Artifact #4 First Amendment Rights 1

Artifact #4

First Amendment Rights

Doriane Zorio-Ricardo

College of Southern Nevada

Artifact #4 First Amendment Rights 2

Bill Foster was a high school student in the northeastern United States. His high School

implemented a policy prohibiting the students from wearing gang symbols such as jewelry,

emblems, earrings, and hats. Bill Foster was not a member of any gangs and wore earrings to

school to look nice for the high school girls and as a form of self-expression. The high school

ended up suspending him for wearing the earrings, because it was against their policy. The

question in this case is whether the school can be found guilty for violating Foster’s First

Amendment rights or whether Foster has grounds that his First Amendment rights were violated.

Tinker vs Des Moines (1969) will be the first case presented in favor of Foster for the

school violating Foster’s First Amendment rights. In the case, Tinker v Des Moines (1969), some

students decided to wear black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. Before they could wear

the arm bands, the school found out and made an anti-armband policy. The students decided to

wear the armbands anyway, and they ended up being suspended from school. The students

brought the case to court to fight for their First Amendment rights. The case ultimately ended up

in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court needed to decide whether or not the First Amendment

of symbolic speech applied to schools. The school district made three arguments; freedom of

speech was not absolute, the armbands were a distraction to the other students, and in order for

the school to function properly, rules restricting potentially disruptive behavior must be set in

place. The students argued that there was no evidence that the armbands were disruptive, the

school district did not ban all political and controversial subjects, and schools are meant to be a

place for learning, and that includes controversial subjects. The students won their case, because

wearing black armbands was not disruptive and the school was found to have violated the

students’ rights of the First Amendment. Just as in the case, Tinker Vs Des Moines (1969), the

school violated Foster’s First Amendment rights by suspending him for wearing earrings. Foster
Artifact #4 First Amendment Rights 3

wearing earrings did not distract the other students and did not disrupt the school functionality,

therefore he did not deserve to be suspended and the school should be charged with the violation

of his First Amendment rights (Pearson Education, 1995-2011).

Doe v. Brockton School Comm. (2000) will be the second case presented in favor of Bill

Foster to lawfully pursue the violation of his First Amendment rights of freedom of expression

against school officials. In the case, Doe v. Brockton School Comm. (2000), A student, who was

male, was wearing female clothing to school and this was considered cross-dressing. The court

ended up ruling in favor of the student, because a student cross dressing does not cause any

disruption in the school. Therefore, Bill Foster should not have been punished for wearing

earrings, because wearing earrings does not cause any disruption in the school (Underwood &

Webb, 2006).

Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlheimer (1988) will be the first case presented to argue

that Bill Foster does not have grounds to argue that the school district violated his First

Amendment rights. In the case, Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlheimer (1988), former

students are claiming their First Amendment rights have been violated, because a high school

principal decided to delete two pages from a school paper. The articles talked about a student

pregnancy, birth control, and the impact that divorce has on students. The principal removed the

pages, because the pregnant student might have been identified from the wording of the article,

the birth control was removed, because he believed that sexual activity and birth control may be

inappropriate for younger students, and the impact of divorce was removed, because the

student’s parents deserved a right to respond to the article which contained their information and

consent to the publication. The court ruled in favor of the school’s actions, because the school
Artifact #4 First Amendment Rights 4

newspaper was part of the curriculum and needed to follow it. In regards to Foster’s case, the

school did not violate his First Amendment rights for suspending him for wearing earrings,

because it was in the school policy not to wear earrings and he chose to not follow the rules just

as the students chose not to follow the curriculum in the Hazelwood School District vs

Kuhlheimer (1988) case. Therefore, Bill Foster has no grounds to pursue this case against the

school (Reuters, 2017).

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) will be the second case in argument

against Bill Foster pursuing violation of his First Amendment rights against the school. In the

case, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), Matthew Fraser made a speech, during

school hours, filled with inappropriate language such as obscenities and sexual innuendoes.

During the speech, the audience of students responded with yelling, sexual gestures, and some

students were uncomfortable and embarrassed. The Assistant Principal met with Matthew Fraser

the morning after the speech and informed him that his speech had violated the school’s

“disruptive-conduct rule,” which prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process

such as obscene language and gestures. He was, then, suspended and Fraser took the case to

court. The Supreme Court ruled that Fraser did not receive First Amendment protection, because

he violated the school’s “disruptive-conduct rule” and the school has the responsibility to “instill

students will habits and manners of civility as values” (Reuters, 2017). Just as in the case Bethel

School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), Bill Foster did not follow the school policy and wore

earrings which was considered to be a gang sign. Although he did not believe they were a gang

sign it was still clearly stated in the policy. If the school allowed him to wear the earrings, other

students would start to wear gang attire and this would disrupt the educational process.
Artifact #4 First Amendment Rights 5

Therefore, Bill Foster does not have protection of his First Amendment rights in this case and the

school did not violate his rights (Reuters, 2017).

My decision is in favor of Bill Foster, because he does have grounds to pursue the

violation of his First Amendment rights under the cases Tinker vs Des Moines (1969) and Doe v.

Brockton School Comm. (2000). In Tinker vs Des Moines (1969) students were suspended for

wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The court ruled that the students’ First

Amendment rights had been violated, because the wearing or black armbands is not disruptive to

the school. In the case, Brockton School Comm. (2000), a student was punished for cross

dressing at school. The court ruled in favor of the student, because cross-dressing does not cause

disruption in school. In both cases, the students’ First Amendment rights were violated of

freedom of expression. Just as in the case of Bill Foster, he is not involved in gang activity and

wearing earrings does not cause disruption in the school. Therefore, Bill Foster’s First

Amendment rights have been violated and the school should be charged with the violation of Bill

Foster’s First Amendment rights.

Artifact #4 First Amendment Rights 6

References

Pearson Education. (1995-2011). Retrieved November 04, 2017, from

http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_underwood_schoollaw_1/42/10992/2814040.cw/index.html

Thomas Reuters. (2017). Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw. Retrieved November

04, 2017, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/

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

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.