Make sure to bookmark this page, as most of our class materials will be linked to this site.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Student Rights
Do you feel that the majority opinion in your Supreme Court court case was correctly decided? Explain your answer referring to the constitution, using evidence from the case documents and examples from your personal experiences as a student.
I do feel that the majority opinion in my case Goss versus Lopez was correctly decided. According to the constitution, the students’ due process rights, which are guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment, were violated. The Supreme Court ruled that the students should have been given the right to a hearing or some kind of notice. I agree with this decision because the state of Ohio had granted their citizens the right to an education which should not have been withdrawn on the grounds of misconduct that was not determined to have actually occurred. As a student I know that if I was ever in trouble for something I may have or may have not committed I know that I would want to be able to have my parents there to support me before any decisions were made concerning my sentence. This way I would be able to tell my side of the story and if I had not done what I was accused of I would be able to get out of it. For example, what if I was in the bathroom with 6 other girls and one of them was smoking, but we all got in trouble for doing it because the bathroom smelled like smoke. I would know that I didn’t do it and it would not be fair for the administration to suspend me for something I didn’t do without even hearing my story. For this reason, I feel that the end result of my case was decided correctly. -Emily L.
The Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier case opened my eyes to the fact that students do not have as many rights as I thought that they did. This case is about students in a Journalism class that included information in their newspaper that the school did not approve of. The majority opinion in this case is that the school has the right to determine what can be included and cannot be included in this school newspaper. I disagree with this decision because I believe it is important for students to have freedom of speech and press, which is the First Amendment. According to the consitution and the First Amendment, all people are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech, religion and press. The court argued that students do not automatically have the rights of adults in school and the school has the right to determine how far the First Amendment applies to school. I disagree with this because I think it is important for all people, including students, to share their thoughts and opinions. Students will not be protected against questionable issues in the real world and therefore they should be subjected to it and get used to it in school. Therefore, I disagree with the majority opinion of this case and believe students should not be restricted their right to the First Amendment.
I believe that the majority opinion in my case Veronia School District vs. Acton was correct. Acton and his parent's said that the student-athlete random drug testing violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court argued that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments take on a new meaning when they are in a school. The "reasonable" nature of the search can be that the school is trying to protect the other students and children. Since the athletes were leading the drug culture at the time, the school district felt a need to address the situation before it got any worse. The Veronia School District also said that the student-athletes subject themselves to a higher level of regulation than those students who don't participate in athletics. When the court ruled that these drug screenings were lawful, I believe that they were correct in doing so. The student-athletes need to be responsible in what they are doing, especially since they are held to a higher level of scrutiny by the school district. In the wording of the Fourth Amendment, it says that reasonable cause isn't always necessary, especially if there is a special case. Claiming that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated just didn't make sense. Before this case was brought to the court, the majority of parents of the Veronia School District approved of it. This to me was the correct way of ruling and I think that Acton was wrong in their beliefs.
My case was Veronica School District vs. Acton. This case delt with a teenage football plater that refused to take a mandatory drug test. him and his parents decided that they did not want to take part in it. Because of their lack of participation the boy was consquently kicked off the football team. He then took is case to court where they ruled in favor of the school district. His family then took the case to the appeals court using the fourth amendment as their defense. The verdict was overruled when it went to supreme court where the ruling was with the school district. I believe that this was the right decision. The state law said that you had to do drug test. This idea was to keep drug use down within the student athlete. This doesn't infere with the fourth amendment because in order to playa sport you need an exam, so this cold be along the guide lines of an exam. Also only a few people are able to see the results. I believe that the final verdict in the case Veronica School District vs. Acton the ruling was correct.
The Bethel vs. Fraser court case made me realize how much power the school has over its students. In this case, Fraser was suspended for implying sexual innuendos that he spoke during a speech he was giving in front of the entire student body. At first the district court ruled against the school and its suspension, but when the case was taken to supreme court, the outcome was reversed and it was determined that Fraser was rightfully suspended because the school did have the right to punish him for what he said because they have to keep a safe learning environment for all of its students. I feel this was correctly decided because i feel that the school environment is a safe, well managed place, and to have inappropriate messages being passed around, it ruins the schools reputation. If this situation happened in our school i would hope that the same consequences be issued and that the school would strongly reinforce the courts decisions.
My case was Bethel versus fraser and i do not agree with the supreme court ruling for this case. This case was about a kid in high school that wrote a speech for a fellow student to be elected as body president. The speech he wrote was inappropriate and he was told by many of the teachers that there would be serious consequences if he read the speech aloud. But he decided that he wanted to and most of the teachers were shocked but thats it. In my case the supreme ruled with school and he was later not allowed to speak at his own graduation and he was suspended. He went to some courts before the supreme court and they ruled with him for freedom of speech. I feel that his speach was inappropriate but he should of not gotten the consequences that he did because kids hear worse things everyday. All his speach got out of the kids was a laugh and they forgot about it like it was nothing. So yes the speach should have not been said in school but it was and i feel the consequences were to much for what he did.
In the case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier i agree with the courts decision. This case also showed me that the rights of students only go to a certain extent. In this case the students felt that what they were posting in the school paper was fine because they had freedom of press. When the principle read the two specific articles, one about teen pregnancy and the other focusing on divorce making harsh comments towards the students father, he ruled that it wasn't school appropriate. The father never had the chance to defend himself against these comments. Also the students anonymously interviewed their peers and the administration was afraid their names could still be revealed. I agree with the fact that the school had the right to take it out of the paper because of due process. The school has the ability to choose what is appropriate and inappropriate from students even though the 1st ammendment states that they have freedom of speech and press.
In the Supreme Court case of Vernonia School district 471 v. Acton, I believe that the Supreme Court decided correctly. A student refused to take a mandatory drug test and was consequently denied participation to his school’s football program because of the Student Athlete Drug Policy. The student and his parents accused the school of violating his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. Students’ rights in school are not equal to those out of school. These rights also apply to extracurricular activities. In order to participate in extracurricular activities, like sports, you must have a physical. A drug test is just like a physical and if you have not taken drugs you should not have a problem submitting to a urine sample. Overall, I do not think that the school violated Acton’s fourth and fourteenth amendment rights. Had Acton not been involved with the football team (or any other extracurricular activity) his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights would have been violated. The school has the right to demand certain things, like a drug test, from you if you participate in an extracurricular activity. Since football is an optional activity the drug test is mandatory, which is the reason why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school.
I agree with the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case of Vernonia School District v. Acton. I do not think that forcing the student football player to take a random drug test was an invasion of privacy. I feel that when students voluntarily sign up to play sports, or to participate in other extracurricular activities, the school should be allowed to conduct random drug tests in order to monitor the students that are representing the school. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that this is not a violation of the fourth amendment, as the student tried to argue. I agree with this because, according to the fourth amendment, “probable cause” is not always necessary. This seems to be especially true in a school setting, where many of your constitutional rights become limited. The school’s athletic department definitely had the right to randomly drug test in order to determine the extent of drug use among athletes. Also, all athletes need to go through the process of a physical examination before they participate in any sports anyways. I don’t think that a random drug test is anymore of an invasion of privacy than the physical is. Also, in this particular case, all Vernonia student athletes were required to submit to the newly implemented drug testing program when they signed up to participate in sports. Therefore, the student should have been aware that the school had the right to randomly test athletes for drugs. Overall, the Vernonia School District v. Acton court case, as well as the others discussed in class, seems to show how limited people’s rights are while in school.
In the important freedom of press case, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court exhibited how greatly student’s rights are reduced in school. In this case a school did not approve of a few articles written in the school newspaper about controversial topics. The Supreme Court ruled that schools have the right to limit press. They stated that a school newspaper is not a public forum. This condition allows overseers of school newspapers to permit a lower level of First Amendment protection of free speech. This ties in with students being in a safe learning environment. Therefore the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. I side with the dissenting opinion that the students should be allowed to write with they want in a school newspaper. The First Amendment states that citizens should have the right to freedom of press, speech and religion. As schools we should not be repressing the rights our nation is built on. The students have most likely come into contact with shocking or controversial ideas at school before. Just because the ideas are written does not mean that they should not be allowed to be heard. I believe that Kuhlmeier should have won this case.
I believe that the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the Veronia School District vs. Acton court case was correctly decided. In this case the school district authorized random drug testing of student athletes, which Acton refused to do on the grounds it violated the fourth and fourteenth amendments. The court ruled that drug testing was not an invasion of privacy for student athletes. I agree with this decision because illegal use of steroids and drugs in school sports should be stopped. First it is unfair to other players and teams, and secondly it can be extremely harmful to an athlete. However in regards to the law in this case, I also believe that it didn’t violate rights guaranteed in the fourth and fourteenth amendment. I agree that in this instance the fourth amendment giving a person a right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizure was not violated. Like the case file said, student athletes already have physicals in order to participate in sports, and share locker room, in essence giving up their right to privacy. In the fourteenth amendment it said a state cannot deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process. According to the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O, it was ruled that a school district has power and supervision over students, which limits a student’s right to due process. This case ruled that an authority figure in a school only needed reasonable suspicion and not probable cause in order to search someone. Therefore the student’s fourteenth amendment was also not violated because by being a student athlete the court said that you are held to a higher standard and there is a need to stop the use of drugs by athletes. Therefore I agree that in this instance the Supreme Court ruled correctly. I agree that student athletes should be held to a higher standard and that their rights to privacy are even less than a normal student’s rights. I definitely believe that in the fight to stop drug and steroid use by athletes and those in extra-curricular activities; these are the measures that need to be taken.
I do feel that in the case of T.L.O. verse New Jersey I do agree with the supreme court. I agree with the whole situation because she was in the bathroom and it was a legitimate cause to search her bag further. I do feel that her rights were on the verge of being violated with going further with the search but otherwise no. Some personal experiences could be that they were at our high school last year there was a lot of smoking in the bathrooms and if you went into them you would probably come out smelling like smoke. Or maybe your parents smoke and the smoke attaches to your clothing you can't do anything about it. The Supreme Court made the right decision because it was a legitimate cause.
In my opinion the Bethel v. Frasier case was a good example of how students lose alot of their rights at school. The issue was over a student who preformed a speech infront of his school at an assembly and made an inappropriate remark that the school found offensive. He was than suspended and the matter was taken to the district court and they ruled in favor of the student. When this was taken to the supreme court for violation of the 1st ammendment right, freedom of speech they ruled in favor of the school saying that a students rights are limited within the school and that they were right to suspend him. I agreed with the courts descision because a school is meant to be a safe learning enviroment and profanity/vulgar language would go against making the school a safe enviroment, especially at an assembly in front of the faculty and possibly younger students.
In the case Bethel vs. Fraser, the court ruled that Fraser's first amendment right was not violated due to his innuendos included in a speech with the entire school as an audience. I do believe what he said was only inappropriate if you inferred his speech that way. I believe most of our rights as students are overridden by the administrations of public schools. It is understandable that the administrations want to keep school a safe and healthy environment but there are ways to do that other than violating privacy, due process, and our personal freedoms. What Fraser said was not offensive to any degree, only made for an older and more mature audience.
I feel that the majority of the Supreme Court was correct in their decision. The students involved in the Goss v. Lopez case were definitely denied their 14th amendment rights to Due Process. Every student, according to the constitution, has the right to enforce their rights against any alleged violations/ wrong doing. They have the right to a fair trial and to be read their rights. In the case Goss v. Lopez, the students were not given their Due Process right, therefore violating their 14th amendment rights. The right to Due Process gives anyone who is wrongly accused of an wrong doing the chance to prove their innocence. Without that right, anyone could get into trouble for doing things that they might not have done. If I, as a student, was suspended for doing something wrong, I would want to hear what I was being suspended for doing. That was I could give my side of the story because if the stories of what happened do not match up, then someone is lying. Without a fair trial I could get suspended for something I did not do. And that is not fair to me or anyone else who is wrongly accused of doing something. At least with your Due Process right you can share your side of the story, so that everyone involved has a chance to be fairly judged. Without that right, schools would be in Chaos.
