Portfolio Four 1

Portfolio Four

Kelsey A. Posatiere

EDU 210-1004

November 6, 2018

College of Southern Nevada

Portfolio Four 2

Bill Foster, a high school student in the northeastern United States, wore an earring to

school and was suspended. Foster wore this earning because he thought that the girls at his

school would find it attractive and it was his way of expressing himself. The school Foster

attended had a strict policy that prohibited students from wearing any kind of gang symbols

which included jewelry, emblems, earring, and athletics caps. The school developed this policy

because the school was having problems with gang activity. However, Bill Foster was not a part

of any gang. Because of his suspension Foster filed a lawsuit against the school for violating his

freedom of expression.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) is the first case that I will present in favor of Bill Foster. In

the case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) Mary Beth Tinker, her brother John Tinker, and their

friend Christopher Eckhardt were suspended from their schools in Des Moines, Iowa for wearing

black arm bands. These black arm bands symbolized the mourning of the people who lost their

lives in Vietnam and their support for a truce. The principles of their schools found out about

their plan to wear these black arm bands and created a policy stating that they were not allowed

to wear them. However, the three students all showed up wearing their black arm bands as

planned, and this resulted in their suspensions. The student’s fathers filed complaints with the

United States District Court, the District Court recognized that the arm bands were a way for the

students to express their views and is a symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the

First Amendment. The District Court also recognized that the action that the school took was

reasonable because it was based upon fear that it would cause a disturbance in the school.

However, this was not enough of a reason to take away their right to freedom of expression.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) backs up the case of Bill Foster because his freedom of expression

is being taken away by not allowing him to wear his earring. In both cases their actions were not
Portfolio Four 3

to hurt anybody, rather, they just wanted to be able to express themselves in what they choose to

wear.

The second case that I will be presenting in favor of Bill Foster is Doe v. Yunits (2001).

In the case Doe v. Yunits (2001) a student at Brockton South Junior High School who was born

as a male but identified as a female, also known as gender identity disorder, was banned from

wearing female clothing to school. Doe filed an eight count complaint against the school, the

first complaint was that the defendants have violated the students right to freedom of expression.

The court sided with Doe and the student’s decision to wear females clothing. The court’s

reasoning to siding with Doe was based on the fact that the student does not go against dress

code in any way and the school did not show any disruption while the student was dressed this

way. Doe v. Yunits (2001) supports Bill Foster’s case against his school because Foster’s

wearing of an earring did not show any disruption among the students at the school.

The first case that I will be presenting against Bill Foster is Paul Palmer v. Waxahachie

Independent School District (2009). In the case Paul Palmer v. Waxahachie Independent School

District (2009) a sophomore at Waxahachie High School wore a shirt with “San Diego” written

on it so, the principle made him call his parents to bring him a new shirt. The shirt Palmer’s

parents brought to him also had a printed message on it. The principle told Palmer that he

couldn’t wear either of the shirts as they were against dress code, which does not allow shirts

with printed messages. Palmer decided to sue the district for violating his freedom of speech.

However, when the district court held their first hearing, just days before, the district changed

their dress code policy, so the case was dismissed. This new dress code policy stated that

students could wear shirts with sponsored clubs and organizations, athletic teams, or that are

school spirited, as well as shirts with logos smaller than 2”x2”. After Palmer received the new
Portfolio Four 4

dress code, he sent 3 shirts to the district to be approved that all had printed messages on it, the

district rejected all 3 shirts. Palmer sued again. However, the court found that the district is in no

way trying to suppress the student’s freedom of expression and allows students to wear school

sponsored shirts. They also feel that with the new dress code it provides students with more

options then they had before. Paul Palmer v. Waxahachie Independent School District (2009)

helps the case against Bill Foster because they can still have a wide variety of things that they

can wear without breaking the dress code. The school is also not trying to suppress the student’s

freedom to expression, they are just trying to prevent gang affiliation within the school.

Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education (2000) is the second case that I will be

presenting against Bill Foster. In the case Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education (2000) a

senior at Van Wert High School wore a Marilyn Manson T-shirt to school and was told that it

was against the dress code. This dress code implied that “clothing with offensive illustrations,

drug, alcohol, or tobacco slogans are not acceptable.” For the next 4 days Boroff wore a different

Marilyn Manson shirt every day and all 4 days he was told that he would not be allowed to

attend school while wearing the shirts. So, Boroff didn’t go back to school for several days after

that. Boroff’s mom took his case to the United States District Court because they felt that

Boroff’s First Amendment right to free expression and his Fourteenth Amendment rights were

being violated. The court sided with the school based on the fact that the shirts had symbols and

words that promote values that are against the school’s educational mission, so the school has the

authority to prohibit the Marilyn Manson T-shirts. They also concluded that they felt that the

school’s intention to prohibit the Marilyn Manson T-shirts were not to suppress Boroff’s

freedom of expression. Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education (2000) will help the case

against Bill Foster because the school’s intention to prohibit the wearing of jewelry is not to
Portfolio Four 5

suppress Fosters freedom of expression but to help manage the violence that comes with possible

gang affiliation.

In the case of Bill Foster, I am against Bill Foster’s decision to file a suit against his

school for being in violation of his right to freedom of expression. I feel that Boroff v. Van Wert

City Board of Education (2000) and Paul Palmer v. Waxahachie Independent School District

(2009) gave me the insight that I needed to make the right decision. I feel that Bill Foster’s

freedom of expression wasn’t being violated, he wanted to wear the earring because he thought

girls would think it was cute. The school set the dress code in order to keep their students safe

and to make sure that there is no way any gang affiliation could occur. The student knew the

dress code and decided to go against it anyways, knowing what the possible consequences were.

I fully stand behind my decision to go against Bill Foster thanks to the cases Boroff v. Van Wert

City Board of Education (2000) and Paul Palmer v. Waxahachie Independent School District

(2009).
Portfolio Four 6

References

Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education, (2000), No. 98-3869, Retrieved Nov. 7, 2018

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

Doe v. Yunits, (2001), No. 001060A, Retrieved Nov. 7, 2018

https://casetext.com/case/pat-doe-v-yunits

Paul Palmer v. Waxahachie Independent School District, (2009), No. 08-10903, Retrieved Nov.

7,2018

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1251036.html

Tinker v. Des Moines, (1969), No. 21, Retrieved Nov. 7,2018

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503