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.
Period 2: Due 3/12 by 7:00 a.m.
Period 5: Due 3/17 by 7:00 a.m.
Period 6: Due 3/15 by 7:00 a.m.
Period 7: Due 3/15 by 7:00 a.m.
63 comments:
FIRST
I feel that the majority opinion in my case (Bethel vs. Fraser) was not correctly decided. What Fraser said may not have been completely appropriate, but it isn't like it was racial or something that people would be offended by. Sure it may have made a few little Freshman uncomfortable, but it wasn't hurting anyone or harming anyones education.
The Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech should be limited in schools, which I agree with, people shouldn't be able to say anything, but in this particular case I feel it's something that kids in school should have the freedom of speech to do. The reasoning for limiting freedom of speech was to ensure the safety of students and blah blah, but what Fraser said would in no way harm anyone, being slightly uncomfortable isn't a problem, it wasn't like sexual harassment or anything. Things people say in school on a daily basis are way worse than what Fraser was saying, but of course Supreme Court judges are like a bajillion years old so they don't really know what goes on anymore, so I can't really blame them for ignorance.
In the Supreme Court case, Vernonia School District V. Acton, the supreme court ruled in favor of the school district, and I would have to agree with the ruling. The courts said that the school had the right to randomly drug test athletes because of their reasonable suspicion that some teams were taking performance enhancing drugs. In addition, those types of drugs can increase the chance of sport related injuries. Therefore, since the school is in charge of the safety of its athletes, they had a right to drug test them in order to keep them safe. However, Acton thought that it was a violation of his 4th and 14th Amendment rights, so he refused to take the drug test, and was then suspended from playing football.
Like I mentioned before, I would have to agree with the supreme courts. Not because I think the school should be allowed to search or test us for whatever they feel like, but because in this particular case I don't think Acton's rights were violated. If you play an extracurricular sport, you play by their rules. And since if an athlete gets injured, the blame can sometimes go to the coaches or the school, they need to cover themselves; which can include drug testing to make sure the athletes aren't increasing their chance of injury. Also, while everyone has a right to an education, you don't have a right to play football, its an EXTRAcurricular activity; Hence why Acton's right of due process was not violated. In conclusion, I didn't think that Acton's right were violated so he should have saved everyone a lot of hassle and just agreed to take the drug test in the first place.
After I read the Supreme Court case, Vernonia School District V. Acton, and saw that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district, in a way to would have to say that I would agree with the Supreme Courts ruling. . Not only the Supreme Court but the other courts stated that the school had the right to randomly drug test athletes. They believed this because of the schools obligation to keep the students safe, and the knowledge that most sports related injuries had been cause by performance enhancing drugs. The school had every right to drugs test the athletes in order to keep their athletes not only safe but healthy. In this case, one of the athletes believed that by being asked to take a drug test was a violation of not only his fourth amendment but also his fourteenth amendment. With his refusal to submit to the drug test Acton (the student who refused to take the drug test) was suspended from the football team, until he took the test, then enabling him to play/ participate again.
With this case I do not feel that Acton’s rights had been violated. The school was just taking reasonable action in order to keep the athletes safe. Playing an extracurricular sport is not necessarily required; therefore if a student chooses to participate in an extracurricular activity that means you should obey the rules set forth. Everyone has the right to an education but nowhere is it stated that everyone has the right to play a sport, therefore if a sports team or club require a drug test the person who is asked to take it rights wont be violated.
I don’t believe though that a school should be allowed to search or tests its students for whatever they feel like or when ever they feel like. Unless there is a true reason that those actions need to be taken then that shouldn’t happen, because like I stated before everyone has the right to an education and unless there is a reasonable suspicion students shouldn’t have to submit to a drug tests it order to attend school.
The case I read and analyzed was Bethel v. Fraser. I do not agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. It went overboard with its ruling which was in favor of the school. I feel that the student’s first amendment rights were violated. He was suspended and could not be a graduation speaker. This punishments prove to be a bit extreme and over the top. I mean the kid didn’t offend any one in particular with his speech that consisted of a sexual innuendo. It was supposed to be sought as humorous rather than a speech endangering the school’s environment.
I also feel that when the student gave his speech for his teachers to read they only advised him not to read the speech, however they didn’t stop him. Therefore the teachers that read his paper where somewhat responsible for the student’s speech. Also, the boy didn’t cause any harm with his speech. The school thought that it was inappropriate for the teenagers who were 14 years old and older. However, in reality kids at school hear language that is worse then what was said in the speech. For example whenever I’m in a hallway I always hear kids swearing, talking about sex, drugs, and what not. In fact, there were no vulgar words used in his speech it was all just one big metaphor portraying sex.
Period 2
I feel that in the case of Veronia School District Vs. Acton that it was right decision to side with the school and agree that they should be able to randomly drug test with suspicion. I believe that if you want to play in a school sports team then you should be tested because you are doing it on your own time and its not required, but if it was school and you had to get tested before school i would be against it because you have to go to school. If you want to participate in a sport then you should be clean and if you are doing any type of drugs that would come out positive then you shouldn't be doing the sport. If the school has reasonable suspicion then they should be allowed to randomly drug test athletes. When taking drugs to enhance the way you are playing your sport then it has a higher chance of getting injured, it would be best for the school to help in keeping the athletes safer. Afterall who is going to get blamed for any injuries, in most cases it's the coaches. Acton fought that his 4th and 14th amendment rights were being violated. Acton's right to due process was not violated because he does not have to play the sport he's just doing it for fun and he doesn't have to play no one is forcing him to, it's not like education, where you have the right to education.
