Running head: FOSTER V.

HIGH SCHOOL 1

Bill Foster v. A Northeastern High School

Julie Guerrero

Edu 214

Professor Herington

2016, April 21
FOSTER V. HIGH SCHOOL 2

Abstract

This pieceI will be reviewing student rights and responsibilities in a high school located in the

northeastern United States. I will review the case and see if the school had a right to implement

the new policy against the use of certain symbols on personal items due to an increase in gang

activity. I will be reviewing if it was ok for them to suspend Bill Foster a student at the high

school for wearing an earring to school. I will determine if the school or student is in violation of

the First amendment or Fourteenth amendment and determine if the suspension was justified. R

Keywords:
FOSTER V. HIGH SCHOOL 3

Bill Foster v. A Northeastern High School

In northeastern United States a high school prohibited the use of certain jewelry,

emblems, earrings and athletic caps because of an increase in gang activities. Bill Foster, a

student at the high school, decided to wear an earring to attract young ladies to him. The school

decided the student needed to be punished so they suspended him for violating the schools

policy. Foster is not involved in gangs and never thought he would be in trouble for simply

wearing earrings to school.

Student Rights and Responsibilities

While reviewing the possible outcomes of this case the following statues will be

examined; First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process. Also the following cases will

be examined; Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, B.H. v. Easton

Area School District, Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District, Bethel v. Fraser.

(Cambron 14)
1

Bill Foster is a high school student in the northeastern part of the US. This particular high school

decided to place a new policy to restrict the use of certain personal items, such as jewelry,

earrings, emblems, and athletic caps because of an increase in gang activity within the school.

Foster decided to wear earrings to school to look good for the ladies in his school. Since the

school implemented the new policy they decided to suspend Foster because he violated the

schools policy. Foster is now arguing that his rights have been violated. He argues his First

Amendment right of freedom of expression has been violated. He also states his Fourteenth

Amendment right has been violated because he has been deprived of his privilege without due
FOSTER V. HIGH SCHOOL 4

process. Foster is not part of a gang and was unaware of which earrings were not allowed in the

school.

Case Information

Since there is gang activity in a high school the administrators decided that all students in

the school should not be allowed to express themselves through jewelry or articles of clothing. In

the case of Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District, the school district had a “gang-

related” provision in their student handbook, stating items that were not allowed to be worn to

school. The students Chalifoux and Robertson wore white plastic rosaries to school for weeks

before they were approached by one of the school police officers to wear the rosary inside of

their shirt where it could not be seen. The Supreme Court found this was a violation of the

student’s freedom to express themselves and freedom of religion both part of our First

Amendment rights. Just like the case of Foster, he is in a school with this newly implanted rule

of not wearing certain items because they could be “gang related”. There are many items that

could be gang related but if he is not involved in a gang he should be able to wear earrings if he

pleases. (Chalifoux)

Also a similar situation, is the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community

School District. Just like foster wearing an item that is completely innocent to school, while

other kids (in particular girls) might have also been wearing earrings to school. A group of kids

got together and decided to wear armbands to school to support the truce of the Vietnam War.

When the school heard that some children may wear armbands to school they decided to

implement a new rule banning the use of arm bands. When the elementary school children wore
FOSTER V. HIGH SCHOOL 5

the armbands to school they were praised, but when the high school students wore them they

were asked to remove them. When the case was taken to the Supreme Court they ruled against

the school because it was a violation of the students First Amendment rights by taking away their

freedom of speech when they stepped into school. Just like Foster he has his First Amendment

rights of freedom of expression and that should not be taken away from him when he walks into

the school. Unless the item interrupts or distracts fellow students he should be allowed to wear

his earrings. (Tinker)

Foster wearing earrings to be cute for the girls in the school was could be completely

innocent or he could be wearing earrings affiliated with the gang. The school is following the

same policy that applies to the rest of the students by not allowing the use of earrings. In the case

of B.H. & K.M. v. Easton Area School District there was a similarity. Various middle school

students purchased bracelets that said, “I ♥ Boobies! (Keep a Breast)” to support breast cancer

prevention. They wore these to school in the month of September right before breast cancer

awareness month and multiple administrators complained because of the word “Boobies” stating

that it was offensive. Just like the case of Foster, these kids were wearing a piece of jewelry and

by some people it was considered offensive, when it really is not. The ruling in the B.H. & K.M.

case was in favor of the students and not the school district because the Supreme Court found

that this use of the word “Boobies” was not offensive. In order for words to be offensive they

need to be used in some form of “obscenity”. Even though the word “Boobies” was not found as

an offensive word the actual bracelet could have been restricted by the school, if bracelets in

general would have been banned. So just like in the Foster case, if the entire school had a ban on

bracelets with print on them they would have been following policy. No student is allowed to

wear earrings. (B.H & K.M.)

FOSTER V. HIGH SCHOOL 6

The case of Bethel v. Fraser is not related to wearing a certain items to violate student

rights, rather in this case it is about Matthew Fraser spoke a speech at an event nominating a

close friend and classmate. The school found his speech to be vulgar and filled with sexual

innuendos. Even though this speech was given outside of the regular school day it was done on

school property with many students present. The school had to follow its policy and have Fraser

suspended from school. The court ruled that since the event was outside school hours, that Fraser

should not have been suspended. If this would have happened during school hours the school

would have followed their policy and they would have been okay to suspend Fraser for his

speech. Again, just like Foster there is a violation of a school policy that is well known to all the

students it should be respected by all students and everyone is being equally told to not wear

earrings. It is not just Foster that has been picked out of the school, it is for all students. (Key)

I find that after reviewing the similar cases and evidence presented, that Foster should be

allowed to wear his earrings to school. Students are allowed the freedom of expression and as

part of their First Amendment rights. So he can come to school wearing earrings. As long as the

earrings are not distracting or disturbing to the class, they can be worn and we cannot restrict the

students (Foster) rights. Just because there is gang activity in the school does not allow for the

school or district to take away the rest of the students First Amendment rights. It also seems like

Due Process did not happen in this case. The school needs to provide documentation to the

students in advance on the change in policies. There also should have been warning before the

student was suspended for the first time he wears earrings. Most girls wear earrings and

probably would go unnoticed by personnel as wearing them outside of the policy.

FOSTER V. HIGH SCHOOL 7
FOSTER V. HIGH SCHOOL 8

References

B.H. v. Easton Area School District. (2012). Retrieved April 23, 2016, from

https://educationlaw.org/featured-caselaw/6511-bh-v-easton-area-school-district

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

and Students (Third ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School Dist. (1997). Retrieved April 23, 2016, from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19971635976FSupp659_11551/CHALIFOUX v. NEW

CANEY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

Key Supreme Court Cases: Bethel School District v. Fraser (ABA Division for Public

Education). (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2016, from

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_acti

on/bethel.html

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 22,

2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21