Artifact #4 Students’ Right to Expression 1

Artifact #4

Students’ Right to Expression

Jennifer Ellis

College of Southern Nevada

November 24, 2018

Artifact #4 Students’ Right to Expression 2

Due to widespread gang activity at a large high school in the northeastern United States,

the administration started a policy prohibiting the wearing of gang symbols such as jewelry,

emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. Bill Foster, who attended this high school and was not

involved in gang activity, decided to wear an earring to school. He claimed that he believed the

earring to be attractive to young ladies and was a form of self-expression. Bill was suspended

from school for not following the policy and in turn filed suit.

The first case in support of Bill Foster is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community

School District, 393 U.S. 503(1969). In this momentous case three students wore a black

armband in protest of the Vietnam war. When their principal heard what the students were

planning, he placed a ban on wearing armbands. After the students arrived wearing armbands

they were suspended. The court recognized the students constitutional right for freedom of

expression. Students have a constitutional right to free speech, the right to be free from

unreasonable search and seizure, due process , equal protection, and certain privacy rights

(Underwood & Webb, 2006). Bill has a right to express himself as long as no disruption or

discrimination occurs. Due to the fact that Bill is not gang affiliated, wearing an earring would

not cause any harm to his classmates. Bill could even claim he is being discriminated against by

assuming he is a gang member by his earring.

The second case that could be used in Bill Foster’s favor is Chalifoux v. New Caney

Independent School Dist., 976 F. Supp. 659 (1997). Just like in Bill’s case, the school placed a

ban on wearing gang affiliated emblems. The admin considered rosaries to be gang related after

seeing known gang members wearing them. Two students continued to wear their rosaries as a

sign of their religious beliefs. Even after it was proven that the students were not affiliated with

gangs, the principle would not allow the students to wear their rosaries. The students filed suit
Artifact #4 Students’ Right to Expression 3

claiming violation of their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech.

The courts ruled that the students were sincerely expressing their religious beliefs and allowed

them to wear their rosaries. Although Bill was wearing his earring to impress young ladies and

not due to his religion, his case is similar to the Chalifoux case as he was not affiliated with any

gangs but prohibited to wear jewelry. To ban something that is commonly worn by everyone

such as earrings is unreasonable. The school would have to prove that Bill’s earrings were

disrupting the other students.

The first case in support of the school is Brown v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ.,714 F.

Supp. 2d 587 (2010). Anthony Brown, a student at Huntington High School, was suspended for

writing “Free A-Train” on the back of his hands. “A-Train” was the nickname of Anthony

Jennings, a known gang member who was recently expelled from Huntington High School and

had been accused of shooting a Huntingtin Police officer. Brown filed suit claiming that his First

Amendment right to freedom of speech had been violated. The court ruled that Brown’s freedom

of speech had not been violated as his actions could cause a disturbance at Huntington High

School. In Bill’s case earrings had been determined to be a gang emblem. By suspending Bill for

wearing earrings, the school was preventing an anticipated disturbance. Bill knew that earrings

were prohibited and he made the decision to wear them anyway.

Another case that would support the school is Littlefield v. Forney Ind. School Dist., 108

F. Supp. 2d 681 (2000). In this case parents argued that the students freedom of expression was

being violated by the enforcement of the mandatory school uniform dress code policy. The

school included an opt-out option for students with religious objections or philosophical views.

Due to this, the courts found that the mandatory school uniform dress code did not violate their

freedom of expression. For Bill’s case, the ban of gang symbols such as jewelry, emblems,
Artifact #4 Students’ Right to Expression 4

earrings, and athletic caps falls under the mandatory dress code. The court could rule in the

school’s favor due to the fact that the dress code and rules were made clear. Bill knew the dress

code and made the decision to not abide by it.

It may seem at first that Bill Foster’s right to freedom of expression was violated, but the

school’s policy regarding gang emblems being worn on campus was made clear. Policies should

be written to ensure they reasonably relate to their asserted purpose and are not

vague(Underwood & Webb, 2006). Just like in the case of Brown v. Cabell County Bd. of

Educ.,714 F. Supp. 2d 587 (2010), where the school has a right to protect other students and can

take the proper steps to prevent an anticipated disturbance. Also in the Littlefield v. Forney Ind.

School Dist., 108 F. Supp. 2d 681 (2000) case mandatory dress codes do not violate the freedom

of expression. Just because Bill was not involved in any gang activity, does not exempt him from

the school’s policy. Bill’s choice to wear an earring was to impress girls, not an expression of

religion, therefor his rights to free exercise of religion, free speech and expression was not

violated. Bill may not have like the policy prohibiting wearing earrings but he is not exempt

from following the rules just because he does not like them. Rules are made to be followed not

broken.
Artifact #4 Students’ Right to Expression 5

References

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503(1969) Retrieved
November 20, 2018
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503

Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School Dist., 976 F. Supp. 659 (1997) Retrieved
November 20, 2018
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/976/659/1582548/

Brown v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ.,714 F. Supp. 2d 587 (2010) Retrieved November 20, 2018
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2538777/brown-ex-rel-brown-v-cabell-county-bd-
of-educ/
Littlefield v. Forney Ind. School Dist., 108 F. Supp. 2d 681 (2000) Retrieved November 20, 2018
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1408648.html

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.