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.
Due Thursday pm. You will not receive credit if it's not in Friday am when I check.
22 comments:
The Supreme Court decision in my case was not correctly decided. My group was faced with a problem that a student had involving their own personal rights of free speech. The students worked on several articles for the school news paper and the principle decided to delete the articles without letting the students know. The constitution states that we as U.s. citizens have the right to free speech. The students were not given this right and it was decided to remain that way. The school has a right to get rid of after reviewing what would be published, as if we had no right to free speech.
(Alexis Taylor)
I think the Supreme Court decision in my case was correctly decided. In order to effectively protect students and school property, administration should be able to search a student for items of potential harm. Although I think the vice principal went too far by searching the girl's entire purse, I think that setting a proper precedent for student's rights (or lack thereof) in the future is more important than this particular trial. It would simply be unsafe to not allow this type of search and seizure in schools.
In the court case New Jersey vs. T.L.O. the decision by the school was decided constitutional. I do not feel that this was the right decision by the Supreme Court because it violated her rights. Since this issue happened in school, her rights were taken away and all the school needs is reasonable suspicion. If this happened outside of school, then the issue would be unconstitutional because they would be violating her rights of search and seizure. The reason why this girl got caught was because all of our rights as students are taken away once we step in the building.
In 1995, a student from the Vernonia School District in Oregon was not allowed to participate in extracurricular activities because of his refusal to take a random drug test. Acton and his family decides to file a law suit against the Vernonia School District, saying that the test was in violation of his 4th and 14th Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable search and seizure and allows students due process, and violated his privacy. The case resulted in a victory for the Vernonia School District, because of these following factors. First, the Supreme Court ruled that the conditions that the test would have been taken in were similar to that of a public restroom and that football players such as Acton were exposed to a less private atmosphere in areas such as locker rooms. Secondly, the student’s rights were not violated in regards to unreasonable search and seizure because the school does not need reasonable suspicion in order to randomly test students participating in extracurricular activities because the activity does not directly impact the students education. In essence, the Supreme Court said that in order for the student to participate in an extracurricular activity, he or she must comply with the school because they have an option to participate. Nobody is forcing the students to play, it is a choice that they make, and in order to be able to participate, the student must comply with the school.
I feel that the Supreme Court ruled correctly on this issue. Being a student-athlete, I am firmly against the use of drugs that will affect other athletes. I feel that if a student does not want to take a random test, he or she simply does not have to participate. The test is a reasonable way to make sure that student-athletes stay safe and healthy and are not risking the health of other players by making poor decisions. Because I feel this way, I completely agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court in my case ruled incorrectly, in my mind at least. A student, "TLO" was accused of smoking in the girls bathroom. Upon this accusation, the principle searched her bag. He found the cigarettes he suspected her of, but none the less continued searching and found other illegal substances. The student felt that it was a violation of her rights, and I agree with her. The court ruled that schools don't need probable cause to conduct searches. All they need is "reasonable suspicion". What exactly defines reasonable suspicion? Any student walking out of the bathroom when someone has been smoking will smell like smoke. Just because someone smells like smoke, it doesn't they have been smoking. In the case of TLO vs. New Jersey, the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly and unfairly.
Katherine Peinhardt
The final rulings regarding the case of Bethel v. Fraser are, in my opinion, reasonable and constitutional. Due to the fact that a school is not a public forum, the speech given by Fraser, which contained inappropriate messages, could legally be prohibited by the school. This student should have acknowledged the fact that most rights that one has are taken away once on school grounds, including free speech. The fact that any school is not a public forum allows administrators discretion in dealing with matters of censoring student speech, publications, clothing, etc. Therefore, I agree with the Supreme Court's agreement and upholding of the school's suspension and punishment of Fraser. I do think that when a student's expression, whether through print, speech, or clothing, is distracting or potentially disruptive to others, it is reasonable for a school to try to exert some control or form consequences for it.
Were the school a public forum, however, this would be very different. I would most definitely see this as unlawful punishment of free speech, and thus a violation of the First Amendment, were this the case.
My group had the case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the case was about a student in 1988 who wrote a few articles in their school paper. the principal of the school felt that the articles were inappropriate for a school run paper and removed the page from the paper. One article was about divorce and the other was about teen pregnancy. the courts ruled by a 5-3 vote that the principal has the right to remove the articles because the school paper doesn't classify as an open forum. Even though i don't feel the articles are that offensive I feel that the courts ruled fairly because the principal deserves the right to monitor the paper since any article that is found offensive, make the school look bad.
My case, Fraser, was correctly decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed that the school had the right to suspend a student for using inappropriate language at a school event. According to the Constitution, they are not correct because a person is allowed the right to free speech. Though, at school most rights are taken away from you so the school did have the right. As a student I don’t like to agree with the school but they do have the right to sensor students at school.
Yes I feel that the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case was correctly decided. The actual punishment was not denied by the students, they all admitted to what they did. What they did was so irrelevant it was not shared in the court case. The school suspended the students without due process. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students 5-4. The court ruled in favor of the students because they should some kind of written document showing that they are suspended from school. In our school if you are getting a iss or oss there are multiple documents that are given to the student and sent home to verify the punishment. Due process is part of the 14 amendment.
My group had the court case Goss Vs. Lopez. In this case nine students were suspended from school without a hearing. Although the Ohio Law did not require them to hold a hearing, the supreme court felt that the students 14th amendment rights were violated. With a 5-4 decision, the supreme court ruled that the right to education was withheld from the nine students. In the 14th amendment due process protects a persons right to a hearing. In my opinion I feel that the Supreme court case was correctly decided. The students never denied what they did and did not claim suspension was uncalled for. They were denied a hearing verifying their suspension, which therefore violated their 14th amendment rights. I agree with the Supreme court case's decision.