The case Bethel vs. Frasier really caught my attention and made me realize that schools have a tremendous power over the students. The case is about a student who made a speech supporting a candidate for student government in front of the student body. In his speech, he used many sexual innuendos which school officials did not approve of. The next day, after the speech was given, Frasier was suspended because the school officials thought he violated the school’s Disrupted Conduct Rule. The case was soon brought to the District Court, where the court ruled Frasier for freedom of speech, which is apart of the first amendment of the Constitution. The school officials did not like their decision at all, so they went to the Court of Appeals where the court was also favoring Frasier. Soon the school took the case to the Supreme Court where the court finally agreed with the school. With a 5/4 decision, the court ruled that the school has the right to limit the free speech rights in order to have a safe learning environment. So in the case of Bethel vs. Frasier, I agree with how the Supreme Court made their finally decision. The school had the right too suspend Frasier because he was sending around messages that could ruin the schools reputation and also make the school unsafe and not have the proper learning environment it should have and that’s why I believe that the Supreme Court made the right decision in this court case.
The majority opinion in the Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier case was incorrectly decided. I disagree with the decision because the principal did not inform the students of the deletion of the two pages. Even though the administrators of a school should have some right to regulate what goes into the student papers, they should understand that these kids were trying to present problems and events that are occurring within the high school years. The principal had no right to delete two pages that also contained other students’ hard work without informing them first. The school should have reviewed the paper earlier and discussed with the students why it was not appropriate for the paper. I think that the topics in the articles were completely appropriate because they were topics that are becoming a large part of society and kids should be educated about them. It is also a good way for students to explain their thoughts and opinions on topics that affect society. The court was right to allow administrators to regulate the paper to make it appropriate for school, but students should be allowed to express themselves a bit more than this school was allowing. I don’t completely agree with the ruling on Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier.
I did not agree with the Supreme Court's decision in the Bethel vs. Fraser case. This event started out with a speech that was given to a school about a person that should be elected for class president. The speech contained some innuendos and may have seemed to be inappropriate to some. The court eventually ruled in favor of the school, and this allowed the school to punish the speaker. When the student got suspended, I realized immediately how restrictive a school can be against what can be said. I always thought that the 1st Amendment applied to anyone at any time. This particular case seemed to violate this amendment.
First of all. the student did not say anything that harmed or intimidated anyone, and nothing was said that was considered offensive. While some of the language may have been inappropriate, I do not believe any of it was harmful. I heard a few sentences from that speech, and I can say that I have heard worse language at school. Of course, a school must have a safe learning environment. This makes it appropriate for the school staff to punish someone who uses any offensive language. The language used by the speech was not offensive, so the school should have let it alone.
I feel that, at least on principle, the majority opinion in my case, Bethel vs. Fraser, was correctly decided. In this case, Fraser gave a speech nominating a fellow student for school office at a school assembly. In his speech, he used an explicit metaphor and was punished for it by suspension and loss of graduation speaker privileges. Fraser sued and lost when the Supreme Court decided that schools had the right to prohibit speech or expression that they did not deem acceptable. I agreed with the decision, because i think that in order to have a good learning environment in school, you need to regulate what is appropriate and what is not. The object of the school setting is to be a place of learning, and it can make it difficult to learn when such distractions take place. Also, it kind of defeats the purpose of the school when it comes to instilling good values. Some of the younger members of the school might be made uncomfortable by these kinds of references, as well. Thus, I believe the Court made the right decision in this case. My only issue was that, while i believe this on principle, I think that you have to really look at each case. I'm not so sure that what Fraser did was as big of a deal as it was blown up to be, because if you look at the language he used, while the reference can easily be seen, it was put in vague metaphorical language. It was not an explicit, descriptive reference or anything like that, and no one was harmed by it, so I think the school overreacted a little in punishing him the way they did. They should have approached it a little differently. In general, though, I agree with the Supreme Court.
I agree with the majority opinion in my case Bethel vs. Fraser. In the case, Fraser gave a speech to his fellow classmates nominating a student for office. He used lewd and explicit language. Due to this, he was suspended and denied the privilege of speaking at a future event. He sued, but in the end lost the case. The Supreme Court ruled that schools have the right to use their own judgment when it comes to the first amendment right of free speech. The court, therefore, upheld the school’s decided punishment. I agree with his decision, first of all because Fraser had been warned prior to the assembly that if he gave the speech there would be consequences. He knew that punishment of some kind would follow his speech, and still did not decide against it. More importantly, I believe schools have a right to monitor the language used by students so that no student is offended by the speech and so that a safe learning environment can be established. It is part of the school’s responsibility to prepare their students to be well-educated contributors to society and part of this is instilling good morals. If references such as Fraser’s are ignored or go without consequences, the younger students will begin to follow suit. Such language is becoming more and more acceptable- it has to stop somewhere.
In the case of Bethel v. Fraser I disagreed with the final outcome of the case. It is hard to put a price on freedom, but I feel as though a student's rights' were violated.
I think the student had been tried unfairly. If the speech was "so bad" (which it really wasn't, I had the oppertunity to read it) the teachers should have not let him say it in the first place.
His punishment was worse than I thought it should have been as well. He should not have been suspended, and he should have been able to address his class as planned during his graduation.
I do not think it was even necessary to bring this case all the way to the supreme court, I feel as though it could have been handled differently, and should have been revised more.
TLO vs. New Jersey was a case involving a high school teenage girl, who was searched because the school officials found out that she had been smoking in the school bathroom. During the search, even after finding the cigarettes the principle continued to search and found other substances as well. The girl was charged as a juvenile for the drugs, but she fought back by saying that the search was a violation of the fourth amendment right against search and seizure, including unreasonable searches. The case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court who ruled that the search was indeed reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. I agree with the courts decision because it is the school’s responsibility to provide a safe environment for the kids. The school officials should be allowed to take reasonable actions too assure safety. I think that the principle had the right to search her completely because she was a danger to the school and the other kids. I don’t think that the school should require a warrant to search a student, I think that a “reasonable cause” is more than enough for them to search a locker and a student’s bag. At the same time I think it would be inappropriate to search someone’s car without a warrant or go through their cell phone, I think that is beyond the limit. I agree with the court’s decision that the school had every right to search the student because she was harmful to the school’s environment and was violating the law.
In my case TLO v New Jersey the court ended up ruling in favor of the school. i on the other hand disagree with that decision. when they entered the bathroom and found the smoke, and only the two girls in there, that did give them a reason to search. but i do not agree with the search being continued. when TLO's bag was being searched the principal found the cigarettes, and that's all the evidence he truly needed. but instead he continued to look. i believe that violates some of your rights as a student. it violates your 4th and 14th amendment rights. if i was in this situation i would being fighting it because i do feel her rights as a student were violated.
The case I did was Veronia School District vs. Acton. This case was between the Veronia School district and a football player from the school regarding drug testing in order to join the football team. Acton refused to be drug tested and thought it was violating his rights but the school thought otherwise. I agree with the supreme court ruling that the school does have the right to drug test. Acton felt as if his rights in the fourth and the fourteenth amendment were violated, but I believe the court was right when they said that certain rights are modified when on a team or in a club. Playing or participating in after school activities requires sacrifices, and this is a reasonable thing to ask of athletes because of the problems with enhancement drugs in young athletes. The school has every right to drug test, and Acton's fourth amendment rights were definitely not violated because the fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and because he is participating this is not unreasonable at all. Also his fourteenth amendment rights were not violated because they just guarantee equal protection and due process of law, both of which were not violated. Basically Acton's whole argument is obsolete because participating on the football requires him to give up privacy and rights. Student Athletes subject themselves to more regulations and put themselves in the position of having more rules. It is a choice that they make and if they do not want to follow the rules then they do not have to do the sport or in other cases the activity. And this is why I agree with the supreme courts ruling. This is even present in our school because in the sense that athletes are subject to harsher and more punishment when getting in trouble for either drugs or alcohol, if you do not want this then you do not join the club or participate in the sport. The supreme court definitely made the correct decision in this ruling.
The case Bethel vs. Fraser was about a young man who made an inappropriate speech to his fellow classmates to be elected student body president and during his speech used fowl language and the teachers of his school told him if he had presented that speech there would be consequences of his actions. He went to many courts before he went to the Supreme Court where they agreed with the school and said he would not be allowed to speck at his graduation. I think this was a overall decision yes kids do hear worse words but “every action there is a reaction” and this was the way the school was going to approach it. Although I think suspending him was a little much but taking away his right to speak at his graduation was punishment alone, but this teaches him a lesson overall. I think as student’s rights are overridden by teachers and administrators of our schools and Fraser wanted to rebel, this was not the way to achieve it by using inappropriate language as such. By using such language it sends a wrong message about the school and ruins their reputation and also reflects on how there teaching these kids and what lack of respect they have. Yes I do think the school was right to take away his speech at graduation but just should not have suspended him.
I feel that the decision to allow drug testing to be a requirement for being on the football team is justified. The reason for this drug testing is for the health of students; both the student who is being tested and other people that student may interact with differently while under the effect of drugs. It is the school's responsibility to provide a safe learning environment, and if danger may be created by use of drugs in athletics, the school should find a way to stop their use. Targeting sports players is a fairly efficient way of creating a safer environment. The player in question will not be using them and suffering their effects, other players don't risk being injured by an intoxicated student, and other student who may have been influenced to take drugs because of football team members using them will not take them either. The appeal of the drug testing on the grounds of Amendment IV, search and seizure, is directly addressed by creating a safer learning environment by eliminating drug use through testing, which is covered under Amendment XIV.
I do not feel that this decision was come to by the proper reasons, however. I do not think it is fair to say that a football team, because it is extracurricular, isn't required for all students in the law requiring school to be available to them. Being on a football team in high school can provide otherwise unreachable opportunities to students. It can provide scholarships to help them pay for college, which they may otherwise be unable to attend. It also can help create jobs, with professional football players, who would need the experience, and coaches, announcers, etc. who would need the knowledge. Thus, I don't find it particularly fair to bar a student from participation because the school is not by law required to provide the opportunity. However, I think that the safety aspect outweighs this con.
In the case of T.L.O vs New Jersey the supreme court ruled that the search for more evidence was reasonable under the forth amendment. I believe that that the ruling was reasonable. T.L.O had thought that the search was unreasonable and that the principal needed a warrant to search her bag. In my opinion she had given up her right to be searched when she was found smoking in the girls bathroom. Once you have been caught doing something you have created a reason to be searched. If she didn’t want be suspended from school for having drugs in her purse then she should have never put the drugs in her purse. This is her fault for not using common scenes and for bringing the drugs to school.
In the case Bethel vs. Fraser, a student wrote a speech that included multiple sexual innuendos, and then decided it would be appropriate to give the speech to the student body. I think the majority opinion was wrong when they ultimately sided with the school. In my opinion, the school should have first had to approve of all of the speeches before they were given. Doing so would eliminate the problem of inappropriate speeches and would also have avoided the problem completely. Fraser’s speech was undoubtedly inappropriate for 14 year old kids, however he did run the speech by faculty and they said it probably wasn’t a good idea to deliver it. Why didn’t one of those teachers just say no? Fraser probably was expecting no as an answer and when he got “probably not a good idea” he decided to deliver it. Fraser argued that his protection from the first amendment would keep him safe from suspension, but was soon told otherwise. Basically the administration has complete control of what is said and published inside of the school doors, and you will never beat the system.
In the case I was given Goss versus Lopez I believe it was correctly decided. The students in the case were not treated as supposed to. They were tried without a hearing, menaing their due process rights, which are guarunteed by the fourteenth amendment, were violated. The supreme court ruled the students should not have recieved any punishment without a notice or a hearing. It wasnt fair the school did that too them they werent able to put in their side of the story which might have been the truth. they cant just suspend the students because they think they did it, they need evidence and to allow the students to tell their story before they take action. If I were ever acussed of anything i would make sure i get a chance to say my side of the story especially if I did not do it. this is why i agree with the courts desicion and think the case was decided correctly.
In the TLO v. New Jersey case, I believe that the continued search of TLO's bag was unreasonable and violated her 4th amendment right. This case was ruled in favor of the High School with a 6-3 vote in the supreme court. When TLO was caught smoking in the bathroom, I believe the school did have reasonable suspicion to search her bag. However, I do not believe the continued search leading the principal to find the marijuana and other drug paraphernalia reasonable. The principle did not have reasonable suspicion to search for anything other than cigarettes and when they were found, the search should have been concluded. Instead, the principal continued searching, finding the drugs and thus convicting TLO of possession of illegal substances as well as the slightly more innocent act of smoking on school grounds. Though I do not approve of TLO smoking cigarettes on school grounds, I do believe she should have won the case seeing that her 4th amendment right was compromised.
