Bill Foster attended a high school in the Northeastern United States area. The school had a policy that prohibited the wearing of what was thought of as gang symbols such as earrings, emblems, jewelry etc. There had been gang activities developing, which is why the policy had been placed upon the school. Although Bill Foster was not involved with any gang activity he decided to wear an earring to school disregarding the school policy as a self-expression because he believed that if he wore an earring it would be attractive to the opposite sex. Because of his action he was suspended for his act and had filed a suit against the school. There are two constitutional amendments that govern the situation at hand. The First Amendment states “The …show more content…
New Caney Independent School District is another case that has similarities to this one. David and Jerry were told that they would not be able to continue wearing their rosaries since the school dress code prohibited any wearing of gang related apparel and any apparel or attire in which identifies students as being a part of a gang related group. The students had been wearing the rosaries for some time even though their principle just noticed and believed them to be gang related accessories. The boys felt that they had been deprived of their First Amendment so they filed a suit against the school. The Court had agreed with the boys because the policy of “gang related apparel” had been unconstitutionally vague. Schools have the right to establish rules such as “the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style or aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations.” The cases did not involve any of those …show more content…
Board of Education is another case that had been ruled in the favor of the school district. Olesen was a high school student who was suspended because his school said that he was violating an anti-gang policy that they had. The policy stated that the students may not wear clothing, jewelry, or other symbols that identified gang affiliation. After the school officials saw Olesen they targeted him because the earring he was wearing that they believed signified membership in a local gang. He claimed he was expressing his “individuality.” Although the student tried to argue that the policy only target boys and not girls since they were allowed to continue to wear earrings. The Court favored with the officials because “individuality” is not enough to fall within the First