Artifact 4 1

Artifact 4
Valerie Alvizo
EDU 210 Nevada School Law Summer 2016
College of Southern Nevada
Artifact 4 2

Student, Bill Foster, decided as a form of self-expression to wear an earring to school,

believing that it would also be attractive to the young ladies. The school, a large high school in

northeastern United States, had put into effect a policy that prohibited the wearing of jewelry,

emblems, earrings and athletic caps that were gang related. Bill himself was not affiliated with

any gang. For wearing the earring though he was suspended from school. Now he has filed a suit

against the school for his suspension.

Foster can file against the school in their violating of his first amendment right of

freedom of expression. Like in many cases before, the wearing of an item for ones expression to

school is protected under the first amendment. Such as in Burnside v. Byars, the wearing of

symbols like the armbands or freedom buttons cannot be prohibited unless it "materially and

substantially interfere[s] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the

school" (Burnside v. Byars, 1966). Foster has the right to express himself freely by wearing the

earring to school.

Such as we see in the well-known Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School

District in which students wore arm bands to publicize their objections towards the Vietnam war

and show their support for a truce by wearing a black armband. The District Court recognized

that the wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of

symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment (Tinker v. Des

Moines Independent Community School District, 1969).

On the other hand, the school does have rights within its policies to establish what is

acceptable within the confines of the school. Like many cases have shown that students rights

may be violated, there are situations in which their rights have not been violated and the school is

in the right to suspend students like in the case of Morse v. Frederick, where students were
Artifact 4 3

suspended for a banner they displayed at a school sanctioned event that promoted the use of

illegal drugs. we hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from

speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use. We conclude that the

school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug

banner and suspending the student responsible for it (Morse v. Frederick, 2007).

Although he is expressing himself, there are rules and regulations that need to be

followed within a school setting. His actions may be innocent as he is not affiliated with any

gangs or illegal activity but that does not excuse him from his actions. Like in the case of a

student in Porter v Ascension Parish School Board, where the student was expelled from his

school for drawings that he had made in a sketch pad that showed plans to blow up the school

and drawings of gang symbols (Porter v. Ascension Parish School Board, 2004).

I believe that in this case the courts will find that Fosters first amendment rights are

being violated as his wearing of the earring is not causation for any disruption or incidents in the

school. Like in Tinker v. Des Moines, his earring like the armband, is a symbolic freedom of

speech and he has the right to express himself freely. The school was wrong to suspend him.

Foster has every right to file suit against the school for violating his first amendment right.
Artifact 4 4

References
Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2nd 744 (United State Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit July 21, 1966).
Morse v. Frederick, 06-278 (Supreme Court of United States June 25, 2007).
Porter v. Ascension Parish School Board, 04-30162 (United States Court of Appeals, Fifth
Circuit December 10, 2004).
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 21 (Supreme Court of United
States February 24, 1969).