The case assigned to my group was TLO vs New Jersey. In this case a student was caught smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The student was taken to the principles office where the vice principle questioned them about smoking. The student denied smoking and the v. principle asked to search her purse. When opening the purse he discovered a pack of cigarettes. This is where IU believe the search should have been concluded. This is because the principle had reasonable suspicion that she was smoking, so he had the right to look for cigarettes. But, he continued to search her bag. Upon this continued search he found rolling papers. This led him to believe that the student may be in possession of an illegal substance known as marijuana. As he continued his search, sure enough he found a small amount of marijuana. I dont agree with the V. Principles more thorough search because he should have stopped after he found the cigarettes. When brought to trial The Supreme Court ruled in favor with the school. They ruled that the search and seizure by school officials without a warrant was constitutional as long as the search was deemed "reasonable" given the circumstances.
My Court Case was Goss vs.Lopez. It involved 9 high school students from 2 different high schools, and 1 junior high school student from Columbous Ohio. These students got suspended for ten days, because of misconduct (the case didn't reveal the severity or details of the misconduct) The students were mad because they weren't even given a chance for a hearing, to let the school hear them out. They didn't want misconduct charges on their permanent record without a fight. They felt their 14th amendment rights had been taken away. The district court ruled that the student's 14th amendment rights were denied, and ruled in favor of the students. The case was then taken to Supreme court, which chose to extend the right to education, and ruled in favor of the students, that they should of at least been given notice and allowed a hearing. I agree with the rulings, but honestly, i don't have much to say about this case. I feel that it's all common sense, and that the school was forgetting the student's rights. The case i do have alot to say about is Hazelwood vs. Kuhmeir. A girl wrote two articles for the newspaper, one about contraceptives,sex,and teen pregnancy, while the other was about divorce. I feel that those two issues are big topics that teenagers need to be aware of. One of those topics had probably affected everyone in the school, and if not them themselves, someone close to them. Maybe it was a little out of line for the girl to bash her father, but depending on what she said/ and if what she said is true, i believe she has the right to speak her troubles. I think the school didn't want this to be published because they didn't want their students to be exposed to such 'touchy,emotional,adult' subjects. But, both the students and the principal know that those subjects are very common and needed to be adressed. I guess in 1988, those subjects weren't considered appropriate to be adressed publicly. Although when students get to school, their freedoms get limited, but i still think Kuhlmeir should of been given permission to publish her articles. If afterwards, the principal shared her opinions with the school/Kuhlmeir, i think that would of been fair enough. -Leah LePere
In the case, Goss versus Lopez, I believe that the majority of the Supreme Court decided correctly in favor of the students that were accused before they were able to tell their side of the story in a fair trial. In this case the students who were convicted with misconduct were not treated with respect to the fourteenth amendment. The students were tried without a hearing, meaning their due process rights were not being granted. And these rights are guaranteed to any citizen by the fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the students should have not received any punishment or suspension without the right to a fair trial or a hearing. The Supreme Court found that the students were entitled to their due process and a fair trial. And found that the school did not allow them these rights. I feel that if I were ever accused of anything that I did not do that I would make sure to get a chance to explain my side of the story.
My case was the case between Hazelwood and Kuhlmeier. I believe that the decision to remove the articles from the school newspaper was correctly justified. Since it is the school's newspaper and the fact they even have one, it should be their decision to remove articles or do whatever they want with it. The first amendment's rights to free press were not violated here. The principal had the right to remove those articles because he felt they were inappropriate and to be removed, regardless of how the students felt. The same situation had to do with Cheshire High School's t-shirts and other merchandise. If the name of the school is on the item, they have a right to dictate what goes on it and what doesn't. The school isn't forced to make these items so it is fair for them to do what they please with them. I believe the final decision of the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the school was correctly decided.
This unit on student rights has really opened my eyes to the fact that students in school have a very limited amount of rights. Students are given many less rights by schools then citizens are given by the constitution. In many cases students do not have rights in areas where a citizen outside of school would. It is obviously the job of the school to provide a safe environment where students can learn and it is the school’s lob to educate students; however in my opinion I feel like schools almost take advantage of their right to control students. In many cases schools go too far to create this “safe environment” and try to protect students when there is no danger, simply for the school’s own benefit. There are many examples of this throughout history and the case that I read during class is an example of this.
The case Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier is an example of the school tightening their grip on students rights. In this case a Journalism class included information in the school newspaper that the school did not approve of. The school suspended the kids and the kids took the case to court. The Supreme Court sided with the school and exhibited how much student’s rights are diminished in school. The Supreme Court ruled that the school has the right to limit free press if they deem it unfit and harmful to the school’s learning environment. This allows school officials to disregard the student’s First Amendment rights of free speech and free press and to censor the information.
I strongly disagree with the majority decision of the Supreme Court; I believe that a person and a student’s First Amendments rights of free speech and free press should extend to the school. I feel that it is not the schools right to deny a student’s right to free press. The student is a citizen of the United States and therefore deserves the most fundamental right that is granted in our great country. When the Supreme Court sided with the school it went against the Constitution and disregarded the student’s rights of free press. This is unacceptable in my eyes, the reason the Supreme Court felt this way was because the school felt the information may have been inappropriate for younger students. Well it is the younger student’s responsibility to hold themselves to a higher standard and to respect that maybe it is not the best content for them, this I understand. However, the content that the school felt inappropriate was completely appropriate for high school students. A large majority of students in high school are very familiar with sex and sexual things; therefore I feel it was a poor decision for the Supreme Court to take away student’s rights for this reason.
Please excuse the lateness of this post! Not only do we currently not have a printer, but Google didn't send me a verication for an account for them for a quite a few days!
That being said, I think the ruling in the case I did, T.L.O. vs. New Jersey was decided correctly in some ways and incorrectly in others. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school's search being constitutional because they had reasonable suspicion. While I believe searching for cigarettes is fine, because the principal had reasonable suspicion, I do not believe it was right to continue searching after finding the cigarettes. The principal found what he/she was looking for and should have stopped there. This, for me, is when "unreasonable search and seizure" comes into play. Continuing to search after finding the object in question seems unreasonable to me. Bringing cigarettes onto school property is enough for a suspension, and there was no reason to continue searching. I can see why search and seizure rules may need to be changed for a school setting, where a student might bring in something with which he can hurt other students, but still find the principal's search to violate even these limited rights.
I think that the Supreme Court decided wrongly in the T.L.O. case. A person smoking in the bathroom does not limit the education process of students. I think that the decision was used more as a means to make an example. The evidence of marijuana in the handbag should have been omitted, considering it was found under illegal circumstances (illegal until after this case). The administrator had no reason to continue searching that bag after what he or she wanted to find was located. I don’t mean to say that I think students should be allowed to smoke in school, however, just because someone walks out of a bathroom that smells of smoke, should not (although it does) give administrators the right to search that person. Regardless of the fact that illegal substances and cigarettes were found in the bag, these items never should have been found because the search should have never been conducted. I think that the policy CHS has had has been more effective than this method that is, invading privacy. Reasonable suspicion is one of the more clever loopholes to bypass someone’s rights. Allowing students to be searched at the whim of an administrator creates a less secure learning environment, and allows schools to become microcosms of police states.
I feel that the majority opinion in the case Bethel School District v. Fraser was decided correctly by the first two courts. The courts ruled in favor of the student, which I feel was the right decision. Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office which was said to be inappropriate and a violation of the school rules and the educational process. Many sexual references and language was used during the speech, and the school banned Fraser from speaking at the senior graduation. He argued that the rules weren’t clear in describing what school appropriate and inappropriate was, and that it violated the first amendment of freedom of speech. I don’t think that the student was purposely trying to violate any rules, and compared to the language that is used in schools today (hallways, lunch, study halls, etc.), the language used in Fraser’s speech was nowhere near what is accepted in many school districts nowadays. In schools today, I personally feel that too much is “let go” and the behavior and language people use in school should not be so easily accepted by the teachers and other adults. In the information given about the case, there were a few excerpts taken from the speech as examples to show what language the student used to get his point across about a particular student, and the sexual reference(s) he made may have made some students laugh a little, but I don’t think that it would have really offended a person because the speech wasn’t about anyone but Matthew’s close friend. If I was the one making the speech, I would want to be able to make a few small jokes to engage the audience in the speech and I would want to be able to freely express my opinion about the topic, especially if it was about a student I knew really well. Overall, I agree with the Supreme Court in deciding to rule in favor of Fraser. Bethel School District should have enforced their school rules more clearly, and shouldn’t have been so strict.
I surprisingly agree with all of the rulings of the Supreme Court. For instance, in Hazelwood vs. Kulmeir, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. Though they removed the students’ first amendment rights, the school has the responsibility to protect the other students and therefore if they feel that the environment is uncomfortable for other students, they have the right to take it away. The school’s first priority is to protect their students and I believe they have the right to limit the freedom of press if they have reasonable motives. However, I believe their approach to it was not right, because even though I believe they have the right to do what they did, they should have asked the students to change it before just removing it from the newspaper. I also agree with the ruling of Bethal vs. Fraser for the same reasons as Hazelwood vs. Kulmeir. In New Jersey vs. TLO, I also agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of New Jersey because they have the responsibility to protect other students, and if they have a reason to search someone’s belongings, they have the right to, though it goes against the student’s 4th amendment of search and seizure. I also agree with the ruling in favor of the student in Goss vs. Lopez. The school should not be able to suspend students without a reason. This violated the students’ 14th amendment of due process. If the actions were punished and written in their permanent records, they students have the right to due process since it will affect them in later life. In Vernonia School District vs. Acton, I agree with the ruling against the student. The Supreme Courts reason for ruling against the student was because the schools interest outweighed the student’s privacy. The 4th amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, this was not unreasonable. They have suspicions of steroid use among the football players, which gave them the right to perform the search. If the student had a disagreement with the schools decision, the school had every right to kick him off the team because they had a reason to.
The Supreme Court was absolutely right to rule in favor of the school in the T.L.O. v. New Jersey case. The school is obliged to maintain a healthy learning environment for its students, and that includes keeping students safe while they are there. Therefore, school administrators should be allowed to do what it takes to accomplish this because the safety and well being of students is a top priority. If a school needed to check a student’s bag to make sure they didn’t have anything that would put other students in danger, they definitely should be allowed to do. In T.L.O.’s case, she likely was dealing the drugs that were found in her bag, so it was beneficial that this was stopped. If a student brought a gun into school and the school had reason to suspect this, they should be allowed to search for and confiscate it in order to protect others. It is better to be safe than sorry. It would be ridiculous to require the school to obtain a search warrant every time they felt a student might be bringing something illegal or harmful into the school. This would be both inconvenient and inefficient. Also, if a student wasn’t doing anything wrong, they should have no reason to fear an administrator looking into their bag. Giving students the right to protection against search and seizure without a warrant is only protecting those who bring dangerous or illegal substances into school and does nothing to protect other students from harm.
The case of Goss v. Lopez was fairly straightforward and the ruling in the case was certainly correct. Several students from an Ohio school district were suspended from school. The students did not try to argue that the suspension was unjust, but rather that the process leading to the suspension was unjust. The students claimed that their fourth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated, because they were not given a hearing prior to the suspension. The fourth and fourteenth amendments guarantee the right to the due process of the courts, meaning that every person accused of any type of misconduct has the right to a fair and equal trial. The school argued that the students were not found guilty of any crime, and a suspension was not serious enough to warrant a hearing under the due process clause. They also claimed that the students never denied the misconduct charges. The students claimed that they were never made aware of what the charges against them were, and they argued that suspension was very serious, considering that it would be on their permanent records and could hurt their chances at getting into college. The Supreme Court ruled five to four that the students had a right to due process before any serious disciplinary actions could be taken against them. The Supreme Court ruled correctly on this case because suspension from high school is a serious punishment. It is a punishment that colleges and future employers will see which can inhibit the students’ opportunities for success later in life. In that respect suspension is very similar to a misdemeanor or felony conviction, which is certainly protected by the due process clause. Any disciplinary action that has any potential to hurt a student’s opportunities later in life warrants a fair and equal hearing under the due process clause.
