Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Artifact #4
Joshua Matul
At a large High School that has a history for gang activity a school dress code policy was
placed. This policy prohibits the use of gang symbols including jewelry, earrings, emblems and
athletic caps. Bill Foster, a student who has never been related with gang activity wore an
earring to school as a form of self-expression with a belief that he would appear attractive to his
female classmates. Subsequently he was suspended from school for violating the policy to
The first case used in favor of Bill Foster is Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969).
In this case students were planning to wear black armbands as a way to protest the Vietnam War,
when the school found out about this they created a policy against armbands. The students
proceeded to wear the armbands anyways and were suspended for breaking the school policy.
The final decision for this case after its appeals was that students have the rights of the First
Amendment and have the freedom to express themselves. The petitioners did not significantly
disrupt the schools and they have the freedom to express themselves in the school setting.
In relation to Bill Foster and his defense Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) is
relevant. In this case the school has placed a no gang symbol earring policy as a response to
gang related activity. Bill foster has not been affiliated with gangs in the past and with the given
details, it is assumed that this is a standard earring without gang symbols or affiliation; it is used
solely for a self-expressive purpose. Bill Foster wearing an earring has not disturbed the school,
The second case that will be used in favor of Bill Foster is Pyle v. South Hadley School
Committee (1995). In this case two students wore shirts to school and were told to remove them.
Students Rights and Responsibilities 3
The school claimed that the shirts were vulgar or obscene, however the school also admitted that
these particular shirts did not disturb the schools function or cause problem. The school also
created a new dress code policy that banned the shirts that they were wearing. The courts ruled
in favor of the students because these particular shirts showed no signs of disruption despite what
The Pyle v. South Hadley School Committee (1995) case has some similarity to the case
of Bill Foster. The main similarity is that in both cases the item worn displeased the school
because of the school believed the item would portray. However, contrary to what the school
claimed Bill was not affiliated with gangs and because of that the earring would not bring harm
to the school. If Bill was not using the earring as a way to bring gang related attention to the
school, there would be no disruption in the school. Because the earring that Bill is wearing is not
related to gangs it is not giving the message the school claims it will and it will not cause
disruption in the school setting so he should not be punished for wearing it.
The first case that will used in favor of the school is Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of
Education (2000). In this case a student is suspended for wearing Marilyn Manson T-shirts on
multiple days after being told he could not attend school wearing them. The courts favored the
school because the dress code violation contained messages that went against the schools
educational values.
In the case of Bill Foster, Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education (2000) there are
some similarities. In this case the student wore the item as a form of self-expression claiming
protection under to First Amendment. While in neither case the student proved to cause harm to
Students Rights and Responsibilities 4
other people in both cases the school disagrees with the message of the items. In the case of Bill
Foster the policy was put in place to stop gang activity and to deter students from it, Bill Foster
was using an item used by gang members as a sign of affiliation with them. In this way Bill is
using an item that is directly going against what the school is trying to promote, even if he is not
The second case that will be used in favor of the school is Melton v. Young (1971). In
this case a student chose to wear a confederate flag patch and was asked to have it removed. The
school had a history of racial tensions and part of their school policy prohibited provocative
symbols. When the student chose not to remove his patch he was suspended and he filed suit
against the school. It was ruled that due to the history at that school they had reason to believe
that his patch would cause disruption in the school setting and had the right to suspend the
student.
The case of Melton v. Young (1871) is relevant to Bill Foster because of what had
happened at the school in the past. The school only set the policy in place because it had a
history of gang activity. While Bill may not have had the intention of causing disruption or harm
the fact that he was wearing something associated with the gangs at the school could be assumed
that it would bring reasonable disruption. He could have been mistaken for a gang member and a
violent act could have happened, because of this the school took appropriate action in suspending
him.
To conclude the case of Bill Foster I believe that his punishment is fair because he
violated the school policy. To support this the first case that is relevant is Boroff v. Van Wert
Students Rights and Responsibilities 5
City Board of Education (2000) where the student was rightfully suspended even if he did not
believe that he would bring disruption to the school. The fact is that just because Bill does not
believe that he is portraying a gang related message does not mean others will see it the same
way. To further prove this point the case of Melton v. Young (1871) should also be added in. In
both cases the policy is placed in order to prevent something that has been proven to happen at
that school. Even if Bill Foster is not a gang member that does not stop other people from
mistaking him as one and because of that the school is correct in punishing him.
Students Rights and Responsibilities 6
References
BOROFF v. VAN WERT CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION No. 98-3869 (2000) Retrieved
October 20, 2015 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1210620.html
PYLE v. SOUTH HADLEY SCHOOL COMMITTEE No. 94-2025 (1995) Retrieved October
23, 2015 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1316740.html
TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 21 (1996) Retrieved October 19, 2015.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/393/503.html
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications. Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.