Portfolio Artifact #4 1

Portfolio Artifact #4 (Ch. 7&9)

Julio Z. Vargas

College of Southern Nevada

PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #4 2

Abstract

This is artifact number four in our EDU 210 portfolio. In this scenario, a high school prohibited
wearing the wearing of gang symbols such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. A
student by the name of Bill, who is not involved with any gangs, wore an earring to school
because he thought girls would like it. He was subsequently suspended for violating the new
rules at his school. He sued for violation of self-expression and we are supposed to argue both
sides to this case. We can use court cases that are related to this situation and information we find
ion our text book.
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #4 3

Portfolio Artifact #4 (Ch. 7&9)

Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District – Pro Student

This case is basically the same as the situation we were given for this assignment. Three students

were suspended for wearing black armbands to school, symbolizing their protest of the Vietnam

War. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court where the ruling was in favor of the

students. The court ruled this way because the school had to find evidence that the black

armbands would disrupt classroom activities, evidence which could not be found. “However, the

school must show more than a desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that accompany

unpopular viewpoints.” (Underwood & Webb, 2006) Unless the school can find evidence that

Bill’s earring disrupts school activities, this case must be ruled in favor of Bill Foster.

Doe v. Brockton School Comm. – Pro Student

In this case a student was cross dressing, which could be considered more of a distraction than an
earring, and the court ruled in favor of the student again. This is another example of the school
not being able to prove a disruption! Based on the chapter, this seems to be the prime reason
schools lose court cases revolving around clothing and dress codes. An earring is really small and
for the school to prove that something so tiny could be a distraction would be tough. Due to that
fact, the court must rule in favor of Bill Foster once again.
Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education – Pro School

This case has a similar circumstance to the situation we were given for this assignment. A student

was prohibited from wearing a Marilyn Manson shirt. The student sued, but ultimately lost the

case. “The court agreed that the school could prohibit a student from wearing a Marilyn Manson

T-shirt it considered offensive based on the band’s promotion of values contrary to the school’s

educational mission.” (Underwood & Webb, 2006) If the school considered the earring as

representing the beliefs and values of the gang, then they could win this case. These gang values

would be against the school’s mission and in this circumstance the court should rule in favor of

the school.
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #4 4

School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications: Dress Codes Pg. 125. – Pro

School

Page 125 of our text book explains a situation where a school tried to ban gang related clothing

but lost their case because their policy didn’t describe specific clothing or accessories that were

banned. The situation we were given described the situation as, “A large high school in the

northeastern United States initiated a policy prohibiting the wearing of gang symbols such as

jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps.” Since earrings are specifically stated in their dress

code policy, I believe the school follows the guidelines stated on page 125. “Policies should be

written to ensure they reasonably relate to their asserted purpose and are not vague.”

(Underwood & Webb, 2006) This policy specifically calls out earrings, so the school should win

this case in court. Bill Foster is not involved in gang activity, but he went against the policy and

specifically wore an earring that he knew was wrong to wear.

Conclusion

Bill’s freedom expression rights were violated in this situation. Unless he is wearing the specific

gang related earring it is ridiculous to suspend him for wearing an earring. Girls wear earrings

every day at school and no one blinks an eye. His self-expression of wearing an earring should

be the same as the girls at the school. Based on the court cases and text information I studied, I

believe the court will rule in favor of Bill Foster. The Tinker v. Des Moines case sets a precedent

that a school can’t prohibit clothing or an item of clothing unless they can prove it will disrupt

school. An earring is such a small accessory I find it hard to believe it will be a disruption at

school. Bill will win this case and using the Tinker case is the best reference to make his

argument for victory.

PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #4 5

References

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.