I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier in Missouri. Students who felt their first amendment right to free speech was denied when their principal took news articles out of their school paper without speaking to them about it first sued the principal. The principal stated that the topics in the articles, teen pregnancy and divorce, were not appropriate for a school environment and that some of the students may not be mature enough to handle the articles. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the principal, stating that the school had the right to sensor the newspaper in order to provide an environment conducive to education. I disagree with this ruling because the student newspaper is a creative outlet for students where they can express issues that are important to them. Although safe sex and condom use were spoken of in the teen pregnancy article, they were mentioned as a preventative, not an incentive to have premarital sex. These same issues are spoken about in health classes that are required by law. A research show that many times, the first time parents and their kids speak about sex is accompanied by the announcement of an unplanned pregnancy. While health may address the physical aspects, conservatives are often against teaching safe sex practices. If students feel their school would benefit from these prevention techniques, the article would advance student learning without awkward student teacher lectures. Secondly, as the divorce rates rise, many students have been affected or will be affected by the issues spoken about in the articles. Everyone wants to know that they are not alone, and this article provides that support anonymously. Instead of allowing students to wonder out loud safely and talk about their feelings of hurt and confusion, the Principal is closing the door which inhibits learning and understanding. In a similar, recent case in Indiana that did not reach the Supreme Court, state courts ruled that students did indeed have the right to publish articles about controversial issues in a student newspaper. Constitutionally, the right to free speech was created so one could not be arrested or tortured for their beliefs. In school, inappropriate language is acceptable to prohibit in order to maintain a respectful environment in the school and for the educators. Otherwise, inhibiting free speech is only appropriate when the spoken or written words will cause danger. This includes threats, shouting “fire”, etc. However, what one generation says or talks about may seem horrendous to another, but times change and issues like sex and divorce become more openly talked about. In past times, divorces were rare or illegal. Changing times call for new protocols in speech and in society. Therefore, I believe that if someone is caring enough to publish an article about teen pregnancy or emotionally open enough to share a personal story about divorce, the school should be thrilled to accept student promoted learning and understanding. A learning conducive environment will change over time as different issues come and go, but the overall ambiance of a school should show the students that the school is ready and willing to do anything to help students learn and grow both mentally, physically and emotionally.
I also feel that the majority opinion in Goss v Lopez was correct. Many of the cases we have discussed ruled against the students but I believe that if this case did not side with students then schools could become like Guantanamo Bay, where people are held without a trial. Goss v. Lopez rightfully ensured, in my opinion, a hearing for an incident that could harm their permanent record. Although this decision did not ensure a trial by jury, a school can only punish to a certain extent, so even if an administrator doesn't allow the student to speak out much, there is only so much they can do. I believe the sixth and fourteenth amendment correctly back this up, and that the supreme court's reasoning does as well. The supreme court said that the state of Ohio had opted to grant the right of education to it's citizens so it can't take that away without due process. I might have said that schools must give hearings because it's 'not fair' to not give hearings, but this explains the same concept much more clearly.
I believe that the majority of Supreme court was wrong in my case, TLO vs. New Jersey. TLO was a fourteen year old who was accused of smoking, when she was caught by two girls in the bathroom. The school obviously had clear evidence when she was reported, which game them the right to search. I disagree with the fact that they continued to search her bag after they found the cigarettes. TLO was accused of smoking, nothing else. Even though the princiapl found other things in her bag, he should not have found them because he should have stopped once he found what he was looking for. I feel that TLO's rights were denied not only as a student, but as an individual. I know that I wouldn't allow someone to search through my purse, espeically if they found what they had set out to do in the first place.
In the T.P.L.O versus New Jersey State case, the Supreme Court was correct to rule in favor of the school. Many laws, even outside of schools, are constructed in such a way as to provide for a large variety of situations. Even outside of schools, many searches can be justified legally by a simple suspicion, such as a smell. Inside school, it becomes even easier to justify a search because the school has a duty to protect the other students. The safety of the many other students in cases such as this one is the most important factor. If there is a probable cause for the student to be searched, then they should be searched reasonably until the suspicion is either confirmed or denied. If the search seems to be more serious than the school authorities originally deemed, it should be passed on to the police so that the school is no longer responsible. In the case of T.P.L.O. the school had a probable cause to begin their school of the student and a probable cause to continue their search of the student. In addition, the school was responsible for the safety of the other students. The supreme court was correct to rule in favor of the school because the school’s search was justified and none of the student’s rights were violented.
Although the of Vernonia School District vs. Acton was ruled in favor of the Veronia School District, I strongly disagree with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the ludicrous decision that they came to. In summary, Anton, a student athlete, refused to submit to a school sponsored drug testing; but he did participate in a private drug screening, sued the school who refused him a spot on the football team. The supreme court ultimately ruled in favor of the Veronia School District Stating that the amount of privacy compromised by Anton was meager in comparison to the lack of privacy already in place in events associated with athletic events: locker time, shower time and etc. Furthermore the Supreme Court established that students who participate in extra-curricular events forfeit rights that are guaranteed by the constitution: they have less rights than normal students. I believe that this aberration from the constitution is not only unjust but can also be a detriment to the future of public education. By judicially segregating students in schools in the way that the Supreme Court did, our country has challenged the very core of our educational beliefs and morals. Schools have a mission to equally treat and educate all students and a restrictions on athletes such as this may cause unnecessary bias (that all athletes are on drugs) that affect the perception of these high achievers. Furthermore the lack of trust that seems to have spawn as a result of such intrusions of privacy is detrimental to the honest, safe and peaceful learning environment that all students are guaranteed.
I feel that in the case of the school vs. Fraser, the Supreme Court majority was wrong in siding with the school. The courts of original jurisdiction had the correct verdict in this case. Matthew Fraser delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office, which was said to be inappropriate, and a violation of the school rules and the educational process. Looking over it myself I didn’t find anything offensive about it. The school over reacted and suspended him and barred him from speaking at the graduation. Fraser argued that the language he used wasn’t offensive to the students and that it was common use in areas like the locker room. He also showed the speech to several teachers and there was no particular punishment mentioned. Also the barring from speaking at the graduation wasn’t in any rulebook. I feel that because this speech was only offensive to the older generation it isn’t fair to limit our speech based on their standards.
My case was bethal v. fraser. And i disagree with the decisions that were made from the supreme court. The case was about a kid in highschool who had written a speech of being elected for student body president, which supposively was "inappropriate" he was told that he'd get himself in trouble for proceeding with this speech to his fellow students and teachers. So he ends up telling his speech and got himself suspended. Which i thought was a little much but compared to the rest of the trouble he got in, he was better off just getting suspended. He was told he couldnt speak at his own graduation. His consequences had been a little much. In the end i wasnt really all that faund of it, i mean people at our own school speak worse than he had. Even if it had been a little more shocking for the teachers than it had been for the students.
Bethel v. Frasers court case i thought was inappropriate and he got pressed with consequences that werent really worth it. Alot of people say worse things than he did in his speech for election of student body. He got booted from talking at his own graduation. And he got suspended, which isnt all that bad. But compared to having to appear at court and getting charged with freedom of speech and all. I disagree with it all really, they could have worked it out better
In the case of The Vernonia School District vs. Acton, Acton was an athlete who refused to allow the school to drug test him and as a result was dismissed from his high school athletic team. Acton then took his case to court, and after passing through several appellate courts, the case of The Vernonia School District vs. Acton reached the Supreme Court. The majority of Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of the Vernonia School District, a decision that I strongly disagree with. By ruling in favor of the school district the Supreme Court justices stated that those in sports or after school activities have a lower expectation of privacy than even regular students (whose rights to privacy are already limited by the school’s obligation to provide a “safe” environment conducive to learning). This lower expectation of privacy was said to be implied from athletes sharing locker rooms, showers, and other places and things in which it can be assumed that one’s privacy is more limited than if they were at a location unassociated with their after school activity. Being a student athlete, I feel that this statement made by the Supreme Court directly deprives us of rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution; rights that the Constitution did not say should be handed out on the whim of the Supreme Court or the school district of the student, but rights that are to be afforded to all U.S. citizens. In addition to the fact that this decision completely stripped student athletes’ or students in extra-curricular activities’ rights to privacy, this decision puts pressure on students to consent to searches or other things school officials request due to the fear of a similar outcome should they attempt to take their case to court. The decision in this case adds to the Supreme Court rulings of other cases which have given schools the right to search students’ lockers, bags, cars, etc. as long as it is on school property and there is “reasonable suspicion” that an illegal act has taken place. With such vague and low standards that the schools must comply with, how then do students ensure their rights our protected, how then do we tell over zealous school administrations to back off, and how, with such vague policies, can one protect themselves from a school over stepping its duties to creating a safe learning environment? It is therefore clear that the majority of Supreme Court justices, by ruling that the school had the right to implement random drug testing on those participating in after school activities, severely crippled student rights.
In my case, Hazelwood versus Kuhlmeier, I believe that the the Supreme Court made the right decision of allowing the school to put limits on student expression as long as there is a "substantial and reasonable basis" for their decision. It would be unfair to students if they were forced to attend an institution in which inappropriate things, which could be offensive to them, were allowed. Freedom of speech in other places, however, is great because the teenagers are not forced to go to the particular place, unlike school. I agree that, since the principal was faced with a deadline for the school paper, he was right to remove the two pages which he deemed inappropriate. Morally, but not legally, he should have informed the students and given them time to rewrite the articles in a more appropriate way, but faced with the time limit, he could not do it. I am glad that the Hazelwood versus Kuhlmeier case turned out the way it did, as it protects my rights as a student.
In my last post, in the last sentence, I said "protects my rights as a student". Although it does not give me free speech to say whatever I want to in school, the right that it does give me is to go to school without being assaulted by offensive material when I walk into school each day.
The case of TLO vs. New Jersey made me realize that students don't have the same rights in school as they do in public places. TLO was a girl that was accused of smoking in a bathroom at her school. There was reasonable suspicion so the vice principal searched her bag. He found cigarettes and kept looking. He then found drug paraphernalia and she was charged as a juvenile for drugs. She fought back and said it was a violation of her fourth and fourteenth amendment. The court didn't agree with her. I don't think the decision was fair. The vice principal had reason to search her bag but once he found the cigarettes he should have stopped looking. Instead he went further than needed and found something unrelated to the initial accusation. I agree with TLO and think that the search went against her rights. It is up to the school to provide a safe learning environment for the students but it's also their job to protect their rights as people. In my opinion this was against her rights and TLO had the right to try and fight the initial punishment.
In the case of T.L.O. versus New Jersey, I believe that the Supreme Court made the right decision in saying the school had the right to search the girl’s bag. The girl argued against the school saying it violated the 4th amendment of the constitution which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. But, the school did have reasonable suspicion that she was smoking in the bathroom, so the principal had the right to search her bag. I also think the principal had the right to continue searching her bag after cigarettes were found. It is reasonable that if the girl was smoking she could also have been doing other drugs as well which is what the principal eventually found. Overall, I think the main reason the school had the right to search her bag was to ensure the safety and security of the other students in the school, which is one of the most important things a school should do. -Ben Paul
For my case T.L.O. Vs New Jersey, i think that what the teacher did was right, bring the girl into the principal's office and tell him what happened. But after the principal searched her purse and found out that she did have the cigarettes and was smoking in the bathroom, i think the search for looking for them should have been over right then and there and she should have been given her punishment for smoking. He really didn't have any other reason to go looking though her purse because he found the cigarettes and thats what he needed to find to prove she was smoking in the bathroom. But since the principal kept looking though her purse and found cigarette rolling papers and a little bit of marijuana that should have been a different case with the cops in my opinion.
In the case of TLO vs. New Jersey, TLO was a girl accused of smoking in the bathroom at school. Being accused of smoking, the vice principle searched her backpack for the cigarettes (not anything else). He ended up finding the cigarettes but continued to search for other things (in which he had no right to do). Finishing up his search, he found marijuana and paper to roll it with. Having the vice principle search for the cigarettes was fine in every way, but after that he didn't have the right to continue the search. This violated TLO's 4th amendment, right against search and seizure, and unreasonable searches. The case appealed to the Supreme Court who then ruled in favor of the school.
I do not agree with this decision. Yes, the vice principle found the cigarettes, which is what he was looking for. What was the reason for the search being continued, if he found what he was looking for. Sure, she shouldn't have had the marijuana with the substances but she did. And she wasn't being searched for that, therefor my opinion would be in favor of TLO.
In the Bethel vs. Fraser case i realized that the school had an incredible amount of power over the student population. In all the cases i saw that but this one being the worst in my eyes. This case dealt with a child giving a speech in from of the student body that had many sexual innuendo's throughout the entire speech. This was decided in the regular court that the kid was innocent and then when it was taken to the supreme court it was decided that the kid was guilty due to the fact that they need to keep a safe enviroment for the students. I thought this was an unjust way to handle the situation. The child should have been punished but not to the extent of a suspension because it wasnt harming or making the school enviroment unsafe it was just a child saying a few innapropriate things. And throughout many school you can walk down the hallway and hear worse profanity then the childs sexual innuendos used in his speech. Therefore i was not in favor of this case and i dont think it was justed fairly.
