Running head: ARTIFACT 3 1

[Title Here, up to 12 Words, on One to Two Lines]

Jeffery Urbina

College of Southern Nevada

ARTIFACT 3 2

Abstract

The way students express themselves is important however some expressions can be a

little to far and not school appropriate? Some schools have a very specific uniforms and dress

codes however with many rules concerning the dress code there is some clothing and accessories

that are hard to determine if they are breaking the rules. Religious clothing and accessories are

the most common in being unsure if their allowed as well as with protest and supporting cause

clothing. In the following case of a young man that decide to wear an earring and was punished

due to the earring falling under gang related this situation will be put to the test to see if it

violates the student’s rights basing the decision on past court cases dealing with the same type of

situation.
ARTIFACT 3 3

Introduction

A school in the northern eastern Of the United States had a policy against wearing

anything that was a gang symbol like jewelry, emblems and ratings and athletic hats. The policy

was enforced to stop the gang based activities occurring at the school. Student Bill Foster who

was not involved in any gang activity, had wore an earring to school to express himself and

impress others. As a result he was suspended. Bill Foster decided to battle the punishment.

The first amendment protects our right to free speech and a freedom of expression. Bill

Foster’s first amendment rights might have been violated as he was not allowed to express

himself with his earring. The fourteenth amendment protects us against laws that abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens. So can the school even make a rule like this? Either way the

both parties should be protected under due process the right to being treated fairly throughout the

entire trial.

The case of B.H. v. Easton Area School District was between the school district and two

students wearing the “I Love Boobies” bracelet the schools decide to ban these bracelets for

disrupting and having inappropriate language. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the students

as the bracelets did not disturb the school and in addition their right to wear them was protected

as the bracelets are a part of public discussion. The same applies to Bill Foster’s earring since he

is not part of any gang activity his earring most likely did not distrust the peace at the school or

cause conflict between students.I believe if they look at this case Bill Foster’s chances of

winning increase.

Another case in favor of Bill’s situation is Chalifoux v. New Canny School District. In

this case a couple of young men were wearing rosaries to show their beliefs however the school
ARTIFACT 3 4

had a policy against gang related apparel they were forced to remove them and the boys decided

to take them to court. This case is very similar to Bill’s in the way how the schools are banning

gang related attire. The courts decide that the school districts policy was void due to the fact that

the students were not involved in gang related situations. In addition students have a right to

express their religious views. This can work for Bill in the way that he was also not involved in

gang related situations and should be able to express himself.

A case that works against Bill Foster is the Bethel school district v. Fraser in this case

Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech,

Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the

candidacy of his friend. As a punishment the school suspended him for two days. Matthew

eventually lost the case because the school had every right to punish him for vulgar speech. The

way this can work against Bill is that since his earring is not a political stance and like Mathews

comments his right might not be protected under these circumstances.

Another famous case that can be used to against Bill Foster’s position is the tinker v.

Des Moines case. The case defined constitutional rights for students in public schools. Mary

Beth Tinker and other students were going to wear arm bands in political protest against the war

in Vietnam. The schools realize what the students were planning on doing and decide to ban it.

Mary Beth was one of the students to still follow through as a result she was punished for this

and she challenged it a court. The court decided to go in favor or Mary Beth Tinker due to the

fact that students don’t lose their constitutional rights at the school gate. However Bill symbol is

not in form of political speech and is just a way to impress other thus he has the intent to distract.

In conclusion I believe the courts will favor Bill due to the fact that his case and the

Chalifoux v. New Canny School District are very similar. However in Bill’s case his earring is
ARTIFACT 3 5

not a symbol of religion or a form of political protest the reason I believe he is protected is

because I feel the school is stretching to include an earring as gang symbols is to vague. Bill has

no history of being involved in gangs in addition, if no gang members have given him a hard

time I don’t see how it can be considered as gang apparel. Another reason as to why I believe the

courts will side with Bill is because of his rights as a student. A students rights don’t end when he

goes to school. Bill has the right to express himself so long as it does not disrupt the school

which is very unlikely for a school earring. These are the reasons as to why I believe Bill will

win the case.

ARTIFACT 3 6

References

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/976/659/1582548/

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21

https://educationlaw.org/featured-caselaw/6511-bh-v-easton-area-school-district

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667