Sabina Smith 1

11/23/13

Portfolio Artifact #4
Sabina Smith
EDU 210
Professor Dr. Celia Isbell

Sabina Smith 2

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. This policy was
developed based on gang activities that were prevalent in the school. One of the students name
Bill Foster, who was not involved in gang activity, wore an earring to school as a form of selfexpression and a belief that the earring was attractive. For wearing that earing Bill was
suspended and he decided to file suit.
In case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) students were
suspended for wearing black armbands protesting the Vietnam War. Supreme Court found
suspension unconstitutional and rule in students benefit. Court found that students had a right to
free speech, but they could be limited if there was substantial disruption in school activities
which school couldnt prove in this situation. I think this is very similar to sour case because it
talks about students self-expressing their believes, so if Bill Foster was looking over this case he
for sure could have good building ground for his suit.
Doe v. Brockton School Committee (2000) in this case is about student that was cross
dressing and was excluded from attending school. The Trial Court granted the preliminary
injunction on the grounds that the Schools actions infringed Pats free speech rights, her liberty
interest in appearance, and her freedom from sex discrimination and that her exclusion from
school caused her irreparable harm. () Court issued an injunction requiring Brockton School to
permit Pat to attend school in clothing and accessories that express her female gender identity
This situation is very much like the situation we are working on. Pat was expressing herself by
wearing girl clothes (we have to mention that Pat was a male gender) Bill was expressing himself
by wearing an earring that wasnt harmful to anyone.

Sabina Smith 3
The West Virginia Board of Education required that the flag salute be part of the
program of activities in all public schools. All teachers and pupils were required to honor the
Flag; refusal to salute was treated as "insubordination" and was punishable by expulsion and
charges of delinquency. (1943) In the case West Virginia state Board of Education v. Barnette
we can see that freedom of speech is protected under first Amendment to Constitution. However
in this case Supreme Court decided that yes it is a Constitution right but is recognize that
students can have restriction to that right especially in school. I am talking about Freedom of
speech because speech can be symbolic such as wearing specific jewelry or art which makes this
case almost identical to ours. School can control and restrict their environment because school
should teach by example shared values of civilized social order.
Case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) is very interesting case about
principal removing two pages from school paper because they were containing information about
student pregnancy, birth control and the impact of divorce on students. The Court upheld
schools actions by finding that the newspaper was part of school curriculum. Even if student
speech does not cause disruption, it might be restricted if it is harmful to some students.
Looking at all the cases I have shown before the outcome of Bills suit could be very
different. It all will depend on a lot of different circumstances. I think thats Bill's freedom of
expression rights were not violated in this case since the District had adopted a policy prohibited
the wearing of jewelry. If I was a person to made decision about this I would rule in favor of
school. I think since the school put the rules up for all he students Bill should have fallow them.
West Virginia state Board of Education v. Barnette this case comparing it to Bill Forest situation
we can say that its almost identical. Based on this information I would say that Forest has no
chance to win his suit and I would uphold school decision. He said that he expresses himself by

Sabina Smith 4
the earing but we cant be sure of it. If school would let him keep the earing then all the other
students could protest why Bill is able to wearer earning and express-himself but others cant.
A policy needs to be followed by all. The district and school has to provide safe and equal
learning environment so the school has the right to restrict students even from first Amendment
when they are in school. Bill can were his earing outside of school but in school he has to fallow
rules like everyone else. Also looking at Case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier and
comparing it to Bills we can see a lot of similarities. Bill was in school when he was suspended
for his earing and like is shown in Kuhlmeiers case school has a right to control whats going on
in school and on their properties. Principal has a right to restrict things that are going on under
his watch. This is just another example that school decision was right and Bill should have not
worn the earing but fallow school rules.

Sabina Smith 5

References:
1) Doe v. Brockton School Community (2000). Jennifer L. Levi, Esq. (November 1, 2000).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT. Retrieved November
23, 2013, from http://www.transgenderlaw.org/cases/app_opp.pdf.
2) Underwood, J. and Webb, L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers concepts and
applications (page 120-130). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
3) WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ED. v. BARNETTE (1943). The Oyez Project at
IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 23 November 2013.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_591?sort=ideology