58 comments:
I do feel that the majority opinion in my case Goss versus Lopez was correctly decided. According to the constitution, the students’ due process rights, which are guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment, were violated. The Supreme Court ruled that the students should have been given the right to a hearing or some kind of notice. I agree with this decision because the state of Ohio had granted their citizens the right to an education which should not have been withdrawn on the grounds of misconduct that was not determined to have actually occurred. As a student I know that if I was ever in trouble for something I may have or may have not committed I know that I would want to be able to have my parents there to support me before any decisions were made concerning my sentence. This way I would be able to tell my side of the story and if I had not done what I was accused of I would be able to get out of it. For example, what if I was in the bathroom with 6 other girls and one of them was smoking, but we all got in trouble for doing it because the bathroom smelled like smoke. I would know that I didn’t do it and it would not be fair for the administration to suspend me for something I didn’t do without even hearing my story. For this reason, I feel that the end result of my case was decided correctly.
-Emily L.
The Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier case opened my eyes to the fact that students do not have as many rights as I thought that they did. This case is about students in a Journalism class that included information in their newspaper that the school did not approve of. The majority opinion in this case is that the school has the right to determine what can be included and cannot be included in this school newspaper. I disagree with this decision because I believe it is important for students to have freedom of speech and press, which is the First Amendment. According to the consitution and the First Amendment, all people are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech, religion and press. The court argued that students do not automatically have the rights of adults in school and the school has the right to determine how far the First Amendment applies to school. I disagree with this because I think it is important for all people, including students, to share their thoughts and opinions. Students will not be protected against questionable issues in the real world and therefore they should be subjected to it and get used to it in school. Therefore, I disagree with the majority opinion of this case and believe students should not be restricted their right to the First Amendment.
I believe that the majority opinion in my case Veronia School District vs. Acton was correct. Acton and his parent's said that the student-athlete random drug testing violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court argued that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments take on a new meaning when they are in a school. The "reasonable" nature of the search can be that the school is trying to protect the other students and children. Since the athletes were leading the drug culture at the time, the school district felt a need to address the situation before it got any worse. The Veronia School District also said that the student-athletes subject themselves to a higher level of regulation than those students who don't participate in athletics. When the court ruled that these drug screenings were lawful, I believe that they were correct in doing so. The student-athletes need to be responsible in what they are doing, especially since they are held to a higher level of scrutiny by the school district. In the wording of the Fourth Amendment, it says that reasonable cause isn't always necessary, especially if there is a special case. Claiming that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated just didn't make sense. Before this case was brought to the court, the majority of parents of the Veronia School District approved of it. This to me was the correct way of ruling and I think that Acton was wrong in their beliefs.
My case was Veronica School District vs. Acton. This case delt with a teenage football plater that refused to take a mandatory drug test. him and his parents decided that they did not want to take part in it. Because of their lack of participation the boy was consquently kicked off the football team. He then took is case to court where they ruled in favor of the school district. His family then took the case to the appeals court using the fourth amendment as their defense. The verdict was overruled when it went to supreme court where the ruling was with the school district. I believe that this was the right decision. The state law said that you had to do drug test. This idea was to keep drug use down within the student athlete. This doesn't infere with the fourth amendment because in order to playa sport you need an exam, so this cold be along the guide lines of an exam. Also only a few people are able to see the results. I believe that the final verdict in the case Veronica School District vs. Acton the ruling was correct.
The Bethel vs. Fraser court case made me realize how much power the school has over its students. In this case, Fraser was suspended for implying sexual innuendos that he spoke during a speech he was giving in front of the entire student body. At first the district court ruled against the school and its suspension, but when the case was taken to supreme court, the outcome was reversed and it was determined that Fraser was rightfully suspended because the school did have the right to punish him for what he said because they have to keep a safe learning environment for all of its students. I feel this was correctly decided because i feel that the school environment is a safe, well managed place, and to have inappropriate messages being passed around, it ruins the schools reputation. If this situation happened in our school i would hope that the same consequences be issued and that the school would strongly reinforce the courts decisions.
My case was Bethel versus fraser and i do not agree with the supreme court ruling for this case. This case was about a kid in high school that wrote a speech for a fellow student to be elected as body president. The speech he wrote was inappropriate and he was told by many of the teachers that there would be serious consequences if he read the speech aloud. But he decided that he wanted to and most of the teachers were shocked but thats it. In my case the supreme ruled with school and he was later not allowed to speak at his own graduation and he was suspended. He went to some courts before the supreme court and they ruled with him for freedom of speech. I feel that his speach was inappropriate but he should of not gotten the consequences that he did because kids hear worse things everyday. All his speach got out of the kids was a laugh and they forgot about it like it was nothing. So yes the speach should have not been said in school but it was and i feel the consequences were to much for what he did.
In the case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier i agree with the courts decision. This case also showed me that the rights of students only go to a certain extent. In this case the students felt that what they were posting in the school paper was fine because they had freedom of press. When the principle read the two specific articles, one about teen pregnancy and the other focusing on divorce making harsh comments towards the students father, he ruled that it wasn't school appropriate. The father never had the chance to defend himself against these comments. Also the students anonymously interviewed their peers and the administration was afraid their names could still be revealed. I agree with the fact that the school had the right to take it out of the paper because of due process. The school has the ability to choose what is appropriate and inappropriate from students even though the 1st ammendment states that they have freedom of speech and press.
In the Supreme Court case of Vernonia School district 471 v. Acton, I believe that the Supreme Court decided correctly. A student refused to take a mandatory drug test and was consequently denied participation to his school’s football program because of the Student Athlete Drug Policy. The student and his parents accused the school of violating his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. Students’ rights in school are not equal to those out of school. These rights also apply to extracurricular activities. In order to participate in extracurricular activities, like sports, you must have a physical. A drug test is just like a physical and if you have not taken drugs you should not have a problem submitting to a urine sample. Overall, I do not think that the school violated Acton’s fourth and fourteenth amendment rights. Had Acton not been involved with the football team (or any other extracurricular activity) his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights would have been violated. The school has the right to demand certain things, like a drug test, from you if you participate in an extracurricular activity. Since football is an optional activity the drug test is mandatory, which is the reason why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school.
I agree with the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case of Vernonia School District v. Acton. I do not think that forcing the student football player to take a random drug test was an invasion of privacy. I feel that when students voluntarily sign up to play sports, or to participate in other extracurricular activities, the school should be allowed to conduct random drug tests in order to monitor the students that are representing the school. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that this is not a violation of the fourth amendment, as the student tried to argue. I agree with this because, according to the fourth amendment, “probable cause” is not always necessary. This seems to be especially true in a school setting, where many of your constitutional rights become limited. The school’s athletic department definitely had the right to randomly drug test in order to determine the extent of drug use among athletes. Also, all athletes need to go through the process of a physical examination before they participate in any sports anyways. I don’t think that a random drug test is anymore of an invasion of privacy than the physical is. Also, in this particular case, all Vernonia student athletes were required to submit to the newly implemented drug testing program when they signed up to participate in sports. Therefore, the student should have been aware that the school had the right to randomly test athletes for drugs. Overall, the Vernonia School District v. Acton court case, as well as the others discussed in class, seems to show how limited people’s rights are while in school.
In the important freedom of press case, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court exhibited how greatly student’s rights are reduced in school. In this case a school did not approve of a few articles written in the school newspaper about controversial topics. The Supreme Court ruled that schools have the right to limit press. They stated that a school newspaper is not a public forum. This condition allows overseers of school newspapers to permit a lower level of First Amendment protection of free speech. This ties in with students being in a safe learning environment. Therefore the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. I side with the dissenting opinion that the students should be allowed to write with they want in a school newspaper. The First Amendment states that citizens should have the right to freedom of press, speech and religion. As schools we should not be repressing the rights our nation is built on. The students have most likely come into contact with shocking or controversial ideas at school before. Just because the ideas are written does not mean that they should not be allowed to be heard. I believe that Kuhlmeier should have won this case.
I believe that the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the Veronia School District vs. Acton court case was correctly decided. In this case the school district authorized random drug testing of student athletes, which Acton refused to do on the grounds it violated the fourth and fourteenth amendments. The court ruled that drug testing was not an invasion of privacy for student athletes. I agree with this decision because illegal use of steroids and drugs in school sports should be stopped. First it is unfair to other players and teams, and secondly it can be extremely harmful to an athlete. However in regards to the law in this case, I also believe that it didn’t violate rights guaranteed in the fourth and fourteenth amendment. I agree that in this instance the fourth amendment giving a person a right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizure was not violated. Like the case file said, student athletes already have physicals in order to participate in sports, and share locker room, in essence giving up their right to privacy. In the fourteenth amendment it said a state cannot deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process. According to the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O, it was ruled that a school district has power and supervision over students, which limits a student’s right to due process. This case ruled that an authority figure in a school only needed reasonable suspicion and not probable cause in order to search someone. Therefore the student’s fourteenth amendment was also not violated because by being a student athlete the court said that you are held to a higher standard and there is a need to stop the use of drugs by athletes. Therefore I agree that in this instance the Supreme Court ruled correctly. I agree that student athletes should be held to a higher standard and that their rights to privacy are even less than a normal student’s rights. I definitely believe that in the fight to stop drug and steroid use by athletes and those in extra-curricular activities; these are the measures that need to be taken.
I do feel that in the case of T.L.O. verse New Jersey I do agree with the supreme court. I agree with the whole situation because she was in the bathroom and it was a legitimate cause to search her bag further. I do feel that her rights were on the verge of being violated with going further with the search but otherwise no. Some personal experiences could be that they were at our high school last year there was a lot of smoking in the bathrooms and if you went into them you would probably come out smelling like smoke. Or maybe your parents smoke and the smoke attaches to your clothing you can't do anything about it. The Supreme Court made the right decision because it was a legitimate cause.
In my opinion the Bethel v. Frasier case was a good example of how students lose alot of their rights at school. The issue was over a student who preformed a speech infront of his school at an assembly and made an inappropriate remark that the school found offensive. He was than suspended and the matter was taken to the district court and they ruled in favor of the student. When this was taken to the supreme court for violation of the 1st ammendment right, freedom of speech they ruled in favor of the school saying that a students rights are limited within the school and that they were right to suspend him. I agreed with the courts descision because a school is meant to be a safe learning enviroment and profanity/vulgar language would go against making the school a safe enviroment, especially at an assembly in front of the faculty and possibly younger students.
In the case Bethel vs. Fraser, the court ruled that Fraser's first amendment right was not violated due to his innuendos included in a speech with the entire school as an audience. I do believe what he said was only inappropriate if you inferred his speech that way. I believe most of our rights as students are overridden by the administrations of public schools. It is understandable that the administrations want to keep school a safe and healthy environment but there are ways to do that other than violating privacy, due process, and our personal freedoms. What Fraser said was not offensive to any degree, only made for an older and more mature audience.
I feel that the majority of the Supreme Court was correct in their decision. The students involved in the Goss v. Lopez case were definitely denied their 14th amendment rights to Due Process. Every student, according to the constitution, has the right to enforce their rights against any alleged violations/ wrong doing. They have the right to a fair trial and to be read their rights. In the case Goss v. Lopez, the students were not given their Due Process right, therefore violating their 14th amendment rights. The right to Due Process gives anyone who is wrongly accused of an wrong doing the chance to prove their innocence. Without that right, anyone could get into trouble for doing things that they might not have done. If I, as a student, was suspended for doing something wrong, I would want to hear what I was being suspended for doing. That was I could give my side of the story because if the stories of what happened do not match up, then someone is lying. Without a fair trial I could get suspended for something I did not do. And that is not fair to me or anyone else who is wrongly accused of doing something. At least with your Due Process right you can share your side of the story, so that everyone involved has a chance to be fairly judged. Without that right, schools would be in Chaos.
-Dave T
The case Bethel vs. Frasier really caught my attention and made me realize that schools have a tremendous power over the students. The case is about a student who made a speech supporting a candidate for student government in front of the student body. In his speech, he used many sexual innuendos which school officials did not approve of. The next day, after the speech was given, Frasier was suspended because the school officials thought he violated the school’s Disrupted Conduct Rule. The case was soon brought to the District Court, where the court ruled Frasier for freedom of speech, which is apart of the first amendment of the Constitution. The school officials did not like their decision at all, so they went to the Court of Appeals where the court was also favoring Frasier. Soon the school took the case to the Supreme Court where the court finally agreed with the school. With a 5/4 decision, the court ruled that the school has the right to limit the free speech rights in order to have a safe learning environment. So in the case of Bethel vs. Frasier, I agree with how the Supreme Court made their finally decision. The school had the right too suspend Frasier because he was sending around messages that could ruin the schools reputation and also make the school unsafe and not have the proper learning environment it should have and that’s why I believe that the Supreme Court made the right decision in this court case.
