Ch.

7 & 9 Assignment 1

Ch. 7 & 9 Assignment Submission (Portfolio # 4)

Ch. 7 & 9 Assignment Submission (Portfolio # 4)

Lori Hyland

EDU 210 - 1004

 Ch. 7 & 9 Assignment 2

Ch. 7 & 9 Assignment Submission (Portfolio # 4)

In this scenario, a large high school located in the northeastern United States began a

dress code policy that prohibited students from wearing gang symbols, including jewelry,

emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. This policy was designed in response to gang activity that

was found to be prevalent in the high school. One of the students, Bill Foster, wore an earring to

school as a form of self-expression and because he wanted to impress the young female students.

Even though Bill was not involved with any gang activity, he was suspended from school for

wearing the earring. Bill filed a lawsuit against the school for violating his freedom of

expression that is guaranteed under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects all forms of expression, including symbolic speech, which

is an action intended to convey a message. Since Bill Foster wore an earring as a form of self-

expression, he should be protected by the First Amendment and should not have been suspended

from school. One case that supports this argument is Doe v. Brockton School Community. In

this case, a junior high school student who was biologically male dressed in girls clothing and

wore make up and accessories to express her female identity. The principal sent her home to

make her change clothes on the grounds that the school prohibits clothing that is disruptive,

distracting, or that can affect the safety of the students. The court ruled in favor of the teenager

because the school was suppressing her right to free expression and the school failed to show any

disruption was caused by the teenagers cross-dressing. According to the decision, The court

found that the plaintiff satisfied the burden of irreparable harm when she was denied the benefits

of school, being in an interactive environment and social development (Doe v. Brockton School

Community). This ruling related to Bill Fosters case because Bill was also suspended from

school for wearing an earring as a form of self-expression even though he was not affiliated with
 Ch. 7 & 9 Assignment 3

any gang and did not substantially disrupt the school or cause any harm to students. Therefore,

Bills rights to freedom of expression were violated.

Another case that supports Bills right to wear an earring as a form of free expression is

Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District. In this case, a teenage student named

Brianna Stephenson had a tattoo of a small cross between her thumb and index finger that she

intended to be a form of self-expression. When Brianna enrolled in high school, her school had

been threatened by gangs who had brought weapons and displayed rival signs or symbols. The

school had a policy that stated, Gang related activities such as display of colors, symbols,

signals, signs, etc. will not be tolerated on school grounds (Stephenson v. Davenport

Community School District). However, Brianna was never associated with any gang and had

never been a discipline problem at school. Nevertheless, the principal suspended Brianna from

school and said she needed to have the tattoo removed. The court ruled in favor of Brianna

because the school failed to prove the tattoo was related to the prohibited gang symbols, and

there was no relationship between the dress code and the types of gang activity the school was

trying to prevent. This case relates to Bill Fosters case since an earring can be worn by anyone

regardless of gang affiliation, the school did not prove a relationship between earring use and

gang affiliation, nor was wearing an earring related to increased disruptions or harm to the school

or its students. Thus, Bills suspension violated his freedom of expression rights.

Although freedom of expression is guaranteed under the First Amendment, the Court has

explained that free speech must still be balanced by the need to ensure student safety and

education while at school. One case that opposes Bill Fosters case is Hazelwood School District

v. Kuhlmeier. In this case, high school students wrote two articles about divorce and teenage

pregnancy in their journalism class. After reading the articles, the principal decided they were
 Ch. 7 & 9 Assignment 4

inappropriate even though the names of the students had been changed for privacy. As a result,

the principal removed the two pages from the school newspaper, refusing to allow them to be

printed. The students filed a lawsuit claiming their First Amendment rights to free speech had

been violated. The Supreme Court ruled against the students on the grounds that the newspaper

is part of the school curriculum, and principal can prohibit the publishing of certain articles if he

or she finds them inappropriate. Therefore, the Court ruled that removing the newspaper articles

from the school paper did not violate the students First Amendment right of free speech

(Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier). This decision relates to Bill Fosters case because it

shows there are restrictions on students freedom of speech and expression. The school has the

right to regulate free expression or speech if it is related to a legitimate educational concern.

Since Bills school has prohibited the wearing of gang symbols due to gang activities that were

prevalent in the school, the school was protecting the overall safety and educational environment

of the school. Therefore, Bill Fosters freedom of expression was not violated by suspending

him for failing to follow the high schools dress code policy.

Another case that opposes Bill Fosters case is Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of

Education. In this case, a high school student wore a shirt with the name of Marilyn Manson

along with a picture of a three-faced Jesus. The school official sent the student home, explaining

that the school had a policy that prohibited clothing with offensive pictures or messages. The

student filed a claim that the school had violated his First Amendment right to free expression.

The court ruled that the school may prohibit students from wearing offensive clothing if it is

found to be substantially disruptive to the values of the school and its mission (Boroff v. Van

Wert City Board of Education). Therefore, this case is related to Bill Fosters case because the

school is not violating the First Amendment if it has a legitimate reason to limit free expression
 Ch. 7 & 9 Assignment 5

through the dress code policy. In Bills case, the school principal believed wearing earrings,

jewelry, athletic caps, and emblems was related to the recent gang activity at the school, and that

gang activity caused a substantial disruption to the school environment and increased the risk of

harm to students. Hence, Bills freedom of expression was not violated.

In summary, of all the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, free speech is one of the

most protected. The right to free expression applies to students as well as adults. In the case of

Bill Foster, the court would rule in his favor due to the fact that his right to freedom of

expression has been violated. The case of Doe v. Brockton School Community affirms the idea

that prohibiting a student from cross-dressing as a form of self-expression violates the First

Amendment because the school could not show any substantial harm or disruption to the school

environment. Likewise, Stephenson v. Davenport Community School explains that a suspending

a student because of a tattoo is a violation of free expression because the school cannot show a

relationship between the tattoo and gang affiliation, and there is no correlation between the gang

symbol and school disruption or harm. The fact that Bill Foster wore an earring for free

expression does not mean that he is a gang member or that he will cause any substantial

disruption to the school. Although Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education and Hazelwood

School District v. Kuhlmeier reveal there are some restrictions on free expression, these cases

involve students with a Marilyn Manson t-shirt and newspaper articles about pregnant students

who attend the high school were offensive to the school learning environment and caused

substantial disruption. On the other hand, Bill Fosters earring did not in any way cause any

harm to the school atmosphere or to other students at the school. All in all, Bill should not have

been suspended from school on the grounds that his First Amendment right to free expression

was violated.
 Ch. 7 & 9 Assignment 6

References

Doe v. Yunits GLAD. Retrieved February 09, 2017, from

https://www.glad.org/cases/pat-doe-v-yunits/

Facts and Case Summary - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. Retrieved February 09, 2017, from

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-

summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier

FindLaw's United States Eighth Circuit case and opinions. Retrieved February 09, 2017, from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1097522.html

First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case. Retrieved February 09, 2017, from

http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=1685