Portfolio Artifact #4 Stewart 1

Portfolio Artifact Number Four

Anna Stewart

College of Southern Nevada

Dr. Ce Isbell
Portfolio Artifact #4 Stewart 2

A new policy was initiated in a high school in the northeastern United States. This policy

prohibited the students from wearing gang symbols such as emblems, athletic caps, earrings

and jewelry. The reasoning behind the start of this new policy was due to the prevalence of

gang activities in schools. A student by the name of Bill Foster who was attending the high

school that the policy started at showed up to school one day with an earring on. Although he

was not involved in gang activity and only wore the earring thinking it was attractive to the

young ladies, he was suspended for his actions. Bill Foster then filed suit.

Hines v. Caston School Corporation (1995), is the first court case I will be using in favor of

the fact that Bill Foster’s “Freedom of Expression” rights were in fact violated. In this court case

student Jimmy Hines was suspended from his fourth grade class because he refused to take out

a gold stud earring even though there was a policy in place at his school that stated boys were

not allowed to wear earrings. This relates to our court case by showing that if Bill Foster’s

school had a policy set in place not allowing boys to wear earrings in general, Foster’s rights

might not have been violated since he would have made the choice to break his schools policy.

Since we had no information presented to us about Foster’s school having a policy that banned

all boys from wearing any type of earrings besides gang affiliation, Foster should not have been

suspended since his earring had no relationship to a gang. If a school does not have any type of

regulation on earrings, other than gang affiliation, students should be able to freely wear

earrings without the fear of a suspension. Therefore, Foster’s “Freedom of Expression” rights

were not violating the schools rules on wearing earring.

Carey v. Piphus (1973), is the second court case I will be using to demonstrate that Bill

Foster’s “Freedom of Expression” rights were violated. In this case, Silas Brisco wore an earring
Portfolio Artifact #4 Stewart 3

to school even though his school was limiting the amount of students wearing earrings hoping it

would diminish the amount of gang activity. He was asked to remove the earring but refused

saying it was a symbol of black pride and had no correlation to gang activity. Even though he

was suspended for 20 days, his case was later reconsidered. This relates to our case because

just like Brisco, Bill Foster was suspended for wearing an earring that had no indirect or direct

correlation to a gang. These students “Freedom of Expression” rights were both violated, since

their schools had no policy in place that stated boys were unable to wear earrings.

Olesen v. Board of Education (1987) is the first court case I will be using to demonstrate

that Bill Foster’s “Freedom of Expression” rights were not violated. In this case, student Darryl

Olesen wanted to wear earrings to school because he believed it expressed his individuality and

attracted the young ladies. Olesen claimed that his “Freedom of Expression” rights were

violated but in further reviewing this case, his school did have a policy in place that stated it

forbid all gang activities, including the wearing of gang symbols, emblems, and jewelry. This

could relate to our case because even though we were not provided with the information that

Foster’s school might have had a policy in place that restricted students from wearing earrings,

there was already knowledge that wearing them could cause a problem with school

administrators. If they were already on the lookout for students wearing them in relationship to

gang activity, Foster should have known that there would have been some sort of questioning

and even the possibility of disapproval and/or opposition towards him wearing them.

Barber v. Colorado Independent School District (1995), is the second court case that I will

be using to demonstrate why Bill Foster’s “Freedom of Expression” rights were not violated. In

this court case Austin Barber attended a high school that restricted boys from wearing earrings.
Portfolio Artifact #4 Stewart 4

Both Barber and his family had a contrary view about whether he was actually required to

observe his school district’s grooming policy. Barber claimed that the guidelines his school had

in place violated his “Freedom of Expression” rights. This relates to our case because just like

Austin Barber, Bill Foster also claimed that his rights were violated. When a school has a set

policy in place, it isn’t the students decision whether or not to abide by it. Since the student

chose to attend that school they therefore agreed to follow all of the guidelines and if they

chose not to follow these policies then there would be reasonable repercussions.

I side with the fact that Bill Fosters “Freedom of Expression” rights were in fact violated.

Since it never stated that the school had some sort of a zero tolerance policy in place for

earrings, except if they had any correlation to a gang, Bill Foster was not in the wrong. Students,

especially in this day and age, should be able to express themselves in certain ways that are

appropriate for each individual school setting. If Fosters earrings had nothing to do with gang

activity, then he should have been able to wear them and shouldn’t have been suspended for

doing so. If the school policy were to state that the wearing of earrings was acceptable, unless

related to gang activity, no student should have to be suspended for doing just that. Therefore,

Foster would have had every right to wear his earrings without repercussion.
Portfolio Artifact #4 Stewart 5

Work Cited

Rausch, M. Karega. “Carey v. Piphus.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.,

14 Mar. 2018, www.britannica.com/topic/Carey-v-Piphus.

“Teen Rights (and Responsibilities).” Google Books,

books.google.com/books?id=AvD5W9kaZPUC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=hines v caston school
corp&source=bl&ots=cUDhk91JR6&sig=83XVPiB1fXjozmYJ2MMFQXcnIEw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0
ahUKEwi2hYaPi6LaAhXpwlQKHZgGCLgQ6AEIMjAC#v=onepage&q=hines v caston school
corp&f=false.

“Olesen v. Board of Educ. of School Dist. No. 228, 676 F. Supp. 820 (N.D. Ill. 1987).” Justia Law,
law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/676/820/1626122/.

Colorado Independent School District Respondent, Supreme Court of Texas, Scholar. Google,

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14064563658009838468&q=Barber+v.+Colorad

o+Indep.+Sch.+Dist&hl=en&as_sdt=806&as_vis=1