The majority opinion in the Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier case was incorrectly decided. I disagree with the decision because the principal did not inform the students of the deletion of the two pages. Even though the administrators of a school should have some right to regulate what goes into the student papers, they should understand that these kids were trying to present problems and events that are occurring within the high school years. The principal had no right to delete two pages that also contained other students’ hard work without informing them first. The school should have reviewed the paper earlier and discussed with the students why it was not appropriate for the paper. I think that the topics in the articles were completely appropriate because they were topics that are becoming a large part of society and kids should be educated about them. It is also a good way for students to explain their thoughts and opinions on topics that affect society. The court was right to allow administrators to regulate the paper to make it appropriate for school, but students should be allowed to express themselves a bit more than this school was allowing. I don’t completely agree with the ruling on Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier.
I did not agree with the Supreme Court's decision in the Bethel vs. Fraser case. This event started out with a speech that was given to a school about a person that should be elected for class president. The speech contained some innuendos and may have seemed to be inappropriate to some. The court eventually ruled in favor of the school, and this allowed the school to punish the speaker. When the student got suspended, I realized immediately how restrictive a school can be against what can be said. I always thought that the 1st Amendment applied to anyone at any time. This particular case seemed to violate this amendment.
First of all. the student did not say anything that harmed or intimidated anyone, and nothing was said that was considered offensive. While some of the language may have been inappropriate, I do not believe any of it was harmful. I heard a few sentences from that speech, and I can say that I have heard worse language at school. Of course, a school must have a safe learning environment. This makes it appropriate for the school staff to punish someone who uses any offensive language. The language used by the speech was not offensive, so the school should have let it alone.
I feel that, at least on principle, the majority opinion in my case, Bethel vs. Fraser, was correctly decided. In this case, Fraser gave a speech nominating a fellow student for school office at a school assembly. In his speech, he used an explicit metaphor and was punished for it by suspension and loss of graduation speaker privileges. Fraser sued and lost when the Supreme Court decided that schools had the right to prohibit speech or expression that they did not deem acceptable. I agreed with the decision, because i think that in order to have a good learning environment in school, you need to regulate what is appropriate and what is not. The object of the school setting is to be a place of learning, and it can make it difficult to learn when such distractions take place. Also, it kind of defeats the purpose of the school when it comes to instilling good values. Some of the younger members of the school might be made uncomfortable by these kinds of references, as well. Thus, I believe the Court made the right decision in this case. My only issue was that, while i believe this on principle, I think that you have to really look at each case. I'm not so sure that what Fraser did was as big of a deal as it was blown up to be, because if you look at the language he used, while the reference can easily be seen, it was put in vague metaphorical language. It was not an explicit, descriptive reference or anything like that, and no one was harmed by it, so I think the school overreacted a little in punishing him the way they did. They should have approached it a little differently. In general, though, I agree with the Supreme Court.
I agree with the majority opinion in my case Bethel vs. Fraser. In the case, Fraser gave a speech to his fellow classmates nominating a student for office. He used lewd and explicit language. Due to this, he was suspended and denied the privilege of speaking at a future event. He sued, but in the end lost the case. The Supreme Court ruled that schools have the right to use their own judgment when it comes to the first amendment right of free speech. The court, therefore, upheld the school’s decided punishment. I agree with his decision, first of all because Fraser had been warned prior to the assembly that if he gave the speech there would be consequences. He knew that punishment of some kind would follow his speech, and still did not decide against it. More importantly, I believe schools have a right to monitor the language used by students so that no student is offended by the speech and so that a safe learning environment can be established. It is part of the school’s responsibility to prepare their students to be well-educated contributors to society and part of this is instilling good morals. If references such as Fraser’s are ignored or go without consequences, the younger students will begin to follow suit. Such language is becoming more and more acceptable- it has to stop somewhere.
In the case of Bethel v. Fraser I disagreed with the final outcome of the case. It is hard to put a price on freedom, but I feel as though a student's rights' were violated.
I think the student had been tried unfairly. If the speech was "so bad" (which it really wasn't, I had the oppertunity to read it) the teachers should have not let him say it in the first place.
His punishment was worse than I thought it should have been as well. He should not have been suspended, and he should have been able to address his class as planned during his graduation.
I do not think it was even necessary to bring this case all the way to the supreme court, I feel as though it could have been handled differently, and should have been revised more.
TLO vs. New Jersey was a case involving a high school teenage girl, who was searched because the school officials found out that she had been smoking in the school bathroom. During the search, even after finding the cigarettes the principle continued to search and found other substances as well. The girl was charged as a juvenile for the drugs, but she fought back by saying that the search was a violation of the fourth amendment right against search and seizure, including unreasonable searches. The case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court who ruled that the search was indeed reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
I agree with the courts decision because it is the school’s responsibility to provide a safe environment for the kids. The school officials should be allowed to take reasonable actions too assure safety. I think that the principle had the right to search her completely because she was a danger to the school and the other kids. I don’t think that the school should require a warrant to search a student, I think that a “reasonable cause” is more than enough for them to search a locker and a student’s bag. At the same time I think it would be inappropriate to search someone’s car without a warrant or go through their cell phone, I think that is beyond the limit. I agree with the court’s decision that the school had every right to search the student because she was harmful to the school’s environment and was violating the law.
In my case TLO v New Jersey the court ended up ruling in favor of the school. i on the other hand disagree with that decision. when they entered the bathroom and found the smoke, and only the two girls in there, that did give them a reason to search. but i do not agree with the search being continued. when TLO's bag was being searched the principal found the cigarettes, and that's all the evidence he truly needed. but instead he continued to look. i believe that violates some of your rights as a student. it violates your 4th and 14th amendment rights. if i was in this situation i would being fighting it because i do feel her rights as a student were violated.
The case I did was Veronia School District vs. Acton. This case was between the Veronia School district and a football player from the school regarding drug testing in order to join the football team. Acton refused to be drug tested and thought it was violating his rights but the school thought otherwise. I agree with the supreme court ruling that the school does have the right to drug test. Acton felt as if his rights in the fourth and the fourteenth amendment were violated, but I believe the court was right when they said that certain rights are modified when on a team or in a club. Playing or participating in after school activities requires sacrifices, and this is a reasonable thing to ask of athletes because of the problems with enhancement drugs in young athletes. The school has every right to drug test, and Acton's fourth amendment rights were definitely not violated because the fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and because he is participating this is not unreasonable at all. Also his fourteenth amendment rights were not violated because they just guarantee equal protection and due process of law, both of which were not violated. Basically Acton's whole argument is obsolete because participating on the football requires him to give up privacy and rights. Student Athletes subject themselves to more regulations and put themselves in the position of having more rules. It is a choice that they make and if they do not want to follow the rules then they do not have to do the sport or in other cases the activity. And this is why I agree with the supreme courts ruling. This is even present in our school because in the sense that athletes are subject to harsher and more punishment when getting in trouble for either drugs or alcohol, if you do not want this then you do not join the club or participate in the sport. The supreme court definitely made the correct decision in this ruling.
The case Bethel vs. Fraser was about a young man who made an inappropriate speech to his fellow classmates to be elected student body president and during his speech used fowl language and the teachers of his school told him if he had presented that speech there would be consequences of his actions. He went to many courts before he went to the Supreme Court where they agreed with the school and said he would not be allowed to speck at his graduation. I think this was a overall decision yes kids do hear worse words but “every action there is a reaction” and this was the way the school was going to approach it. Although I think suspending him was a little much but taking away his right to speak at his graduation was punishment alone, but this teaches him a lesson overall. I think as student’s rights are overridden by teachers and administrators of our schools and Fraser wanted to rebel, this was not the way to achieve it by using inappropriate language as such. By using such language it sends a wrong message about the school and ruins their reputation and also reflects on how there teaching these kids and what lack of respect they have. Yes I do think the school was right to take away his speech at graduation but just should not have suspended him.
I feel that the decision to allow drug testing to be a requirement for being on the football team is justified. The reason for this drug testing is for the health of students; both the student who is being tested and other people that student may interact with differently while under the effect of drugs. It is the school's responsibility to provide a safe learning environment, and if danger may be created by use of drugs in athletics, the school should find a way to stop their use. Targeting sports players is a fairly efficient way of creating a safer environment. The player in question will not be using them and suffering their effects, other players don't risk being injured by an intoxicated student, and other student who may have been influenced to take drugs because of football team members using them will not take them either. The appeal of the drug testing on the grounds of Amendment IV, search and seizure, is directly addressed by creating a safer learning environment by eliminating drug use through testing, which is covered under Amendment XIV.
I do not feel that this decision was come to by the proper reasons, however. I do not think it is fair to say that a football team, because it is extracurricular, isn't required for all students in the law requiring school to be available to them. Being on a football team in high school can provide otherwise unreachable opportunities to students. It can provide scholarships to help them pay for college, which they may otherwise be unable to attend. It also can help create jobs, with professional football players, who would need the experience, and coaches, announcers, etc. who would need the knowledge. Thus, I don't find it particularly fair to bar a student from participation because the school is not by law required to provide the opportunity. However, I think that the safety aspect outweighs this con.
In the case of T.L.O vs New Jersey the supreme court ruled that the search for more evidence was reasonable under the forth amendment. I believe that that the ruling was reasonable. T.L.O had thought that the search was unreasonable and that the principal needed a warrant to search her bag. In my opinion she had given up her right to be searched when she was found smoking in the girls bathroom. Once you have been caught doing something you have created a reason to be searched. If she didn’t want be suspended from school for having drugs in her purse then she should have never put the drugs in her purse. This is her fault for not using common scenes and for bringing the drugs to school.
In the case Bethel vs. Fraser, a student wrote a speech that included multiple sexual innuendos, and then decided it would be appropriate to give the speech to the student body. I think the majority opinion was wrong when they ultimately sided with the school. In my opinion, the school should have first had to approve of all of the speeches before they were given. Doing so would eliminate the problem of inappropriate speeches and would also have avoided the problem completely. Fraser’s speech was undoubtedly inappropriate for 14 year old kids, however he did run the speech by faculty and they said it probably wasn’t a good idea to deliver it. Why didn’t one of those teachers just say no? Fraser probably was expecting no as an answer and when he got “probably not a good idea” he decided to deliver it. Fraser argued that his protection from the first amendment would keep him safe from suspension, but was soon told otherwise. Basically the administration has complete control of what is said and published inside of the school doors, and you will never beat the system.
In the case I was given Goss versus Lopez I believe it was correctly decided. The students in the case were not treated as supposed to. They were tried without a hearing, menaing their due process rights, which are guarunteed by the fourteenth amendment, were violated. The supreme court ruled the students should not have recieved any punishment without a notice or a hearing. It wasnt fair the school did that too them they werent able to put in their side of the story which might have been the truth. they cant just suspend the students because they think they did it, they need evidence and to allow the students to tell their story before they take action. If I were ever acussed of anything i would make sure i get a chance to say my side of the story especially if I did not do it. this is why i agree with the courts desicion and think the case was decided correctly.
In the TLO v. New Jersey case, I believe that the continued search of TLO's bag was unreasonable and violated her 4th amendment right. This case was ruled in favor of the High School with a 6-3 vote in the supreme court. When TLO was caught smoking in the bathroom, I believe the school did have reasonable suspicion to search her bag. However, I do not believe the continued search leading the principal to find the marijuana and other drug paraphernalia reasonable. The principle did not have reasonable suspicion to search for anything other than cigarettes and when they were found, the search should have been concluded. Instead, the principal continued searching, finding the drugs and thus convicting TLO of possession of illegal substances as well as the slightly more innocent act of smoking on school grounds. Though I do not approve of TLO smoking cigarettes on school grounds, I do believe she should have won the case seeing that her 4th amendment right was compromised.
The case assigned to my group was TLO vs New Jersey. In this case a student was caught smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The student was taken to the principles office where the vice principle questioned them about smoking. The student denied smoking and the v. principle asked to search her purse. When opening the purse he discovered a pack of cigarettes. This is where IU believe the search should have been concluded. This is because the principle had reasonable suspicion that she was smoking, so he had the right to look for cigarettes. But, he continued to search her bag. Upon this continued search he found rolling papers. This led him to believe that the student may be in possession of an illegal substance known as marijuana. As he continued his search, sure enough he found a small amount of marijuana. I dont agree with the V. Principles more thorough search because he should have stopped after he found the cigarettes.
