Running head: Portfolio Artifact #4 Brown 1

Taylor Brown
April 28, 2019
EDU 210
Portfolio Artifact #4
Portfolio Artifact: #4 Brown 2

A policy prohibiting students from wearing any kind of gang symbols such as jewelry,

emblems, earrings, and athletic caps was put into place at a large high school in the northeastern

United States. Following this policy, student Bill Foster, wore an earring to school and was

suspended for doing so. Bill is not involved in any gang activity; he simply wore the earring as a

form of self-expression. After being suspended for his actions, Bill filed suit against the school

district.

Pat Doe VS. Yunits is the first case I will be presenting in favor of Bill Foster filing suit

against the school board for denying his right to self-expression. In the case, Pat Doe VS. Yunits,

a fifteen-year-old, eighth grade student named Pat Doe attended Brockton South Junior High

School. Pat has been diagnosed with gender identity disorder, meaning, Pat is biologically male;

However, she identifies as female. Pat wears clothing to school normally worn by teenage girls,

and in doing so, Pat feels as though her right to freedom of expression in the public schools is

being compromised. The School Committee’s argument states that, “clothing which could be

disruptive or distractive to the educational process or which could affect the safety of the

students will not be tolerated.” Pat alleges that to the best of her knowledge, her appearance does

not and has not caused a disruption or any kind of distraction in the school. The court sided with

the plaintiff, Pat Doe, in this case, stating that the school did not show any disruption and that a

school may not “exert its authority over a student simply to enforce stereotyped ideas of how

boys and girls should look.” Pat Doe VS. Yunits sufficiently backs up Bill Foster’s case to pursue

a lawsuit with the school district for denying his right to self-expression.

The second case presented in favor of Bill Foster’s suit against the school district for

denying his right to freedom of expression is, Hearn VS. Muskogee Public School District. In

this case, the plaintiff, a sixth-grade student named Nashala Hearn who attends Benjamin
Portfolio Artifact: #4 Brown 3

Franklin Science Academy was suspended for five days for wearing her hijab at school, after

going weeks with wearing it without incident. The reason for the suspension was that Nashala

violated the “no hats” policy the school had in place. Nashala had worn her hijab without

incident until the second anniversary of the September 11 th terrorist attacks on the United States

when two teachers saw Nashala wearing her hijab amidst their discussion regarding 9/11. The

teachers stopped Nashala and instructed her to remove her headscarf. Nashala’s father

approached the school officials prior to her suspension and explained to them that Nashala is

required by their religion to wear her hijab due to religious beliefs. When she continued to wear

her hijab to school, she was suspended a second time. The court concluded that the school

district had singled out Nashala and that her rights to equal protection and religious freedom

were violated. The agreement reached by the Justice Department and the school board permits

that not only Nashala, but any student in Muskogee whose religious beliefs conflict with the

school dress code will receive an accommodation. This case sufficiently supports Bill Foster’s

suit against the school district for violating his freedom of expression.

The first case presented against Bill Foster’s suit filed against the school district is, Boroff

VS. Van Wert City Board of Education. In this case, eighteen-year-old senior, Nichols Boroff

from Van Wert High School was told multiple times to discontinue the wearing of Marilyn

Manson apparel at school because it was inappropriate and offensive. The first incident occurred

on August 29, 1997 when Chief Principal’s Aide David Froelich saw Boroff wearing a shirt as

described. Froelich instructed Boroff to either turn the shirt inside out, go home and change into

something more appropriate, or leave school and be considered truant. Boroff chose the latter.

Following the next few days at school, Boroff continued to wear Marilyn Manson t-shirts,

despite them being against school code. On September 16, 1997, Boroff’s mother-initiated suit
Portfolio Artifact: #4 Brown 4

against the school district stating that the administrator’s refusal to let her son wear his Marilyn

Manson shirts to school was a violation of his First Amendment right to free expression and his

Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. (After Boroff celebrated his eighteenth birthday, he

was substituted for his mother as the plaintiff in this case.) The court ruled in favor of the school

district, stating that “It is a highly appropriate function of public-school education to prohibit the

use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.” This case affirms that Bill Foster’s suit

against the school for denying his freedom of expression will not hold up in the court of law

because the school has the right to prohibit any article of clothing, jewelry, etc. that is deemed

offensive or a distraction to other students.

The second case I will be presenting against Bill Foster’s suit against the school for

denying his freedom of expression will be, West VS. Derby Unified School District. In this case,

seventh-grade student, T.W was suspended from school by Derby Middle School’s assistant

principal, Brad Keirns for drawing a confederate flag on a piece of paper while present in math

class; In doing so, T.W violated the district’s policy. Following his suspension, T.W’s father,

filed suit for “injunctive relief” against the school district on behalf of his son, stating that the

school district’s policy violated his son’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech,

Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal

protection. Following the trial, the court sided with the school district on all counts stating that

neither T. W’s freedom of speech, right to due process, or equal protection rights were violated.

The school acted in the appropriate manner on all counts. Therefore, Bill Foster does not have a

case against the school district because the district has the right to suspend students who do not

follow the policies the district has in place.

Portfolio Artifact: #4 Brown 5

In conclusion, my decision is in favor of Bill Foster’s suit against the school district for

violating his right to self-expression. I conclude that the policies currently in place need to be re-

written to specify what constitutes as “gang-related” or not. It is extremely vague to instruct

students not to wear jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps that are considered “gang

symbols.” The school district should be held responsible for not making it clear what was

expected of students with this policy. My decision is in favor of Pat Doe VS. Yunits, and, Hearn

VS. Muskogee Public School District.

Portfolio Artifact: #4 Brown 6

References:

Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education. (2000, July 26). Retrieved from

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

Gants. (2001, February 26). Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court Plymouth,

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

Lee, J. (2009, June 4). Nashala's Story. Retrieved from

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2009/06/04/nashalas-story

West v. Derby Unified School District NO 260. (2000, March 21). Retrieved from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1074331.html
Portfolio Artifact: #4 Brown 7