RUNNING HEAD: Artifact #3

Christina Flatley
Artifact #3
Nevada School Law 210
Professor Herington
April 21, 2016

Artifact #3

Abstract
This artifact will explore students rights to freedom of speech. The case will be argued
from both the plaintiffs and defendants side regarding this particular case. The plaintiff, Bill
Foster will explore his rights with certain cases and amendments. While the defendant, which is
the school will give certain cases to counteract. Finally, a verdict will be reached depending on
how both sides provide their cases regarding student rights and expression.
Keywords: student rights, freedom of speech, plaintiff, defendant, expression

Artifact #3

At the Northwestern High School, a student by the name of Bill Foster is filing suit
against his school board. The reason for this is because the school district denied him his 1st
Amendment right to express himself in his own school. He wore an earring to class because he
wanted to wear whatever he desired, and to attract the ladies. Foster was suspended afterwards
because the piece of jewelry was related to gang-like activities. However, he was not in any gang
at that time and he found his suspension from school to be unfair.
To find out more about certain rulings we need to look at both sides that help the plaintiff
and the defendants argument. There are about four cases along with a few amendments that will
be reviewed. On the plaintiffs side there is the 1st and 14th Amendment, the 1997 case of
Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District, and Stromberg v. California in 1931. For
the defendants side, the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District and the 1986 case of Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser will support them.
The case of Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District in 1997 relates to Bill
Fosters case about the violation of the his first amendment rights. The First Amendment
supports Bill Foster which involves protection of speech, press, assembly, and religious liberties
(Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014). In this case the New Caney school district banned
David Chalifouxs way of expressing himself due to wearing gang-related apparel outside of
their clothes while on school premises (Hittner, 1997). Chalifoux thereafter sued his school
district due to violating their First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression
(Hittner, 1997). Bill Foster has a right to file suit against the New Caney school district because
they not only denied his right to freedom of speech, but also his form of symbolic expression.

Artifact #3

The next case that supports Foster is the 1931 case of Stromberg v. California relating to
the rights of symbolic speech. The case was about a teacher at a summer camp named Yetta
Stromberg who was trying to express her 14th Amendment rights to display a red flag at her
camp. Her 14th Amendment rights included the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause.
Which claims no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the
laws, and ensuring fundamental fairness if the government threatens an individuals life, liberty
or property interests (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014). Her case won due to the fact
forbidding symbolic expression was unconstitutional. Strombergs conviction was overturned,
and California repealed the Red Flag Law which forbade red flags from public display in 1933.
Bill Fosters school district had denied his right to self expression and equal protection of the law
because his fashion sense did not evoke any danger or threats.
Now we will look at the side of the Northwestern High School district, and their
supporting case is the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District of 1969. Three students
were banned from their school because they wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.
They were thereafter suspended because their school district forbade them from wearing these in
silent protest. A student may express their opinion anywhere on the school grounds as long as it
doesnt disturb the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school or
interfere with the rights of others (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014). Bill Foster did
not pass the Tinker test because he wore that earring to purposely attract attention towards the
opposite sex. Therefore, the form of expression disrupts the classroom from doing its normal
activities.

Artifact #3

Another case that the Northwestern High School district could cite is the 1986 case of
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser. The case involved Matthew Fraser, a high school
student who promoted his friends candidacy by using sexual and obscene speech. The Supreme
Court overturned that school authorities can censor speech as long as it is based on legitimate
concern. Bill Foster did not adhere to school rules, and was thereby punished for it because he
did not pay attention to the dress code. At the Northwestern High School district any form of
expression related to gang activities can be assumed that you are in one.
For the final verdict, I feel that the court should decide in the favor of the Northwestern
High School district. Not only for reasons of safety, but also to prevent students from getting
actually involved with certain people that harm the school and other students. Bill Foster had no
right to show up to school simply to attract attention. The school is supposed to be a learning
environment, not a contest where people can show off their possessions. He could have also sent
a message that it was appropriate to try and fit in with violent criminals. This form of expression
is simply unacceptable.

Artifact #3

References
Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., Thomas, S. B., & McCarthy, M. M. (2009).
Student Expression, Association, and Appearance (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Hittner, J. (1997, September 3). CHALIFOUX v. NEW CANEY INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DIST. Retrieved April 20, 2016, from
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19971635976FSupp659_11551/CHALIFOUX v. NEW CANEY
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.#
Stromberg v. California (1931). (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2015, from
http://glencoe.com/sites/common_assets/socialstudies/supreme_court_cases/Stromberg v
California (1931).pdf