When brought to trial The Supreme Court ruled in favor with the school. They ruled that the search and seizure by school officials without a warrant was constitutional as long as the search was deemed "reasonable" given the circumstances.
My Court Case was Goss vs.Lopez.
It involved 9 high school students from 2 different high schools, and 1 junior high school student from Columbous Ohio.
These students got suspended for ten days, because of misconduct (the case didn't reveal the severity or details of the misconduct)
The students were mad because they weren't even given a chance for a hearing, to let the school hear them out. They didn't want misconduct charges on their permanent record without a fight. They felt their 14th amendment rights had been taken away.
The district court ruled that the student's 14th amendment rights were denied, and ruled in favor of the students.
The case was then taken to Supreme court, which chose to extend the right to education, and ruled in favor of the students, that they should of at least been given notice and allowed a hearing.
I agree with the rulings, but honestly, i don't have much to say about this case. I feel that it's all common sense, and that the school was forgetting the student's rights.
The case i do have alot to say about is Hazelwood vs. Kuhmeir. A girl wrote two articles for the newspaper, one about contraceptives,sex,and teen pregnancy, while the other was about divorce. I feel that those two issues are big topics that teenagers need to be aware of. One of those topics had probably affected everyone in the school, and if not them themselves, someone close to them. Maybe it was a little out of line for the girl to bash her father, but depending on what she said/ and if what she said is true, i believe she has the right to speak her troubles. I think the school didn't want this to be published because they didn't want their students to be exposed to such 'touchy,emotional,adult' subjects. But, both the students and the principal know that those subjects are very common and needed to be adressed. I guess in 1988, those subjects weren't considered appropriate to be adressed publicly.
Although when students get to school, their freedoms get limited, but i still think Kuhlmeir should of been given permission to publish her articles. If afterwards, the principal shared her opinions with the school/Kuhlmeir, i think that would of been fair enough.
-Leah LePere
In the case, Goss versus Lopez, I believe that the majority of the Supreme Court decided correctly in favor of the students that were accused before they were able to tell their side of the story in a fair trial. In this case the students who were convicted with misconduct were not treated with respect to the fourteenth amendment. The students were tried without a hearing, meaning their due process rights were not being granted. And these rights are guaranteed to any citizen by the fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the students should have not received any punishment or suspension without the right to a fair trial or a hearing. The Supreme Court found that the students were entitled to their due process and a fair trial. And found that the school did not allow them these rights. I feel that if I were ever accused of anything that I did not do that I would make sure to get a chance to explain my side of the story.
My case was the case between Hazelwood and Kuhlmeier. I believe that the decision to remove the articles from the school newspaper was correctly justified. Since it is the school's newspaper and the fact they even have one, it should be their decision to remove articles or do whatever they want with it. The first amendment's rights to free press were not violated here. The principal had the right to remove those articles because he felt they were inappropriate and to be removed, regardless of how the students felt. The same situation had to do with Cheshire High School's t-shirts and other merchandise. If the name of the school is on the item, they have a right to dictate what goes on it and what doesn't. The school isn't forced to make these items so it is fair for them to do what they please with them. I believe the final decision of the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the school was correctly decided.
This unit on student rights has really opened my eyes to the fact that students in school have a very limited amount of rights. Students are given many less rights by schools then citizens are given by the constitution. In many cases students do not have rights in areas where a citizen outside of school would. It is obviously the job of the school to provide a safe environment where students can learn and it is the school’s lob to educate students; however in my opinion I feel like schools almost take advantage of their right to control students. In many cases schools go too far to create this “safe environment” and try to protect students when there is no danger, simply for the school’s own benefit. There are many examples of this throughout history and the case that I read during class is an example of this.
The case Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier is an example of the school tightening their grip on students rights. In this case a Journalism class included information in the school newspaper that the school did not approve of. The school suspended the kids and the kids took the case to court. The Supreme Court sided with the school and exhibited how much student’s rights are diminished in school. The Supreme Court ruled that the school has the right to limit free press if they deem it unfit and harmful to the school’s learning environment. This allows school officials to disregard the student’s First Amendment rights of free speech and free press and to censor the information.
I strongly disagree with the majority decision of the Supreme Court; I believe that a person and a student’s First Amendments rights of free speech and free press should extend to the school. I feel that it is not the schools right to deny a student’s right to free press. The student is a citizen of the United States and therefore deserves the most fundamental right that is granted in our great country. When the Supreme Court sided with the school it went against the Constitution and disregarded the student’s rights of free press. This is unacceptable in my eyes, the reason the Supreme Court felt this way was because the school felt the information may have been inappropriate for younger students. Well it is the younger student’s responsibility to hold themselves to a higher standard and to respect that maybe it is not the best content for them, this I understand. However, the content that the school felt inappropriate was completely appropriate for high school students. A large majority of students in high school are very familiar with sex and sexual things; therefore I feel it was a poor decision for the Supreme Court to take away student’s rights for this reason.
Please excuse the lateness of this post! Not only do we currently not have a printer, but Google didn't send me a verication for an account for them for a quite a few days!
That being said, I think the ruling in the case I did, T.L.O. vs. New Jersey was decided correctly in some ways and incorrectly in others. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school's search being constitutional because they had reasonable suspicion. While I believe searching for cigarettes is fine, because the principal had reasonable suspicion, I do not believe it was right to continue searching after finding the cigarettes. The principal found what he/she was looking for and should have stopped there. This, for me, is when "unreasonable search and seizure" comes into play. Continuing to search after finding the object in question seems unreasonable to me. Bringing cigarettes onto school property is enough for a suspension, and there was no reason to continue searching. I can see why search and seizure rules may need to be changed for a school setting, where a student might bring in something with which he can hurt other students, but still find the principal's search to violate even these limited rights.
I think that the Supreme Court decided wrongly in the T.L.O. case. A person smoking in the bathroom does not limit the education process of students. I think that the decision was used more as a means to make an example. The evidence of marijuana in the handbag should have been omitted, considering it was found under illegal circumstances (illegal until after this case). The administrator had no reason to continue searching that bag after what he or she wanted to find was located. I don’t mean to say that I think students should be allowed to smoke in school, however, just because someone walks out of a bathroom that smells of smoke, should not (although it does) give administrators the right to search that person. Regardless of the fact that illegal substances and cigarettes were found in the bag, these items never should have been found because the search should have never been conducted. I think that the policy CHS has had has been more effective than this method that is, invading privacy. Reasonable suspicion is one of the more clever loopholes to bypass someone’s rights. Allowing students to be searched at the whim of an administrator creates a less secure learning environment, and allows schools to become microcosms of police states.
I feel that the majority opinion in the case Bethel School District v. Fraser was decided correctly by the first two courts. The courts ruled in favor of the student, which I feel was the right decision. Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office which was said to be inappropriate and a violation of the school rules and the educational process. Many sexual references and language was used during the speech, and the school banned Fraser from speaking at the senior graduation. He argued that the rules weren’t clear in describing what school appropriate and inappropriate was, and that it violated the first amendment of freedom of speech. I don’t think that the student was purposely trying to violate any rules, and compared to the language that is used in schools today (hallways, lunch, study halls, etc.), the language used in Fraser’s speech was nowhere near what is accepted in many school districts nowadays. In schools today, I personally feel that too much is “let go” and the behavior and language people use in school should not be so easily accepted by the teachers and other adults. In the information given about the case, there were a few excerpts taken from the speech as examples to show what language the student used to get his point across about a particular student, and the sexual reference(s) he made may have made some students laugh a little, but I don’t think that it would have really offended a person because the speech wasn’t about anyone but Matthew’s close friend. If I was the one making the speech, I would want to be able to make a few small jokes to engage the audience in the speech and I would want to be able to freely express my opinion about the topic, especially if it was about a student I knew really well. Overall, I agree with the Supreme Court in deciding to rule in favor of Fraser. Bethel School District should have enforced their school rules more clearly, and shouldn’t have been so strict.
I surprisingly agree with all of the rulings of the Supreme Court. For instance, in Hazelwood vs. Kulmeir, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. Though they removed the students’ first amendment rights, the school has the responsibility to protect the other students and therefore if they feel that the environment is uncomfortable for other students, they have the right to take it away. The school’s first priority is to protect their students and I believe they have the right to limit the freedom of press if they have reasonable motives. However, I believe their approach to it was not right, because even though I believe they have the right to do what they did, they should have asked the students to change it before just removing it from the newspaper. I also agree with the ruling of Bethal vs. Fraser for the same reasons as Hazelwood vs. Kulmeir. In New Jersey vs. TLO, I also agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of New Jersey because they have the responsibility to protect other students, and if they have a reason to search someone’s belongings, they have the right to, though it goes against the student’s 4th amendment of search and seizure. I also agree with the ruling in favor of the student in Goss vs. Lopez. The school should not be able to suspend students without a reason. This violated the students’ 14th amendment of due process. If the actions were punished and written in their permanent records, they students have the right to due process since it will affect them in later life. In Vernonia School District vs. Acton, I agree with the ruling against the student. The Supreme Courts reason for ruling against the student was because the schools interest outweighed the student’s privacy. The 4th amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, this was not unreasonable. They have suspicions of steroid use among the football players, which gave them the right to perform the search. If the student had a disagreement with the schools decision, the school had every right to kick him off the team because they had a reason to.
The Supreme Court was absolutely right to rule in favor of the school in the T.L.O. v. New Jersey case. The school is obliged to maintain a healthy learning environment for its students, and that includes keeping students safe while they are there. Therefore, school administrators should be allowed to do what it takes to accomplish this because the safety and well being of students is a top priority. If a school needed to check a student’s bag to make sure they didn’t have anything that would put other students in danger, they definitely should be allowed to do. In T.L.O.’s case, she likely was dealing the drugs that were found in her bag, so it was beneficial that this was stopped. If a student brought a gun into school and the school had reason to suspect this, they should be allowed to search for and confiscate it in order to protect others. It is better to be safe than sorry. It would be ridiculous to require the school to obtain a search warrant every time they felt a student might be bringing something illegal or harmful into the school. This would be both inconvenient and inefficient. Also, if a student wasn’t doing anything wrong, they should have no reason to fear an administrator looking into their bag. Giving students the right to protection against search and seizure without a warrant is only protecting those who bring dangerous or illegal substances into school and does nothing to protect other students from harm.
The case of Goss v. Lopez was fairly straightforward and the ruling in the case was certainly correct. Several students from an Ohio school district were suspended from school. The students did not try to argue that the suspension was unjust, but rather that the process leading to the suspension was unjust. The students claimed that their fourth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated, because they were not given a hearing prior to the suspension. The fourth and fourteenth amendments guarantee the right to the due process of the courts, meaning that every person accused of any type of misconduct has the right to a fair and equal trial. The school argued that the students were not found guilty of any crime, and a suspension was not serious enough to warrant a hearing under the due process clause. They also claimed that the students never denied the misconduct charges. The students claimed that they were never made aware of what the charges against them were, and they argued that suspension was very serious, considering that it would be on their permanent records and could hurt their chances at getting into college. The Supreme Court ruled five to four that the students had a right to due process before any serious disciplinary actions could be taken against them.
The Supreme Court ruled correctly on this case because suspension from high school is a serious punishment. It is a punishment that colleges and future employers will see which can inhibit the students’ opportunities for success later in life. In that respect suspension is very similar to a misdemeanor or felony conviction, which is certainly protected by the due process clause. Any disciplinary action that has any potential to hurt a student’s opportunities later in life warrants a fair and equal hearing under the due process clause.
I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier in Missouri. Students who felt their first amendment right to free speech was denied when their principal took news articles out of their school paper without speaking to them about it first sued the principal. The principal stated that the topics in the articles, teen pregnancy and divorce, were not appropriate for a school environment and that some of the students may not be mature enough to handle the articles. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the principal, stating that the school had the right to sensor the newspaper in order to provide an environment conducive to education. I disagree with this ruling because the student newspaper is a creative outlet for students where they can express issues that are important to them. Although safe sex and condom use were spoken of in the teen pregnancy article, they were mentioned as a preventative, not an incentive to have premarital sex. These same issues are spoken about in health classes that are required by law. A research show that many times, the first time parents and their kids speak about sex is accompanied by the announcement of an unplanned pregnancy. While health may address the physical aspects, conservatives are often against teaching safe sex practices. If students feel their school would benefit from these prevention techniques, the article would advance student learning without awkward student teacher lectures. Secondly, as the divorce rates rise, many students have been affected or will be affected by the issues spoken about in the articles. Everyone wants to know that they are not alone, and this article provides that support anonymously. Instead of allowing students to wonder out loud safely and talk about their feelings of hurt and confusion, the Principal is closing the door which inhibits learning and understanding.
