Running head: ARTIFACT #4 BILL FOSTER V.

BOARD OF EDUCATION
1

Bill Foster v. Board of Education

Artifact #4
Mariah Connor
Dr.Warby
EDU 210
February 19, 2016
 Running head: ARTIFACT #4 BILL FOSTER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
2

Bill Foster attended a high school in the northeastern United States. He filed a
lawsuit against his school because he believed they violated his right to freedom of
expression. Because of the frequent gang activity amongst students the school
initiated a policy that prohibited students from wearing gang symbols such as
jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. Bill, who was not involved in gang
activity. Bill chose to wear an earring as a form of self-expression and to impress the
female students. As a result of his actions he was suspended.
Bill Foster believed that his First Amendment right of freedom of expression
was violated when the school suspended him for wearing an earring. In the case of
Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District three students were suspended for
wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. On February 24, 1969 the
Supreme Court recognized the students constitutional rights and found that the
suspensions were unconstitutional. The courts stated that the school must show
more than a desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that accompany
unpopular viewpoints (Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S.
503 (1969). Bill Foster, just as in the Tinker case, had a constitutional right to wear
his earrings on school premises. He was not involved in any gang-related activities
and his self-expression did not cause disruption or interfere with the rights of other
students.
In the court case of Chalifoux v New Caney Independent School District two
students were suspended for wearing rosaries outside of their clothing while on
school premises. The school connected the rosaries to gang-related apparel. On
September 3, 1997 the Court found that the schools prohibition on gang-related
apparel, and its ban on rosaries in particular, violates the Plaintiffs rights to free
speech and free exercise of religion. (Chalifoux v New Caney Independent School
District, 976 F.Supp. 659 (1997). Bill Foster wore his earrings as a form of self-
expression and to impress the female students. It did not cause any interference in
school activities. Just as the Plaintiffs in the Chalifoux case, the wearing of rosaries
did not interfere with school activities and the court ruled in their favor.
Bill Fosters high school had frequent gang activity. The school initiated a
policy prohibiting the wearing of gang symbols. Earrings were one of the items
listed in the schools policy. They wanted to cut down on any disruptions or
distractions to the schools learning environment. To support the schools argument,
in the court case of Botoff v Van Wert City Board of Education on July 26, 2000 the
Court agreed that the school could prohibit a student from wearing a Marilyn
Manson T-shirt that it considered offensive based on the bands promotion of values
contrary to the schools educational mission (Botoff v Van Wert City Board of
Education 220 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 920 (2001). Bill
Fosters earrings, because of the frequent gang-related activity in the school, were a
distraction because it was associated with gang-related apparel.
In the case of West v Derby Unified School District No 266 on March 21, 2000
the Court found that the school had properly suspended a student for drawing the
Confederated flag in class. The school had a policy that prohibits racial harassment
or intimidation. The Confederate flag was one of the items listed in their policy
(West v Derby Unified School District No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358 (2000). Just as in Bill
 Running head: ARTIFACT #4 BILL FOSTER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
3

Fosters case the earrings were listed in the schools policy and therefore the
students could read and understand what conduct was prohibited in order to
maintain a peaceful learning environment.
Concerning Bill Foster, although the First Amendment protects all forms of
expression, in this particular situation I believe that the Court will find that the
school district did properly suspend Bill Foster. Schools have to create policies to
ensure a safe and productive learning environment. Due to the gang activities that
were prevalent in the school, it initiated a policy to prohibit the wearing of gang
symbols. The school district was very specific in all of the items that were
prohibited. Just as in the case of West v Derby Unified School District, on March 21,
2000 the court ruled in favor of the schools suspension of the student for drawing
the Confederate flag which was prohibited due to the racial harassment and
intimidation that was prevalent in the school (West v Derby Unified School District
No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358 (2000). The student was made aware in specificity, just like
Bill Foster. In the case of Boroff v Van Wert City Board of Education on July 26, 2000
the Board of Education was successful in its judgment of suspending the student for
wearing a Marilyn Manson T-shirt because of the values the band promoted (Botoff v
Van Wert City Board of Education 220 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S.
920 (2001). The gang-related activities would also be against the values, which are
contrary to the schools educational mission, and therefore any symbols that may be
related to gang activities should be prohibited from school premises.
In jurisdictions in which dress is not considered protected speech it can be
restricted for any legitimate reason. Policies should be written to ensure they
reasonably relate to their asserted purpose and are not vague. Billy Fosters school
initiated a policy that was not vague and specifically listed the gang apparel it had
restricted. An earring worn by Billy Foster was on the list and he was made aware of
what was prohibited. The school acted properly in their suspension of Billy Foster
and therefore his freedom of expression rights were not violated.

 Running head: ARTIFACT #4 BILL FOSTER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION

4

References
Botoff v Van Wert City Board of Education 220 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,
532 U.S. 920 (2001).

Chalifoux v New Caney Independent School District, 976 F.Supp. 659 (1997).

Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

West v Derby Unified School District No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358 (2000).