Portfolio Artifact #4 1

A Case on Students Rights and Responsibilities: Foster v. High school

Taylor Lesko

EDU 210
Portfolio artifact #4 2

A large high school located in the northeastern part of the United States started a new

policy prohibiting the wearing of gang symbols. They are prohibited specifically when the gang

symbols are on clothing items, jewelry emblems, earrings and even hats. The reason why this

policy was put into place was because the gang violence was becoming more of an issue in their

neighborhood and the area surrounding the school. There was a student named Bill Foster who

was not involved in any of this violence but wanted to wear an earring in order to express

himself. Foster believed that the earing was going to be popular with the younger ladies. The

decision to wear the earring to school resulted in his suspension. Foster believed that the school

did not have the proper grounds to discipline him for his actions and so he filed a suit against the

school. There are four court cases that I discovered that accurately show two sides of this

argument. On one side is the belief that the school violated Fosters right to express himself. The

other side depicts a different story and shows that the school was just issuing this policy in order

to reduce gang violence.

The first two court cases that we will cover are going to be in defense of Bill Foster and

the way the school violated his freedom of expression rights. The first case is the West Virginia

State Board of Education v. Barnette. This case took place in 1943 and was the first time the

supreme court was concerned about a students freedom of speech. The West Virginia State

Board passed a law that made it mandatory for all students to salute the flag during the Pledge of

Alliance. Many parents were members of different religions and to some of them it was

considered a sin to pledge their allegiance to anything but God. They took this court case to the

supreme court who ruled the students in favor and stated that the school board was violating their

right of free speech. Although Bill Fosters case does not have to deal with religion, it still shows

how the school district was in the wrong for suspending him for wearing an earring to school.
Portfolio artifact #4 3

Foster was not involved in any gang actions and was just using his first amendment to express

himself. There was no harm or disruption made by wearing an earring to school.

Another court case in favor of Foster is the Goss v. Lopez case. Dwight Lopez was a

student at Columbus Central High School where a group of students were involved in a

disturbance in the lunch room. The school thought that Dwight Lopez was responsible in this

case and they suspended him for ten days before he even got a chance to plead his innocence.

The court found that students facing suspension should at a minimum be given notice and be

given some kind of hearing. In Fosters case, the school district did not give him a hearing that

he could defend himself. He should have been giving a warning to take out the earring instead of

being suspended right away.

The next two cases I have picked out are in favor of the school districts case against

Foster. The first court case is Morse v. Frederick. There was a school supervised event when

student, Joseph Fredrick decide to hold up a banner that read Bong Hits 4 Jesus. Deborah

Morse was the principal at this school and took away the banner because it was inappropriate for

the school and suspended him for ten days. Frederick believed that this was a violation of his

first amendment rights to have freedom of speech. They took this to court where the court

decided that school officials have the right to prohibit students from displaying messages that

were promoting acts that are not suitable for underage children. This court case does help the

school district in Fosters case because, although he does not pledge his allegiance to a gang by

wearing the earring, they still are able to prohibit it from happening. If they want to control the

amount of gang violence that is occurring, then they have to stop all children from wearing

symbols that relate to gangs even if the child is not wearing it to promote a gang. A child could
Portfolio artifact #4 4

see Foster and not understand the message he his trying to convey to girls and may instead,

believe he is part of a gang.

The last case in favor of Foster is West V. Derby Unified School District. There was a

student that attended the school who drew a picture of a confederate flag in his math class. There

was a racial harassment and intimidation policy that the school had previously instituted for past

issues dealing with the subject. School officials decided that the student was in violation of this

policy and got suspended. The student sued the school because he thought that the suspension

was in violation of his first amendment. The court decided that the school was in favor because

based on past experiences they had good reason to act upon this drawing. The drawing could

create disruption in the school and affect other classmates. This court case shows how Foster

thought that the earring would capture the ladies attention but on the other hand the school

views the earring as able to capture a gang members attention. The school had every right to act

upon this gang related symbol.

From all four court cases presented for the Foster V. High School case, I do believe that

the school would be in favor to win this case. I think that the school was doing the right thing

when they took action to reduce the wearing of symbols that are gang related even though it

affected Fosters right to wear an earring. If the school is simply attempting to reduce gang

violence and increase the protection and safety of their students, then I believe the school is

doing the right thing. Wearing the items, even though perceived as innocent, can be a disruption

in the classroom because students could think that others are involved in a gang by what they

wear. Due to there being a lot of gang related violence going on around the high school it is

important for the school to act upon any instance that does come on campus just like the West v.

Derby case.
Portfolio artifact #4 5

References

West Virginia State Board of Education V. Barnette. (n.d.). Retrieved October 02, 2016, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624

Goss V. Lopez. (n.d.). Retrieved October 02, 2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73

Morse V. Frederick. (n.d.). Retrieved October 02, 2016, from

West V. Dereby. (2010). Retrieved October 02, 2016, from