Running Head: STUDENTS SELF-EXPRESSING

Students Self-Expressing: Artifact #3

Monica Burgos
Sherry Herington
College of Southern Nevada

Running Head: STUDENTS SELF-EXPRESSING

Bill Foster was a high school student in the northeastern part of the United States. This
large high school began a policy that prohibited the wearing of gang symbols like earrings,
jewelry, athletic caps, and emblems. The high school developed this policy based on the schools
location and gang activity going on around the school. Bill Foster wore an earring to school as a
form of self-expression and he believed that it was attractive to the young girls at school. After
wearing this earring he was suspended from school even though he was not involved in any said
activities. Bill then filed suit against the high school for violating his freedom of expression.
The first amendment in the United States Constitution states, Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances (First Amendment-U.S Constitution).
Congress cannot force someone to stop expressing him or herself by not saying or wearing
something.
In the 2010-2011 school year, there was a similar case of students expressing themselves
by wearing I love boobies bracelets. In this case of [B.H and K.M v. Easton Area School
District] it was two middle school female students that bought and wore their bracelets to school.
The staff was consent of these bracelets, but did not view it as a dress code violation. Except for
the schools assistant principal, Mr. Viglianti. He sent out an email to the faculty and staff to ask
the students to wear the color pink in the month of October instead of the bracelets. On October
27th, Mr. Viglianti resent his email advising the staff that the bracelets were prohibited in the
school campus. That same day B.H. was caught with the bracelet and a cafeteria monitor asked
her to remove it. B.H. refused and was sent to the office where the administrator asked B.H. to

Running Head: STUDENTS SELF-EXPRESSING

remove the bracelet and she did. She then got sent back to the cafeteria without being punished.
The next day on October 28th, Breast Cancer Awareness Day, B.H. and K.M. brought suit arguing
that their first amendment rights had been violated. In conclusion of this case, the court decided
that the girls were not disrupting the students learning. Instead, they were aware of the
consequences of breast cancer. The judge emphasized that their argument was protected because
it was during Breast Cancer Awareness month. In other words, the court appears to suggest that
the bracelets are protecting speech because they are part of the public discussion of breast cancer
and might not be protected if they were worn at any other time. (B.H. v. Easton Area School
District) B.H. and K.M. won their argument versus the Easton Area School District. The court
acknowledges that the students had a protected speech and had their right to express themselves.
In the case of [Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District], it is a similar scenario. It is
about a student named David Chalifoux that is enrolled at New Caney High school in New
Caney, Montgomery County, Texas. David wore a rosary to school outside his clothes. The
school had a rule that students were not allowed gang-related apparel in school premises. The
staff at the high school advised them that they could wear his rosary inside of his clothing only
while he was at school. Apparently the staff at the school viewed the rosary as a gang-related
object. Even though David was not part of a gang or had any problems with the gangs outside of
school, neither did he cause any disruptions or issues at school. When the staff saw David wear
the rosary outside of his shirt, they asked him to hide it under his clothes. David refused and filed
suit instantly. He felt as if his first amendment rights to free speech and religious expression had
been violated. The school fought for the case explaining why they had asked him to place the
rosary inside his shirt. They said that it could disrupt students and can be identified as a gang
symbol. Davids speech was also protected because it was a private and a religious speech. He

Running Head: STUDENTS SELF-EXPRESSING

wore his rosary as a religious matter and had his freedom of expression. Symbolic speech is
protected under the First Amendment if the person displaying the symbol intends to convey a
particularized message (Chalifoux v. New Caney Indep. Sch. Dist.). David also won his case
against New Caney School District. He had his private and religious freedom of expression,
which helped him win. The School District could not violate his First Amendment knowing that
David was never part of any gang activities in or outside of school.
These two cases have so much in common with Bill Fosters case. All three of these cases
have the right to file a suit and see a legal judge. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution mandates that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction equal
protection of the laws (Legal Rights Of Teachers And Students). Amendment XIV (adopted
1868 Section 1: All Persons born and naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
(Blue Paper- U.S. Constitution provisions dealing with Education). In other words anyone has
the right to see a legal judge and fight for his or her case. These three cases are a great example
of the fourteenth amendment because even though they were only students, they still filed suit.
They had their right as citizens for due process of law. They had to be treated fairly within the
legal judicial system.
The school Bill Foster attended suspended him for wearing an earring to school. As a
school they need to have rules and regulations for students to follow. If they did not have rules
the students would be a disaster. For students to not be allowed to wear jewelry-involving gangs

Running Head: STUDENTS SELF-EXPRESSING

is a good regulation. They protect their students from any gang activities and violence at the
school. If Bill was aware of the schools policy of not wearing jewelry to school and he violated
this rule then the school was correct in suspending him.
Bills point of view is very understandable, too. He wore the earring to impress the girls
at school. His intentions were not to violate the rules of the school on purpose. The earring was a
self-expression symbol without any gangs involved. The school prohibited the usage of jewelry
because of the gang activity around the school campus, except that does not mean that every
student will be part of a gang. For example, does a girl get suspended for wearing earrings to
school?
I disagree with the schools final decision of suspending him. They could have asked him
to remove it while he was at school and gave him the reasons why, but the school just suspended
him for his act. I do agree with Bill because he has the right to express himself and wear what he
feels comfortable in. If he was not part of any gangs or was causing any problems at school then
Bill could wear the earring. I think there are more important things that schools should focus on.
For example, making sure the students understand every subject and that there are good teachers
teaching them; instead of focusing on what Bill wore on his ears during school. A student will
not stop learning because another student was wearing an earring to school.

Running Head: STUDENTS SELF-EXPRESSING

Reference Page
B.H. v. Easton Area School District, No 10-6283: (April 12, 2011). Retrieved from
https://educationlaw.org/student-law-express/1548-bh-v-easton-area-school-district-no10-6283-april-12-2011
Cambron-McCabe, N., McCarthy, M., & Eckes, S. (2014). Legal Rights Of Teachers And
Students, Third Edition: Pearson, Page 259.
Chalifoux v. New Caney Indep. Sch. Dist., United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division. September 3, 1997. Retrieved from
http://tx.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19970903_0000085.stx.ht
m/qx
First Amendment-U.S Constitution. Religion and Expression. Retrieved from
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html