Running Head: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Freedom of Expression
Alexandria Whitmore
College of Southern Nevada

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
2

Bill Foster went to a high school where a strict dress code was enforced. This dress code
included a ban on gang symbols such as jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps. One day,
Bill decided to wear an earring to school, even though he had no affiliation with gangs. He was
suspended for breaking the school dress code. Bill felt that his first amendment rights were
violated.
First of all, if this ban is on all jewelry and earrings at all, it is very restricting. Many
students wear earrings, and it has nothing to do with gangs, and saying that all earrings relate to
gang activity is ludicrous. If this situation happened in a court where dress is considered a form
of expression, such as in New York, Bill could argue that his First Amendment rights were
violated, and that his earring caused no harm to the school. He could argue that his situation is
similar to Doe v. Brockton School Comm. In that he was just expressing himself as an
individual.
Bill could also argue that the school districts policy was altogether too vague. In
Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, the courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff,
who had a tattoo that the school took to be gang related. Because the dress code doesnt specify
what earrings are considered gang related the school doesnt have the grounds to suspend the
student.
The school could cite Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Educ.as a source to defend that
the earring did not uphold school values. They could argue that the earring could be deemed
offensive to other students.
Even school districts in which dress is considered a form of expression, there are certain
limitations. If the school can show that there was some legitimate disruption in the school day
due to the earring being gang related, then the school has the grounds to win. Just as in Tinker v.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
3

Des Moines, it was ruled that if the expression caused a disruption in school, then it was
prohibited. In the report, it says that gang activity was quite prevalent in school, so it is very
possible that the earring caused a disruption.
I believe that the courts will rule in favor of the student, provided that the school
cannot come up with evidence of disruption. In the end, a simple thing such as an earring cannot
be construed as offensive. It is simply a fashion piece that the school decided to prohibit because
they were afraid of gang influence. The vague state of the dress code will also contribute greatly
to the ruling, because the school did not state what types of earrings are prohibited.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
4

References
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications. Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.