Portfolio Artifact #4 1

Portfolio Artifact #4

Edgar Ivan Roa Calderon

College of Southern Nevada

Portfolio Artifact #4 2

A high school in the northeastern region of the United States started a policy that

prohibits students from wearing athletic caps, jewelry, emblems, and earrings. The policy was

created because gangs use those items to differentiate themselves and also because gang

activities were prevalent in the school. A student named Bill Foster, who was not involved in

gang activities, wore an earring to school as a form of self-expression, he believed the earring

was attractive to young ladies. Foster was suspended for wearing the earring and decided to take

the school to court.

Bill Foster should be allowed to wear anything he chooses. In the ​Tinker v. Des Moines

case, the court agreed that students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door (“Tinker v.

Des Moines”). Foster’s rights should not be suppressed anywhere in America because the First

Amendment protects the freedom of speech and expression. Mary Beth Tinker and her brother

wore black armbands to school to protest the vietnam war (“Tinker v. Des Moines”). The

administration of Mary’s school prohibited them from wearing the armbands to prevent

problems. The Tinkers were removed from school when they failed to comply, but the Supreme

Court ruled that their actions were protected by the First Amendment. The court should also

protect Foster’s First Amendment because his earring are nothing but a sign of expression.
Portfolio Artifact #4 3

Foster’s First Amendment rights should be protected. In ​ Doe v. Brockton School

Communication,​ the court ruled in favor of Pat Doe and decided that crossdressing is a form of

expression (Underwood ,2006). Foster’s rights should be protected because his earring is just a

way to stand out and be different just like Pat Doe who crossdressed. A student’s rights may be

suppressed if they are harmful or vulgar (Underwood, 2006). Bill is doing nothing wrong, so his

rights should not be suppressed. Foster lives in a free country where he can do anything he

pleases as long as he does not put anyone in danger.

Bill Foster is only trying to express himself but may be harmful for himself and others. In

Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education​, the court ruled that the school could prohibit a

student from wearing a Marilyn Manson t-shirt (Underwood, 2006). The school considered the

shirt offensive based on Marilyns Manson’s band promotion of values. Although Foster is not in

a gang, others do not know that. Gangs use jewelry and clothing to differentiate themselves, but

Foster is using that earring to be different. If Foster is walking down the hall with that earring it

may provoke a problem with gang members that may lead to a violent incident. The school that

Foster attends to has the duty to protect their students from harm (Underwood, 2006). The school

is only trying to protect him from the harm that the earring may bring.

The school that Foster attends created the policy to protect the students from danger.

Foster should not be an exception to the school’s policy. In ​Bethel School District v. Fraser,

Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for delivering an inappropriate

speech to the student body. Even though Matthew was suspended for three days, the Supreme

Court held that his free speech rights were not violated (“Supreme Court Landmarks”). Foster is

using the earing as a sign of expression but there are many ways a student can express himself
Portfolio Artifact #4 4

without putting himself in danger from gangs. ​Although Foster may not think that his earring is

offensive it may be to others that are in gangs and of course can cause problems.

Bill Foster should be allowed to wear his earring at school. His First Amendment rights

should not be suppressed at school just like Mary Tinker’s rights. Students in American do not

leave their rights outside school doors. Even though the school that Foster attends has developed

gang activities, if Foster chooses to wear an earring he should be able to. Foster’s First

Amendment rights should be protected just like the case ​Doe v. Brockton School

Communication.​ The court ruled in favor of Pat Doe’s crossdressing and should now also rule in

favor of Fosters earring because they are just expressing themselves. Foster’s rights should be

protected because his earring is just a way to stand out and be different. Foster is doing nothing

wrong, so his rights should not be suppressed.

Portfolio Artifact #4 5

References

Supreme Court Landmarks. (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2018, from

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-land

marks

Tinker v. Des Moines Podcast. (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2018, from

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-land

marks/tinker-v-des-moines-podcast

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: concepts and applications. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.