Portfolio Artifact #4 1

Portfolio Artifact #4

Sasha Waters

EDU 210
Portfolio Artifact #4 2

Bill Foster was youre average teenage boy that attended a large high school in the

Northeastern part of the United States. Recently, the school developed a new policy. The policy

was put in place due to gang activities that were present in the school and prohibits the wear of

gang symbols such as: baseball caps, emblems and jewelry, to include earrings. Bill Foster

wore an earring to catch the eyes of the young women at his school and as a way to show self-

expression and though he wasnt involved in gang activity, it was still against the rules. He was

suspended for his act. Following the suspension, he filed suit.

Bills freedom of expression was indeed violated. The school had a policy set for the

school and he was aware of that standard but he chose to wear the earring regardless and that

should have been okay. To say that piercings would distract another student from learning or to

say that a student is gang affiliated based off an earring is ridiculous. The school should have

found more evidence to prove his accused involvement of being in a gang before suspending

him. (Tinker vs Des Moines Independent school district).

Students have a right to exercise their freedom based off the First Amendment. Bill was

simply expressing his freedom rights based off this Amendment. The school went about his

suspension in the wrong manner and Bill had the right to file his suit. How can one be a

distraction or accused of being a member based of appearance? They should have given fair

warning, regardless of the policy, and then taken action. (Doe vs Brockton School Comm.).

Bill shouldnt have worn the earring to school, whether he wanted to attract females or be

rebellious. It showed a form of an undisciplined student and was completely unacceptable. Bill

was aware of his actions before they even took place and still thought it to be okay to express
Portfolio Artifact #4 3

himself with no repercussion. The school had every right to suspend him upon the viewing of his

earring, they were simply obeying the schools policy. (Boroff vs Van Wert City Board of

Education).

The school had proposed this in place of the students safety. Gang related incidents were

a factor in this school and in order to keep students and staff safe, certain things needed to

happen. Bill was fully aware of what he was doing and that it was wrong and could potentially

land him in trouble and still went against the policy. The school couldnt have been clearer than

to place these rules into effect immediately and to assure students that their safety was important.

Gang affiliated or not, Bill was informed about the policies in place and tried to undermine the

authorities at his school and then tried to file a suit. Shame. (Doe vs Renfrow (1981).

This situation is a bit sticky for me. I am torn between my future duties and

responsibilities as an educator and my current student status. I am all for expression, though

others may not like certain things people wear or say that doesnt change a thing. On the other

hand, if things said or worn by others actually cause a distraction, and the students arent just

claiming it to be because they dont like it, then by all means, have the student remove the item

or send the student home. For first offenses, I dont believe suspension is necessary. But whos

to really say what can be offensive and what cant? I am a Christian and I wear a shirt that says

Jesus, what distraction can I cause by expressing my love for him? The decision is a hard one to

make.
Portfolio Artifact #4 4

References
Tinker vs Des Moines Independent School District. Retrieved from

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21

Underwood, Julie and Webb, L. Dean. (2006). Students Rights. School Law for Teachers:

Concepts and Applications (pg124-125). Doe vs Brockton School Comm. Pearson.

Boroff vs Van Wert City Board of Education. Retrieved from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1210620.html

Doe vs Renfrow. Retrieved from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/451/1022.html