Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Oscar Garcia
Abstract
A large high school in the United States has updated their dress code to include the prohibition of
wearing gang symbols, such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps to keep their
students safe from current gang related activity. However, a student who was not involved in
gang activity decided to wear an earring for two reasons. Firstly, he did it for self-expression.
Secondly, he believed that wearing the earring made him more attractive to the ladies. Because
he violated school policy, he was suspended, which resulted in the student filing a law suit
A large high school in the United States has updated their dress code to include the
prohibition of wearing gang symbols, such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps to
keep their students safe from current gang related activity. However, a student who was not
involved in gang activity decided to wear an earring for two reasons. Firstly, he did it for self-
expression. Secondly, he believed that wearing the earring made him more attractive to the
ladies. Because he violated school policy, he was suspended, which resulted in the student filing
The First Amendment protects a persons right to have the freedom of speech, religion,
press, and assembly. Although most people usually see expression as communication through
words, this is not always the case. An example can be the facial expressions a person makes, how
they dress, and their body language. The student from the scenario is using the First Amendment
to individualize his appearance. The Fourteenth Amendment gives equal protection to all, so if
girls can wear earrings then a guy should be given the same opportunity. However, school
officials disagree with the look since it is prohibited resulting in a suspension. The Due Process
Clause gives authorities the right to discipline any student who violates the dress code without
giving prior notice to the student if they believe the student may present a danger. On the other
hand, it also gives students the right to be heard in situations in which their rights have been
disregarded (The american civil liberties union of Vermont., 2016, March 18).
The plaintiff, Bill Foster, a high school student, is being accused for the wrong reasons.
His reasons for wearing the one earring was to be able to express himself using the First
Amendment and to boost his self-esteem by enhancing his appearance. At the time, he was not
involved in gang activity. The Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District dealt with
STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4
two students wearing rosary beads to school when it was prohibited due to it being a symbol of
gang-related affiliations (Hudson, 2011, March 1). The students confirmed that their reasoning
for wearing rosary beads was strictly for religious purposes. The district decided that a student
should not be punished for something that can carry more than one meaning instead the school
should punish students who are actually involved in gang-related activity. This case serves to
protect the First Amendment of students so that they are not oppressed by an environment of
undifferentiated fear. The school should have not disciplined Bill Foster without evidence that
he was involved in gang activity when his reasons for wearing the earring were disparate.
Fosters reasons for wearing the earring was harmless. The Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District case argued that as long as expression does not disrupt during school
operations then the speech is protected of the student (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District, n.d.). This case included a small group of students who wore
armbands to show that they wanted to protest the Vietnam War. However, the school officials
feared that the armbands might be distracting, so they decided to suspend the small group of
students. The district court determined that the use of armbands equaled their voice which was an
opinion that did not require people to join. Unless there was proof that it was disrupting during
school operations then the speech of the students is protected. Bill Foster had a belief or his
opinion that wearing the earring was attractive to the opposite sex.
The defendant, the school officials, made a dress code to prohibit clothing that resembles
that of gangs in order to create a safe environment for the entire student population. The Olesen
v. Board of Education School District No. 228 case gives a criteria in which a student must meet
in order for their request of expression to be approved (Olesen v. board of educ. of school dist.
no. 228, n.d.). The criteria requires that the student has no adequate remedy at law, some
STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5
likelihood of success on the merits, the balance of equity in his favor, and public interest on his
side. The boy involved in the case met only one out of the four criteria since his reasoning was to
wear the prohibited earring to express his individuality. He was overruled since he did not meet
all of the criteria. In the same situation, Bill Foster also only met the first criteria resulting in the
school suspension. Even though the school made a policy prohibiting certain clothing or
accessories beforehand, Bill Foster should be aware of the reason why the policy was created. In
the Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser case, a students speech becomes offensive for
having a graphic sexual metaphor to help a friend win candidacy (Bethel school district no. 403
v. fraser, n.d.). The Court agreed that the suspension was appropriate since they decided that the
First Amendment does not protect vulgar and lewd speech and did not have any fundamental
values, which include the sensibilities of other students. Bill Foster is not being sensitive to other
students when wearing something that is indicative of a gang. Students may feel intimidated
since they do not know his reasons for wearing the earring.
In this case between Foster and the School, the School has the advantage due to existing
guidelines. Even though Foster shows no threat by wearing an earring, he is not protected since
other students may feel threatened thinking that he must be affiliated with a gang. The scenario
also show that he was not involved in gang activity, but the other students are not aware of his
motivation. Foster states that his reasons for wearing the earring is to express himself and his
vanity. At the end of his claims, he shows no threat and should be given the chance to wear the
earring because the Chalifoux case proves that wearing something can carry more than one
meaning. However, the school authorities have made clear that the prohibition of wearing certain
things is to protect the school environment for all students. Unless Fosters reasons meet all the
criteria established in the Olesen case, only then can he be permitted to wear the earring. Finally,
STUDENTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6
Fosters reasons for wearing the earring are weak since they only meet one out of the four
References
Bethel school district no. 403 v. fraser. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 19, 2016, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667
Hudson, D. L., Jr. (2011, March 1). Students should be free to wear rosary beads. Retrieved
wear-rosary-beads
Olesen v. board of educ. of school dist. no. 228. (n.d.). Retrieved March 19, 2016, from
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19871496676FSupp820_11334/OLESEN v. BOARD OF
The american civil liberties union of Vermont. (2016, March 18). Retrieved March 18, 2016,
from https://acluvt.org/pubs/students_rights/due_process.php
Tinker v. des moines independent community school district. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 18,