In a similar, recent case in Indiana that did not reach the Supreme Court, state courts ruled that students did indeed have the right to publish articles about controversial issues in a student newspaper. Constitutionally, the right to free speech was created so one could not be arrested or tortured for their beliefs. In school, inappropriate language is acceptable to prohibit in order to maintain a respectful environment in the school and for the educators. Otherwise, inhibiting free speech is only appropriate when the spoken or written words will cause danger. This includes threats, shouting “fire”, etc. However, what one generation says or talks about may seem horrendous to another, but times change and issues like sex and divorce become more openly talked about. In past times, divorces were rare or illegal. Changing times call for new protocols in speech and in society. Therefore, I believe that if someone is caring enough to publish an article about teen pregnancy or emotionally open enough to share a personal story about divorce, the school should be thrilled to accept student promoted learning and understanding. A learning conducive environment will change over time as different issues come and go, but the overall ambiance of a school should show the students that the school is ready and willing to do anything to help students learn and grow both mentally, physically and emotionally.
I also feel that the majority opinion in Goss v Lopez was correct. Many of the cases we have discussed ruled against the students but I believe that if this case did not side with students then schools could become like Guantanamo Bay, where people are held without a trial. Goss v. Lopez rightfully ensured, in my opinion, a hearing for an incident that could harm their permanent record. Although this decision did not ensure a trial by jury, a school can only punish to a certain extent, so even if an administrator doesn't allow the student to speak out much, there is only so much they can do. I believe the sixth and fourteenth amendment correctly back this up, and that the supreme court's reasoning does as well. The supreme court said that the state of Ohio had opted to grant the right of education to it's citizens so it can't take that away without due process. I might have said that schools must give hearings because it's 'not fair' to not give hearings, but this explains the same concept much more clearly.
I believe that the majority of Supreme court was wrong in my case, TLO vs. New Jersey. TLO was a fourteen year old who was accused of smoking, when she was caught by two girls in the bathroom. The school obviously had clear evidence when she was reported, which game them the right to search. I disagree with the fact that they continued to search her bag after they found the cigarettes. TLO was accused of smoking, nothing else. Even though the princiapl found other things in her bag, he should not have found them because he should have stopped once he found what he was looking for. I feel that TLO's rights were denied not only as a student, but as an individual. I know that I wouldn't allow someone to search through my purse, espeically if they found what they had set out to do in the first place.
In the T.P.L.O versus New Jersey State case, the Supreme Court was correct to rule in favor of the school. Many laws, even outside of schools, are constructed in such a way as to provide for a large variety of situations. Even outside of schools, many searches can be justified legally by a simple suspicion, such as a smell. Inside school, it becomes even easier to justify a search because the school has a duty to protect the other students. The safety of the many other students in cases such as this one is the most important factor. If there is a probable cause for the student to be searched, then they should be searched reasonably until the suspicion is either confirmed or denied. If the search seems to be more serious than the school authorities originally deemed, it should be passed on to the police so that the school is no longer responsible. In the case of T.P.L.O. the school had a probable cause to begin their school of the student and a probable cause to continue their search of the student. In addition, the school was responsible for the safety of the other students. The supreme court was correct to rule in favor of the school because the school’s search was justified and none of the student’s rights were violented.
Although the of Vernonia School District vs. Acton was ruled in favor of the Veronia School District, I strongly disagree with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the ludicrous decision that they came to. In summary, Anton, a student athlete, refused to submit to a school sponsored drug testing; but he did participate in a private drug screening, sued the school who refused him a spot on the football team. The supreme court ultimately ruled in favor of the Veronia School District Stating that the amount of privacy compromised by Anton was meager in comparison to the lack of privacy already in place in events associated with athletic events: locker time, shower time and etc. Furthermore the Supreme Court established that students who participate in extra-curricular events forfeit rights that are guaranteed by the constitution: they have less rights than normal students. I believe that this aberration from the constitution is not only unjust but can also be a detriment to the future of public education. By judicially segregating students in schools in the way that the Supreme Court did, our country has challenged the very core of our educational beliefs and morals. Schools have a mission to equally treat and educate all students and a restrictions on athletes such as this may cause unnecessary bias (that all athletes are on drugs) that affect the perception of these high achievers. Furthermore the lack of trust that seems to have spawn as a result of such intrusions of privacy is detrimental to the honest, safe and peaceful learning environment that all students are guaranteed.
I feel that in the case of the school vs. Fraser, the Supreme Court majority was wrong in siding with the school. The courts of original jurisdiction had the correct verdict in this case. Matthew Fraser delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office, which was said to be inappropriate, and a violation of the school rules and the educational process. Looking over it myself I didn’t find anything offensive about it. The school over reacted and suspended him and barred him from speaking at the graduation. Fraser argued that the language he used wasn’t offensive to the students and that it was common use in areas like the locker room. He also showed the speech to several teachers and there was no particular punishment mentioned. Also the barring from speaking at the graduation wasn’t in any rulebook. I feel that because this speech was only offensive to the older generation it isn’t fair to limit our speech based on their standards.
My case was bethal v. fraser. And i disagree with the decisions that were made from the supreme court. The case was about a kid in highschool who had written a speech of being elected for student body president, which supposively was "inappropriate" he was told that he'd get himself in trouble for proceeding with this speech to his fellow students and teachers. So he ends up telling his speech and got himself suspended. Which i thought was a little much but compared to the rest of the trouble he got in, he was better off just getting suspended. He was told he couldnt speak at his own graduation. His consequences had been a little much. In the end i wasnt really all that faund of it, i mean people at our own school speak worse than he had. Even if it had been a little more shocking for the teachers than it had been for the students.
Bethel v. Frasers court case i thought was inappropriate and he got pressed with consequences that werent really worth it. Alot of people say worse things than he did in his speech for election of student body. He got booted from talking at his own graduation. And he got suspended, which isnt all that bad. But compared to having to appear at court and getting charged with freedom of speech and all. I disagree with it all really, they could have worked it out better
In the case of The Vernonia School District vs. Acton, Acton was an athlete who refused to allow the school to drug test him and as a result was dismissed from his high school athletic team. Acton then took his case to court, and after passing through several appellate courts, the case of The Vernonia School District vs. Acton reached the Supreme Court. The majority of Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of the Vernonia School District, a decision that I strongly disagree with. By ruling in favor of the school district the Supreme Court justices stated that those in sports or after school activities have a lower expectation of privacy than even regular students (whose rights to privacy are already limited by the school’s obligation to provide a “safe” environment conducive to learning). This lower expectation of privacy was said to be implied from athletes sharing locker rooms, showers, and other places and things in which it can be assumed that one’s privacy is more limited than if they were at a location unassociated with their after school activity. Being a student athlete, I feel that this statement made by the Supreme Court directly deprives us of rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution; rights that the Constitution did not say should be handed out on the whim of the Supreme Court or the school district of the student, but rights that are to be afforded to all U.S. citizens. In addition to the fact that this decision completely stripped student athletes’ or students in extra-curricular activities’ rights to privacy, this decision puts pressure on students to consent to searches or other things school officials request due to the fear of a similar outcome should they attempt to take their case to court. The decision in this case adds to the Supreme Court rulings of other cases which have given schools the right to search students’ lockers, bags, cars, etc. as long as it is on school property and there is “reasonable suspicion” that an illegal act has taken place. With such vague and low standards that the schools must comply with, how then do students ensure their rights our protected, how then do we tell over zealous school administrations to back off, and how, with such vague policies, can one protect themselves from a school over stepping its duties to creating a safe learning environment? It is therefore clear that the majority of Supreme Court justices, by ruling that the school had the right to implement random drug testing on those participating in after school activities, severely crippled student rights.
In my case, Hazelwood versus Kuhlmeier, I believe that the the Supreme Court made the right decision of allowing the school to put limits on student expression as long as there is a "substantial and reasonable basis" for their decision. It would be unfair to students if they were forced to attend an institution in which inappropriate things, which could be offensive to them, were allowed. Freedom of speech in other places, however, is great because the teenagers are not forced to go to the particular place, unlike school. I agree that, since the principal was faced with a deadline for the school paper, he was right to remove the two pages which he deemed inappropriate. Morally, but not legally, he should have informed the students and given them time to rewrite the articles in a more appropriate way, but faced with the time limit, he could not do it. I am glad that the Hazelwood versus Kuhlmeier case turned out the way it did, as it protects my rights as a student.
In my last post, in the last sentence, I said "protects my rights as a student". Although it does not give me free speech to say whatever I want to in school, the right that it does give me is to go to school without being assaulted by offensive material when I walk into school each day.
The case of TLO vs. New Jersey made me realize that students don't have the same rights in school as they do in public places. TLO was a girl that was accused of smoking in a bathroom at her school. There was reasonable suspicion so the vice principal searched her bag. He found cigarettes and kept looking. He then found drug paraphernalia and she was charged as a juvenile for drugs. She fought back and said it was a violation of her fourth and fourteenth amendment. The court didn't agree with her. I don't think the decision was fair. The vice principal had reason to search her bag but once he found the cigarettes he should have stopped looking. Instead he went further than needed and found something unrelated to the initial accusation. I agree with TLO and think that the search went against her rights. It is up to the school to provide a safe learning environment for the students but it's also their job to protect their rights as people. In my opinion this was against her rights and TLO had the right to try and fight the initial punishment.
In the case of T.L.O. versus New Jersey, I believe that the Supreme Court made the right decision in saying the school had the right to search the girl’s bag. The girl argued against the school saying it violated the 4th amendment of the constitution which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. But, the school did have reasonable suspicion that she was smoking in the bathroom, so the principal had the right to search her bag. I also think the principal had the right to continue searching her bag after cigarettes were found. It is reasonable that if the girl was smoking she could also have been doing other drugs as well which is what the principal eventually found. Overall, I think the main reason the school had the right to search her bag was to ensure the safety and security of the other students in the school, which is one of the most important things a school should do.
-Ben Paul
For my case T.L.O. Vs New Jersey, i think that what the teacher did was right, bring the girl into the principal's office and tell him what happened. But after the principal searched her purse and found out that she did have the cigarettes and was smoking in the bathroom, i think the search for looking for them should have been over right then and there and she should have been given her punishment for smoking. He really didn't have any other reason to go looking though her purse because he found the cigarettes and thats what he needed to find to prove she was smoking in the bathroom. But since the principal kept looking though her purse and found cigarette rolling papers and a little bit of marijuana that should have been a different case with the cops in my opinion.
In the case of TLO vs. New Jersey, TLO was a girl accused of smoking in the bathroom at school. Being accused of smoking, the vice principle searched her backpack for the cigarettes (not anything else). He ended up finding the cigarettes but continued to search for other things (in which he had no right to do). Finishing up his search, he found marijuana and paper to roll it with. Having the vice principle search for the cigarettes was fine in every way, but after that he didn't have the right to continue the search. This violated TLO's 4th amendment, right against search and seizure, and unreasonable searches. The case appealed to the Supreme Court who then ruled in favor of the school.
I do not agree with this decision. Yes, the vice principle found the cigarettes, which is what he was looking for. What was the reason for the search being continued, if he found what he was looking for. Sure, she shouldn't have had the marijuana with the substances but she did. And she wasn't being searched for that, therefor my opinion would be in favor of TLO.
In the Bethel vs. Fraser case i realized that the school had an incredible amount of power over the student population. In all the cases i saw that but this one being the worst in my eyes. This case dealt with a child giving a speech in from of the student body that had many sexual innuendo's throughout the entire speech. This was decided in the regular court that the kid was innocent and then when it was taken to the supreme court it was decided that the kid was guilty due to the fact that they need to keep a safe enviroment for the students. I thought this was an unjust way to handle the situation. The child should have been punished but not to the extent of a suspension because it wasnt harming or making the school enviroment unsafe it was just a child saying a few innapropriate things. And throughout many school you can walk down the hallway and hear worse profanity then the childs sexual innuendos used in his speech. Therefore i was not in favor of this case and i dont think it was justed fairly.
Post a Comment