Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Adrienne Plummer
Student, Bill Foster, filed a lawsuit against a school in regards to its dress code policy.
The school had implemented the dress code to curb gang activity that it had been experiencing.
Based on the proclivity of activity surrounding the school, they had a right to establish counter
measures to ensure student safety. When Foster violated the dress code, by wearing an earring,
he was suspended. Foster believes this to be a violation of his freedom expression rights.
In America, we have the right to certain freedoms regarding expression. What we choose
to express, and how, is a Constitutional right. These freedoms are in place because of the
oppression our forefathers suffered before migrating to North America, and are very important
aspects of American culture and society. The ability to be allowed to show and express oneself
plays an important role in contributing to the diversity we have in the United States. The Fifth
Circuit has established that the expression of ones identity may constitute speech as
envisioned by the First Amendment (Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board, 2001) - meaning
that symbols can quality as speech. It follows that if it is Bill Fosters desire to express who he
is as a person by wearing an earring, then he has that right. Also stated by the Fifth Circuit is that
Board, 2001).
In Cohen v. California (1971), a man was arrested for displaying vulgar language on his
jacket. After much debate and argument, the court held that, the State may not, consistently with
the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public displaya criminal offense. In a
parallel way, Fosters conduct and way of presenting himself is not a worthy reason to suspend
and punish him. In our original case, we are given that Foster was not affiliated with any gang.
To discipline him in such a way, for wearing an earring, is extreme and can harm his future
Students rights and responsibilities 3
academic life by marring his school records. For the school to know that Foster was expressing
himself, unrelated to gang activity, and to suspend him for such a minor reason, is unjust.
But, schools are required to provide a safe learning environment. If the rules instituted are
implemented for verifiable reasons, and are not there, purposefully, to stifle student expression,
the courts have backed them. In Long v. Board of Education of Jefferson County (2000), The
Task Force and the SBDM Council each believed that the Dress Code would help reduce violent
gang activity, ease tensions between students who fight over attire, aid school officials in
identifying campus intruders, and would promote student safety in general. Because the school
had been experiencing gang related activity, they had every duty to try and protect the students.
The directive of a specific dress code was enforced, not for the purpose of repressing student
expression, but for trying to protect students from the violence that had been occurring, and keep
them safe. Applying the Obrien test to this case, the Court concludes that school officials have
preventing gang presence and limiting fights in schools. Further, the Court finds that school
officials did not intend to suppress free speech (Long v. Board of Education of Jefferson
County, 2000). On these grounds, it is reasonable that for public safety, and harmony in the
school, certain rules be established. In this way, gang activity has been proven to be reduced by
such measures.
Fosters intent was not to send a particular, specific message by wearing an earring. He
simply liked the way it looked, and he enjoyed the attention he received from girls by wearing it.
If he had an actual, and real, message he was attempting to convey, than the circumstances would
be on different grounds. A situation, very similar to our case study, involves another boy trying to
sue for the same reason- wearing an earring against a dress code policy. A policy in place
Students rights and responsibilities 4
because of gang activity. In Olesen v. Board of Education of School District No. 228 (1987), In
order to claim the protection of the First Amendment, Olesen must demonstrate that his conduct
intended to convey a particularized messageandthe likelihood [is] great that the message
would be understood by those who viewed it. If Foster was sharing an opinion about
something, as in Tinker v. Des Moine (1969) when students wore black armbands to state their
opinion about the Vietnam War, then perhaps he would have some ground to stand on.
Foster violated the schools dress code policy and was suspended for good reason. If the
school does not uphold its rules and regulations, there would be havoc. Other students would
think they could violate the rules as well, and that type of widespread behavior would undermine
the schools authority and mission to educate the children under its care. The school has a duty to
provide a safe environment for those whom it teaches. Pursuant to Olesen v. Board of Education
of School District No. 228 (1987), the school had noticeably decreased the gang violence
documented at the school prior to implementing a student dress code. There was no attempt to
suppress Bill Fosters opinions or views on any topic that would incur a First Amendment breech
References
Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board, 240 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2001).
Long v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, 121 F. Supp. 2d 621 (W.D. Kentucky, 2000).
Olesen v. Board of Education of School District No. 228, 676 F. Supp. 820 (N.D. III. 1987).