

self-expression.

On the other hand, students should follow the dress code. If the school implements a

dress code that the parents and students are aware of then they should be held accountable for

their dress. The schools must have order for them to work properly and efficiently. In the court

case Pyle v. South Hadley School Committee, 861 F. Supp.157,159 (D.Mass.1994) the school

could suspend the students for wearing inappropriate shirts to school. In this case, the students

knew of the dress code and chose to violate it by wearing shirts that said, “See Dick”. The school

has all the right to suspend students who are in direct violation of the school dress code. Just like

Billy’s case for wearing an earring, the school had implemented a dress code rule for students to

not wear a hats or earrings to protect the school from any gang related activity. Whether the

earring was just to show off to the ladies at school or not he was still in violation of the dress

code; therefore, he should be suspended and should not be allowed to wear an earring to school.

The school has the right to punish the students as they determine is appropriate for their

actions. The school determines that the students are being disruptive and has consequences for
Running Head: EDU 210 PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #4 4

their actions. In the court case J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 807 A.2d 803 (Pa. 2002),

the student had created a website that contained derogatory comments of his math teacher and

the principal. The student was suspended and later went to trial claiming that the site was a

hyperbole and was not a true threat; however, the court saw otherwise and expelled the student

for his website. In Billy’s case his earing was not a direct threat to a student or staff member, but

it could have been. The school in which Billy attends has lots of gang related activity, which is

why the school began the dress code which restricted them from wearing any earrings or hats.

Because of the background of the school Billy could have been a part of a gang and been giving

a signal towards another class member. The school feared for the students and staff safety and

therefore suspended Billy. The school had all the right to suspend Billy because of the nature of

the school and that he could have posed a threat to the school.

In the cases of Pyle v. South Hadley School Committee and J.S. v. Bethlehem Area

School District I agree that the school has the right to restrict the students from wearing a

specific type of clothing or sending a direct message that could cause harm to another student or

staff member. In the case of Billy and his high school I believe that the school did give proper

warning that his actions of wearing an earring to school would get him suspended from school.

The school was in the correct mindset for suspending Billy from school because his actions were

disruptive and could have been dangerous to the school.

References
Running Head: EDU 210 PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #4 5

First Amendment Schools. J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District. First Amendment Schools,

2018, http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=1687

Harlan, J. “Cornell Law School.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. Cornell

Law School, 1969. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503

Reuters, Thomas. “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court Case and Opinions.” Jeffery J Pyle,

et al., Plaintiffs, v. The South Hadley School Committee. Thomas Reuters, 1995,

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1316740.html

Reuters, Thomas. “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court Case and Opinions.” Boroff V. Van

Wert City Board of Education. Thomas Reuters, 2000,

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1210620.html