In the supreme court case I researched, Bethel vs Fraser,I thought that the decision was reasonable and constitutional. It was decided by the court that a school is not considered a public forum. The first ammendment in the constitution allows freedom of speech in any public forum which inludes newspapers, magazines, ect. Because schools are not recognized as public forums, administrators had the right to suspend Fraser since they deemed his speech offensive and inappropriate. I personally don't believe it's fair that our first ammendment rights are limited in school, but that is what is ruled and constitutional. Therefore, I do believe their decision was reasonable and the right one to make.
Wow! First of all, who knew students had so few rights! I always knew that they were limited but until we investigated each of our court cases, I didn't know we were only entitled to due process. I believe that the Goss vs. Lopez trial, when students did not get a fair trial, was a complete violation of those students rights. There should be no way that students are removed from a school and their right to an education for no apparent reason. According to the 14th ammendment, students are required to recieve due process. I do not believe that these nine students recieved a fair judgement and the Ohio school system is at fault. Goss vs. Lopez should create an example that students should be entitled to a fair trial and deserve to know WHY their education is not being provided for them. The system should not give a school adminstration to suspend someone "because they feel like it."
It is a shame to me that students, who are growing and maturing into adults are treated so unfairly and with little to no rights. We should be given the chance to think and act as adults and not be concerned that every little thing we write or do can somehow be used against us. If school is prepared us for college and the "real world" shouldn't we be given more rights and the ability to act more like civil adults?? I think so!
The Supreme Court decision in my case was constitutional. In the court case New Jersey vs TLO, the girl was accused of smoking in the bathroom. Her bags were searched and the principal found not only cigarettes but marijuana as well. Personally it disgusts me to walk into the bathroom and to smell smoke or see people smoking so if she was going to make a stupid decision like smoking in the bathroom, she deserved to have her bags searched. Although she argued it was unfair of the principal to search her belongings, that does not make smoking and carrying drugs alright. Leave the illegal substances at home when you go to school.
The Supreme Court decision in my case, Acton was decided correctly. Acton had refused to take a drug test because he thought it violated his his rights, which were search and seizure and the right to due process. The Supreme Court sided with the school district on this case because they didn't think that it was an unreasonable search because it was an after shcool activity. You join a sport's team that has rules. Another factor that came into play was privacy. Acton said it violated his privacy. The football players share the same locker room, so privacy is lessened. I agree with the Supreme Court's desicion because it is helping athletes stay healthy, and reducing the risk that kids are using drugs to help them in any sport they might play.
I feel the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the school district was accurate because the student’s claims were that his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights had been violated and pre-existing conditions proved his claims to be irrelevant. He claimed the school violated his fourth amendment right but asking him to be tested for drugs, although earlier he had signed a form acknowledging that he may have to participate in testing. So this is not an unreasonable search. Also he said that the situation in which he had to take the test was unreasonable, this was proven wrong by the fact that he showered with his entire team daily after practices. He also said he was denied right to due process, but this claim also holds no validity because football is not part of his mandatory education therefore the suspension from the team holds no loss to anything promised to the student. As a student and an athlete I agree with the ruling because you have to know that sports is a privilege and you sign a form that states you understand that and something that proves you are not deserving of the privilege allows the school the right to revoke that privilege. School comes first and if something gets in the way of that the school has the right to fix the problem immediately.
For someone who likes to consider himself aware of his rights, I was pretty shocked as to how FEW I actually had in school. I had no idea of the extent of administrative authority in public schools!
Although I disagreed with many of the court rulings discussed, I personally agree the Supreme Courts decision with Acton. The idea that the athlete was refusing to preform drug screening because it violated his 4th amendment was preposterous. As a former football player, I could not possibly comprehend how a drug screening was an invasion of privacy. A football lockeroom, in my personal opinion, is one of the most “public” areas you could ever be in. This is why the defense did not hold up in court. With that said, I do agree with the case because I do feel that drug screening, in turn, protects students from dangerous outside influences, whether the athletes themselves agree with it or not.
The Supreme Court decision on students' rights to freedom of press is not decided right. Students' worked very hard on those articles and felt that they were right because it's things that people have to know about eventually anyways. I understand that the principle thought that it was his responsibility to stop what was being said but i don't think it was right that he deleted two pages of their paper. No matter what, we do not have the freedom of press in school, and they do have a right to get rid of things they think are wrong.
I feel that the Supreme Court decided the correct judgment on the case Bethel v. Fraser. The school had rules against obscene and/or vulgar content, which Fraser had violated. According to the precedent set by the case Tinker v. Des Moines, students have the first amendment rights in school as long as it does not disrupt activities, however Fraser's speech was seen as a limit to that precedent, containing things such as sexual vulgarity. Due to the content of the speech, I find the ruling of his suspension being constitutional the right one, because it broke the school rules and did not violate any rights.
DONE! I'm not accepting any more responses.
The Supreme Court in my case I think was not decided correctly. This is because it was linked to the first amendment which states that we the people of United States are allowed to state our freedom of speech and expression. The student decided to show the freedom of expression and speech but indicated a phrase which was not appropriate at that moment. The case I think was not handled carefully and it said that the student is responsible for this action. But the dissenting decision or judge made was that the school should teach students not to use or phrase words that are not permitted. The student should not be blamed for that. The institution has that right. But it was the opposite. We have a right for free speech and expression as the citizens of the United States.
Post a Comment