ARTIFACT #4

Artifact #4
Natalie Adams
EDU 210
3/22/2015

ARTIFACT #4

Introduction
A school in the northeastern United States issued a policy prohibiting possible gang
symbols including jewelry, earrings, emblems, hats. A student by the name of Bill Foster wore an
earring to school. Bill Foster is not a gang member nor does he affiliate with gangs, he simply
wore the earring as a form of self-expression. The school suspended Bill for wearing the banned
jewelry; Bill is suing the school for violating his right of freedom of expression.

Pro
According to the first amendment we are entitled to freedom of speech, as well as the
right of freedom of expression. Bill is not affiliated with a gang and was not wearing the earring
in support or recognition of a gang. This case is similar to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District. The school punished the students for wearing black armbands,
which was in protest the war in Vietnam. In this case the Court stated, That students do not shed
their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. and ruled
in favor of the students.

In Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1966) students at an all-black school were
banned from wearing freedom buttons. The school thought that the buttons would cause too
much commotion and prohibited the students from wearing the buttons. The courts found in
favor of the students and said that the school could not ignore expressions of views which they
were not in favor of. This case is similar to Bill Foster, as the earring was worn as a form of selfexpression and did not represent affiliation with gangs.

ARTIFACT #4

Con
The school should have the right to issue policies to guarantee the students safety. The
school does not have the time to evaluate each students individual case, and if they did it would
surely cause more friction. The students are free to express themselves in other ways. This case
is similar to, Paul Palmer v. Waxahachie where a student was suing the school for violating his
first amendment right, by not letting him wear t-shirts with written statements. In this case, the
court ruled in favor of the school, stating the students were allowed to wear buttons and express
themselves through other forms of speech.

In the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) case a principle removed stories
from the school paper that included topics with teen pregnancy and divorce. The principle stated
that he felt it was not appropriate for all students. The courts ruled in favor of the school stating
that the principle had a legitimate concern. This is similar to the school banning gang related
items; the school must be able to create policies to protect the well-being of the students.

In the case of Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) the court stated that, The
constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the
rights of adults. In this case, a senior used lewd references in a speech and was punished. He
sued the school for violating his first amendment rights and the court ruled in favor of the school.
Students first amendment rights are limited when at school, for multiple reasons including safety
and ensuring appropriate conduct.

ARTIFACT #4

I believe the courts will side with the school. While the student has the right to express
himself, the school has the right to limit how he expresses himself. The situation with gangs in
the schools is a serious one and the school needs to have the power to keep gang representation
out of the school.

ARTIFACT #4

References
Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986)
Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744 5th Cir. (1966)
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)
Palmer v. Waxahachie Independent School District, No. 08-10903 U.S. 5th Cir. (2009)
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)