Running header: Chapter 7 & 9 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #4) 1

Chapter 7 & 9 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #4)

Andrew Minear

EDU 210

Professor Warby
 Chapter 7 & 9 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #4) 2

Chapter 7 & 9 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #4)

Due to gang activity near a Northeastern U.S. high school, school administration

established a ban on student’s wearing gang attire including; earrings, jewelry, and athletic caps.

One student by the name of Bill Foster, who was not affiliated with a gang, was suspended for

wearing an earring. Foster believed that wearing the earring was his freedom of expression since

he was only wearing it to attract attention from girls and not as the support of a gang, so he sued

the school for violating his freedom of expression rights.

Since the given scenario takes place in a Northeastern U.S. state, it can be assumed that

the circuit court of appeals had deemed dress as a form of expression. The scenario does not

specify whether Bill Foster’s high school had gotten permission to initiate the dress code nor that

Bill Foster’s wearing of an earring had caused disruption in the school. The courts ruled in Doe

v. Yunits et al, Superior Court of Massachusetts, that for schools to suspend a student based on

attire, the attire must be proven to cause disruption or harm (Oct. 11, 2000). In both cases, Doe’s

and Foster’s, they had been restricted on what they could wear on school grounds; however, both

had the right to their freedom of expression. Neither school had provided proof that their attire

had caused disruption in the school; therefore, the school’s actions against them were violations

of their first amendment rights of expression in clothing.

Doe’s case which was previously mentioned took place in Massachusetts which is a

northeastern state and according to the map in Figure 7.2 in the text, School Law for Teachers:

concepts and applications, the circuits of Northeastern states deem dress as a form of expression

(pp. 124). Foster’s school is violating their students’ expression rights since the circuit court of

appeals have ruled student attire as an expressive activity. In another Northeastern U.S. case,

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, courts ruled in favor of the students’ rights to
 Chapter 7 & 9 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #4) 3

free speech when three students were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the

Vietnam War (1969). This case not only noticed the constitutional rights of students but also

established that schools can place limitations if student attire is believed to cause issues. In the

text, School Law for Teachers: concepts and applications it explains, “Tinker recognized

students…rights…but reinforced schools’ authority to regulate those rights if…cause a material

and substantial disruption or invasion of the rights of others” (pp. 121). In Foster’s case, the

school had not supplied this cause of a material or substantial disruption nor an infringement of

the rights of others, so courts may agree with Foster.

School policies which regulate students’ First Amendment free exercise right to wear

certain garments can be enforced if the purpose of the limitation is legitimate. Dress code is

established for protecting students from the disruption that inhibits education and the

development of a dangerous environment. In Stephenson v. Davenport Community School

District courts established that schools can initiate dress code policies against gang affiliated

attire; although, the prohibited items must be described thoroughly (8th Cir. 1997). Foster’s

school had accurately distinguished that earrings, jewelry, and athletic caps can all be connected

to gang-activity; therefore, they were prohibited on school grounds. Foster’s right to expression

was not violated because his wearing of an earring had broken the school’s policy which clearly

banned earrings.

As discussed previously, schools can suspend a student if their apparel is proven

disruptive, but also if it invades the rights of other students. In the text, School Law for Teachers:

concepts and applications it states that “the Court has recognized that…the right to free speech

must be balanced…to ensure student safety and learning” and “…schools must teach by example

the ‘shared values of a civilized social order’” (pp. 120 and 123). Foster may not have been
 Chapter 7 & 9 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #4) 4

affiliated with a gang and his wearing of the earring was strictly an act of expression, but if the

school had ignored his violation of their dress code policy then it would have been unfair to

restrict other students from wearing earrings as well. In Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School

District, the court examined the welfare of the school as a community; ensuring the rights of

other students are not affected and the reasoning for the school’s suspension of a student is to

protect the educational environment (N.D. Tex. 1966). Foster’s suspension was not a violation of

his expression rights because the school had a legitimate reason and he had undoubtedly

disregarded the school’s policy against earrings.

After reviewing each case, I believe the courts would side with the high school over

Foster. The rulings of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District had determined that yes,

students have constitutional rights, but schools are able to regulate these rights to prevent conflict

on school grounds (1969). And the case, Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District,

courts established that if a school policy prohibits certain items of apparel precisely then students

must dress accordingly (1997). When Foster wore the earring to school, he had violated his

school’s policy which banned all earrings, and even though Foster’s violation had not caused

disruption, allowing his violation would have been unfair to other students.
Chapter 7 & 9 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #4) 5

References

• Doe v. Yunits et al, Superior Court of Massachusetts, United States (11 October 2000) |

ICJ. (n.d.). Retrieved February 19, 2018, from https://www.icj.org/sogicasebook/doe-v-

yunits-et-al-superior-court-of-massachusetts-united-states-11-october-2000/

• Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District, 261 F. Supp. 545 (N.D. Tex. 1966).

Retrieved February 19, 2018, from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-

courts/FSupp/261/545/1674870/

• Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

(n.d.). Retrieved February 19, 2018, from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/case.html

• Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997)

o FindLaw's United States Eighth Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved

February 19, 2018, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1097522.html

• Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: concepts and

applications. Ch.7 Student’s Rights. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice

Hall. (pp. 120-125).