1

Portfolio Artifact 4

Portfolio Artifact 4

Sarah Frederickson

CSN EDU 210

2/19/17
 2
Portfolio Artifact 4
Portfolio Artifact 4

Bill Foster, a high school student at a northeastern US high school was suspended for

wearing an earring. The school that he attended was known for having a high amount of gang

activity. Because of this the school created a strict policy that prohibited the wearing of gang

symbols. This prohibition included jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. Bill was not

in a gang and the earring he wore was not gang related. He wore the earring as a form of self-

expression. He thought the women at his school would be attracted to a guy wearing an earring.

After he was given his suspension he filed a suit. His odds in wining his case depend on whether

or not his right to freedom of expression was violated. By reviewing other court cases we may be

able to conclude if he would win his lawsuit or not.

The first court case we will look at is Guiles v. Marineau. In this case Zachary Guiles a

student at Willamstown Middle School wore a t-shirt that depicted President George W. Bush as

a, “chicken-hawk president” (Guiles v. Marineau, 2006). The t-shirt accused President Bush of

being a “former alcohol and cocaine abuser”, through various pictures and texts on the front and

back of the t-shirt (Guiles v. Marineau, 2006). Zachary had worn the shirt previously at school

and was never disciplined; it wasn’t until a parent of a fellow classmate complained that the

school addressed it (Guiles v. Marineau, 2006). Zachary was given three options: to place tape

over the parts of his shirt that had any reference to drugs and alcohol, turn his shirt inside-out, or

change shirts (Guiles v. Marineau, 2006). Zachary was sent home for the rest of the day and

came back the next day with the same shirt, but refused to not wear it or place tape on it and was

sent home again (Guiles v. Marineau, 2006). The school’s dress code policy stated,
 3
Portfolio Artifact 4
“Any aspect of a person's appearance, which otherwise constitutes a real hazard to the

health and safety of self and others or is otherwise distracting, is unacceptable as an

expression of personal taste. Example [Clothing displaying alcohol, drugs, violence,

obscenity and racism is outside our responsibility guidelines as a school and is

prohibited” (Guiles v. Marineau, 2006).

The court determined that Zachary’s t-shirt did not violate the dress code policy because it was

not promoting drug use, but more of a political a stance (Guiles v. Marineau, 2006). Therefore,

the student’s first amendment rights were violated when he was asked to tape over the words on

his t-shirt. This is similar to our case because the dress code policy at Bill’s school did not say

any earring, but specifically said that wearing “gang symbols” was not permitted. According to

the outcome of this case Bill’s first amendment rights were violated.

The second case, Jared Marcum v. The Logan County Board of Education, Jared

Marcum, an eighth grader, at Logan Middle School came to school wearing a shirt with

promoting the National Rifle Association with a picture of a rifle on it (Jared Marcum v. The

Logan County Board of Education, 2013). Jared was sent to the principal’s office and was

instructed to turn his shirt inside out (Jared Marcum v. The Logan County Board of Education,

2013). Jared tried to explain his side of the story and was suspended and charged for “disrupting

an educational process and obstructing an officer” (Jared Marcum v. The Logan County Board of

Education, 2013). His parents sued The Logan County Board of Education on the grounds that

by forcing Jared to turn his shirt inside out that it went against his first amendment and second

amendment rights (Jared Marcum v. The Logan County Board of Education, 2013). They also

did not have any grounds because his shirt did not go against the school’s dress code policy

which, “prohibits clothing and accessories that display profanity, violence, discriminatory
 4
Portfolio Artifact 4
messages or sexually suggestive phrases. Clothing displaying advertisements for any alcohol,

tobacco, or drug product also is prohibited” (Jared Marcum v. The Logan County Board of

Education, 2013). Jared and his parent’s decided to make this case public by getting the media

involved (Jared Marcum v. The Logan County Board of Education, 2013). Due to the pressure

of the media and public opinion, Jared’s case was dismissed and all charges were dropped (Jared

Marcum v. The Logan County Board of Education, 2013). This case again shows that like

Jared, Bill did not violate the school’s dress code policy, the decision to wear the t-shirt and

earring were not motivated to promote violence or gang activity, but it was merely the students’

freedom of expression.

In the third case, Morse v. Frederick, a group of students from Jeneau-Douglas High

School (JDHS) unfurled a banner across the street from the school at a school event that read

“BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” (Morse v. Frederick, 2007). The school principal upon seeing the

banner immediately crossed the street and instructed the students to take the banner down (Morse

v. Frederick, 2007). All of the students involved complied except one, Joseph Frederick (Morse

v. Frederick, 2007). The principal took action and confiscated the banner and suspended Joseph

for 10 days (Morse v. Frederick, 2007). The courts ruled that Joseph’s first amendment rights

were not violated because the banner was not of a political or religious manner and was instead

promoting illegal drug use (Morse v. Frederick, 2007). The above scenario helps to illustrate

that if the school administrators at Bill’s school can prove that his earring was a known gang

symbol or promoting gang activity then the school was not violating his first amendment rights

in prohibiting him from wearing it.

 5
Portfolio Artifact 4
The last case in consideration, Bethel School District v. Fraser, involved a high school

student who gave a speech nominating another student for an elective office position at their

school (Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1968). During the speech the student, “referred to his

candidate in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor” (Bethel School District

v. Fraser, 1968). The student was suspended for three days for violating the school’s “disruptive

conduct rule” (Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1968). The court ruled that the school did not

violate the student’s first amendment rights (Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1968). The court’s

conclusion was based in the student’s failure to uphold school policy as his speech was

intentionally disruptive. Similarly, if Bill’s school can prove that Bill was intentionally being

disruptive by wearing his earring then the school may have had a right to punish him.

After reviewing these four cases it is my opinion that Bill was not intentionally trying to

promote gang activity, purposefully being disruptive, or wearing a “gang symbol”. Instead Bill

chose to wear the earring as a means of expressing himself and in the hopes that he might

impress the ladies at his school. Based on the foregoing court cases, the school did not have a

right to suspended him. If Bill filed the suit against the school, I believe he would win on the

grounds that his first amendment rights were violated.

 6
Portfolio Artifact 4
References

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)

Guiles v. Marineau, 349 F. Supp. 2d 871 (D. Vt. 2004)

Jared Marcum v. The Logan County Board of Education, Charleston U.S. Dt. Ct. (2013)

Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007)