Bill's freedom of expression rights was not violated in this case because the school had already initiated a policy prohibiting the wearing of any gang symbols, which included earrings. "Gang members tend to wear specific apparel or colors to convey gang affiliation" (Essex, 2012, p. 114). If the school is aware of any gang activity going on in the community or school, the school officials have the right to prohibit certain types of dress clothes and etc.
Was his suspension justified? Why or why not?
Bill's suspension was justified because he did not follow the rules that were already implemented before he decided to break the rule and wear the earrings. The school is trying to find ways to reduce violence in the school by implementing school safety rules or the zero-tolerance policy, Bill clearly violated a school safety rule. The school administration must take extra precautions to prevent violence and foreseeable injuries (Essex, 2012). …show more content…
Should Bill have been permitted to wear the earring, since he was not involved in gang activity?
The school should not permit Bill to wear the earring, even though he was not involved in any gang activity. The school must take extra precautions to prevent violence and foreseeable injuries (Essex, 2012). Bill's freedom of expression can cause injuries to Bill or anyone he is affiliated with because the other students in the school who is gang affiliated does not have the same views as Bill, this is an example of a foreseeable event and why he should not be permitted to wear the earrings.
As principal, what factors would you weigh in determining whether Bill would be permitted to wear an earring? (Be
specific)
As principal, the factors that help determine that Bill would not be permitted to wear an earring on the school premises is previous incidents that may have occurred. "School personnel are expected to take reasonable and prudent steps to safeguard the safety of all students" (Essex, 2012, p. 111). As principal, you must "act swiftly but fairly to deal with disruptive or violent acts in school" (Essex, 2012, p. 112), moreover, you must assure the safety of the students. You also want to be aware that it does not pose a threat to the safety of anyone within the school.
Would the court support Bill? Why or why not?
I do not believe that the court will support Bill for violating a school policy by wearing an earring that resembles gang symbols. The school had already stated its views about gang symbols in the school, Bill decided to violate the rules because of his freedom of expression. Bill's freedom of expression can possibly cause a threat to his or another student's safety. "School personnel are expected to take reasonable and prevent steps to safeguard the safety of all students" (Essex, 2012, p. 111). Bill was aware of the gang activity that was prevalent in the school but decided to violate the rules and putting his life and others in harm's way.
Would the court support school officials? Why or why not?
The court would support the school officials because they were taking precautions to assure that no violent acts may accrue. The school must beware of all activities going on in the school and outside in the community. The school policy was developed based on the gang activity that was prevalent in the school, and it is the school official duty to prevent violence and foreseeable events. "School personnel are expected to take reasonable and prevent steps to safeguard the safety of all students" (Essex, 2012, p. 111).
What are the administrative implications suggested by this case?
The administrative implications suggest that the school does not tolerate any form of gang-related activities, even if it represents freedom of expression. The school clearly stated these rules because of previous activities that had happened in the school. It is known that gang members wear certain things to convey gang affiliation and in Bill's case, he should not be treated any different because he wore the earrings for different reasons. It is expected for the school to take precautionary measures to prevent any violent acts. "As crime, gangs, and violence continue to plague public schools, the government agencies most responsible for dealing with these problems--police, schools and juvenile probation--must band together to provide students a crime-free learning environment" (West, 1995, p. 1).