Running head: Artifact #3 Bill Foster v.

Board of Education 1

Artifact #3 Bill Foster v. Board of Education

Amber Shewman

College of Southern Nevada

Abstract

In this artifact, we have Bill Foster who is a high school student that lives in the northern eastern

part of the United States. The school implemented the policy prohibiting students of wearing

jewelry, earrings, or any other accessories that could be connected to gang activity. Throughout

the paper I will review the Tinker v. Des Moines and the Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent

School District both cases have evidence to back the student’s self-expression in the school.

While the cases, Bethel school district v. Fraser and Olesen v. Board of Education defend the

school district’s right to prohibit the apparel of students if there is reasonable evidence to back

the reason for the ban of such items.

Artifact #3 Bill Foster v. Board of Education

In the case of Foster v Board of Education we have the plaintiff, Bill Foster, a student at a

large high school located in the northern eastern United States. The school had a policy that

banned students’ from wearing gang symbols such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic

caps. Bill Foster who has no affiliation with any gang decided to wear an earring to school as a

form of self-expression and in the pure thoughts that the earring would be attractive the opposite

sex. He was suspended because of his decision. Therefore, Bill filed a suit against the school

board arguing that by denying him the right to wear an earring to school violated his First

Amendment.

If we look at the plaintiff as the side the courts will favor, we could look to the case of

Tinker v. Des Moines. In this case, again students have a policy enforcing students not wear an

accessory because of some fear or rebellion. Three students were suspended after wearing black

armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The courts ruled in favor of Tinker. As stated on the

FirstAmendmentSchool.org said, “The Supreme Court established what has been known as the

tinkers’ standard, considered to be the high watermark of students’ First Amendment rights” The

ruling meant school officials cannot silence students’ expression just because they don’t like it.

They must observe the effects of students wearing an accessory to school and how it disrupts the

learning environment. If you can’t find solid reasons for implicate a policy prohibiting students’

of wearing any earrings, jewelry etc. Then you are in fact violating the student’s constitutional

rights.

In the Case of Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District, two students were

suspended for earing rosaries’ outside their t-shirts while on school property. The school had

reason to believe that the rosaries were a gang related apparel. The court’s ruled that the school
Artifact #3 Bill Foster v. Board of Education 4

district had violated the student’s free speech and free exercise of religion (What are the free

expression rights of students in public schools under the First Amendment?, 2017). Bill Foster

wore his earring as a form of self-expression and that it would truly impress the opposite sex.

This expression did not interfere with school activities. Just like the two students in the

Chalifoux case, these students’ expression did not interfere with school activities either. As this

is the stipulation that was brought about by Tinker were the courts ruled, “A student may express

opinions on controversial issue in the classroom, cafeteria, playing field, or any other place, with

the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school or collide with the rights

of others” (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014, p. 98).

When looking at the defendant being the winning party in this case we could refer to the

case of Bethel School District v. Fraser the majority held that, “School’s legitimate interest in

protecting the captive student audience from exposure to lewd, and vulgar speech justified the

disciplinary action” (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014, p. 99)The Supreme Court

granted school authorities considerable latitude in censoring lewd, vulgar, and indecent student

expression. Many could argue that the case of Foster v. Board of Education the school had the

authority to censor the students’ apparel due to the school’s legitimate interest in protecting the

students from exposure to lewd or vulgar acts. Bill Foster’s school had reason to believe that the

policy prohibiting students’ from wearing earrings or any other piece of jewelry was justified due

to the gang activity present in the school when the policy was enforced. Therefore, we don’t have

to look any further because the school can provide the reason that this policy was enforced. It

was for protecting the audience of its students.

There has been few cases that touch on this same matter of prohibiting male students’ from

wearing earrings. In the case of Olesen v. Board of Education they found that, “The school
Artifact #3 Bill Foster v. Board of Education 5

district ban on male students wearing earrings rationally related to the school’s legitimate

objective of inhibiting the influence of gangs, as earrings were used to convey gang related

messages” (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014, p. 115)Bill Foster’s school had seen

an increase of the presence of gang activity. As well as this case, would give the school a grand

slam win. After hearing the ruling in olesen v. board of education our school in question had

every right to prohibit the students’ from wearing these items. The school environment should

always be number one. If anything is going to interrupt the environment, then it most likely can

be prohibited.

When looking at the entire case of bill foster v. board of education you have a male student that

decided to wear an earring to school despite the policy prohibiting students’ from wearing

jewelry, earrings of any kind because they symbolized a gang affiliation. As we have reviewed in

the beginning of this essay the different ways that the case could be determined based on prior

cases that have set the standard of a student’s rights regarding self-expression. Overall in the case

of Olesen v. board of education gives us the clearest idea of the ruling in this case. In the end the

decision that I feel the court would make would be that the school was justified in their policy

prohibiting the accessories that can be worn by the students on the school property.
Artifact #3 Bill Foster v. Board of Education 6

References

Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. E. (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers

and Students. New York: Pearson.

What are the free expression rights of students in public schools under the First Amendment?

(2017, 03 25). Retrieved from

http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12991&printer-friendly=y