Running Head: ARTIFACT #3 1

Artifact #3

Students Rights and Responsibilities

Michael Granado

CSN
ARTIFACT #3 2

Abstract

Bill Foster, a student attending a large high school in the north eastern United States is

suspended. The reason for his suspension is for violating the schools policy on prohibiting the

wearing of gang symbols such as jewelry, emblems, earrings and athletic caps. The policy was

developed because of the prevalent gang activity already in the school. Though Bill Foster was

not a member of a school related gang, he felt that the use and wear of an earring was a form of

self-expression. As well as a way to attract the young ladies in his school, for his actions he was

suspended and he ultimately filed suit. Was he protected under his First Amendment rights for

free speech or was the school in their right to suspend and discipline a student who went against

an already established policy and practice prohibiting such clothing or accessories.

ARTIFACT #3 3

Bill Foster, knowing and willing violated a school policy and was justly suspended by the

school district. Mr. Fosters actions when deciding to wear prohibited clothing items pertaining to

the advocating of gang related activities causes a major disruption of the education process. As

seen in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), several students attending school were suspended for the

wearing of black armbands to raise awareness for the Vietnam conflict. The Supreme Court ruled

in favor of Tinker stating that the use of the arm bands were not disrupting the learning

environment and "students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates.

Fortunately for Tinker the court ruled in favor of the students. The same cannot be said for Mr.

Foster. His wearing of earrings serves no educational purpose by promoting free thought of

political issues. The policy put in place was to combat the prevalent gang activities already

existing in the school. Mr. Foster was in my view (though not stated in the artifact brief) was

fully aware of this policy by simply being a student at this high school. By willingly violating

this policy he therefore interrupts the learning process. Putting a focus on the banned items from

other students, possibly being removed from a class room or out in the open. His actions pull

away the other students, as well as promoting the gangs in the school. By saying this is self-

expression is a moot point, the rule was in place to not only combat the gangs but keep order

where order needs to be, in the school and classrooms. Based off his already existing knowledge

of school policy and Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the school board was in their right by

suspending Mr. Foster and his First Amendment rights would not be protected.
ARTIFACT #3 4

The school board in this case is further justified in their suspension by observing

Frederick v. Morse (2007). In this case Frederick was a student at a high school who was waving

a banner promoting drug use. The student was asked to put the banner away, he refused and was

consequently suspended. The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska originally ruled for

Morse, saying that Frederick's action of showcasing a banner that elicited drug use was not

protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and

held that Frederick's banner was constitutionally protected. The U.S. Supreme Court granted

certiorari. The same can be applied here, with the notion of having already existing gangs in the

school one could infer that with gangs comes violence, intimidation, a disregard for rules and

regulations and drug use. Again Mr. Foster chose to disregard the rules and wore earrings which

can be construed with gang affiliation, and with gang affiliation comes the dangers that go with

it. And as such he waives not only his First Amendment of free speech but also his Fourth

Amendment, in this instance the school administration could in essence seize the property from

him.

Bill Foster was a student who only wanted to express himself, gain confidence and try as

he might to attract the opposite sex. When the school suspended him his First Amendment rights

were violated. As previously decided in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), not only was this

expression not a hindrance, distraction or taking away from the instruction of the staff. Just

because his use of an earring made the staff at the school uncomfortable but is just plain absurd.

Can you tell if a person is affiliated with gang activity from a haircut, or by the color of ones
ARTIFACT #3 5

skin? The answer is no you cannot, and is borderline if not stereotyping. This student only

wanted to observe his right of free expression. And like Tinker, only wanted to express their

view and opinions openly and free of judgment or persecution.

Mr. Foster, by choosing to exercise his First Amendment rights and wearing a harmless

earring did nothing to provoke or harm or distract from the staff and their job. By looking at

Bethel v. Fraser (1986) some would make you believe that this form of expression is offensively

lewd and indecent by school administration and the board. How is the wearing of an earring lewd

or indecent? I say that it is not, by no means did Mr. Foster and exercising his rights to express

himself did he show signs of lewdness or hostility. By taking a closer look at Bethel v. Fraser,

Fraser made comments that were sexual references and innuendos. He was then suspended for

his act. Mr. Foster in no way by wearing an earring, made any kind or form of sexual references

or innuendos. And therefore, the school board would have no grounds to suspend Mr. Foster by

using this case. The expression was not defamatory in any way. Not obscene lewd or vulgar. And

not inflammatory, and by all these means Mr. Foster is protected under his First Amendment

rights.

I believe that the school board in this case was right in suspending Mr. Foster. He clearly

violated a standing dress code set forth to combat the ever-growing gang activity in the school.

He by choosing to wear an item that was already prohibited gave the teachers cause to suspend

on the grounds that it promoted gang affiliation. This expression did foster a disruption of the

education process, by showcasing off his earring to attract the opposite sex and by involving

substantial disorder. As well as allowing him to wear said earring the school would then be
ARTIFACT #3 6

advocating the use of drugs or the distribution of drugs. You can assume that the gang related

activities are that of bullying, intimidation and the selling and possession of illegal narcotics.

And then again the school would be validated in suspending Mr. Foster
ARTIFACT #3 7

References

(n.d.). American Bar Association. Key Supreme Court Cases: Bethel School District v.

Fraser (ABA Division for Public Education). Retrieved October 25, 2016, from

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/beth

el.html

(n.d.). United States Courts. Tinker v. Des Moines Podcast | United States Courts.

Retrieved October 25, 2016, from http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-

resources/supreme-court-landmarks/tinker-v-des-moines-podcast

(n.d.). United States Courts. Facts and Case Summary - Morse v. Frederick | United

States Courts. Retrieved October 25, 2016, from http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-

resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-morse-v-frederick