The case Vernonia V. Acton involved a high school athlete not wanting to take a urine sample for drug testing. He felt as though his 4th and 14th Amendment rights were being violated, and refused to take the test. In the end, however, the Supreme Court ruled with the school and he had to either quit the football team or take the urine test.
I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. Participating in sports while on drugs is extremely dangerous, for both the user and the other players. Urine sample testing is fairly un-invasive, and helps protect the safety of the students. His rights were not violated because it is his choice to play football or not, and keeping the students safe is a top priority.
In my case, Goss vs.LoPez, I feel that majority opinion was correctly decided. The majority opinion stated that the students 14th amendment was violated.The court ruled that the students were charged unlawfully and the school violated their 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment in the constitution, which includes the Due Process Rights, forbids any state to deny a person his or her natural rights "life, liberty, and property without due process of law". When the students were expelled, their principal did not give them written or oral notice nor held a hearing. Everyone has a right to Due Process Rights in and out of school.
Evidence from the case also shows that the majority opinion was correct. The students did not get any notice of being expelled, and did not have a hearing. This meant that the students could not deny and have a trail having explanation of the evidence the authorities had and share their side of the story. This shows that the principal charged the students unlawfully.
From personal experiences in school i know that if a student is going to be expelled from school they will be called down the assistant principals office were they will be told what they are being expelled for. This shows that our school follows the students rights in the 14th amendment by giving notice before expelling.
I believe that my case, Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier, was correctly decided. The case concerned the First Amendment, more specifically freedom of the press, in schools. The Supreme Court ruled that a school newspaper, and a school in general, is not a public forum, and as such, students' right to free speech and free press can be limited by an administrator. I agree with their decision. I understand the need for administrators to control what is said by students in order to create a safe, wholesome learning environment. Parents should be able to expect that their kids are not exposed to anything inappropriate in schools.
However, I believe in a perfect society, students should be granted freedom of speech. In such a society, people would realize that being offended is pointless and a waste of time. However, as long as people remain unnecessarily sensitive, students cannot be granted complete freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
My case was Bethel vs. Fraser. The ruling pertained to a student using crude and vulgar humor during a speech, and his schoool sought it okay to suspend him for it. He did not in fact utter any expletives, yet his humor was not very mature.
The Supreme Court disagreed with lower courts, and said that the high school had the right to suspend said student because of their behavior. This means that they did not see any direct violation of the students 1st amendments rights.
In my opinion i would have agreed with disciplining the student in some way. Although his behavior may not seem so, i believe it was destructive. He may have endangered other students learning enviorments in some way
Ryan Hobson
I feel that most of the supreme court ruling were fair. Most of them ruled in favor or the schools. I feel that as long as you are in school, you should have to abide by their rules. In my case where the school newspaper was edited by the principle last minute and got rid of the articles on birth control and teen pregnancies. I thought that this was a fair ruling because the school newspaper is highly connected to the school and was inappropriate for the whole student body to read. The school should and did have jurisdiction over what gets printed in their newspaper. The students felt that this violated their 1st amendment rights. It may have been but the school felt that they needed to block these articles from the school. I stood by the school in this conflict.
The contention between TLO and the sovereign state of New Jersey is one that had indubitably bisected my assessment of who held the ethical high ground. I acknowledge that the rector of the institution requires that the refuge of the attendees be maintained at all times but his boundless inspecting of the damsels handbag had gone beyond what was beseeched of him. While I do insist that his inquiries were excessive, the ladies intimate scope was not soiled. Her belongings were at the jurisdiction of the administration provided that the subject in question provided initial consent. It is the duty of the administration to bestow an impervious scholar setting upon any being. Pupils forfeit their privacy upon entrance to the establishment to an extent. The well being and prosperity of the student body is valued morally more than what make of lascivious occludents are present in your possession.
Handy Dandy Dictionary
==================
Contention - conflict
Indubitably - undoubtedly
Bisected - split
Rector - leader
Beseeched - required
Scope - property
Lascivious - sexual, lusty
Occludent - plug
My case was Goss v. Lopez. The case involved nine students being suspended for unspecific misconduct. They didn't receive a hearing however, and were still given ten days of suspension. The students took the case to court arguing that it was a violation of their 14th Amendment rights, which is specifically the right to due process, which was clearly not given (although no law in the state stated that a hearing was mandatory).
The courts ruled in favor of the students because they were suspended without a hearing prior to the suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter. I feel that the case was correctly decided, because the students were indeed denied Due Process, which is guaranteed to all American citizens under the Constitution.
In the Supreme court case Goss v. LoPez a group of students were suspended for misconduct without a reason. The Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the kids. The court said that the students rights to Due Process was violated and said that the school didn't have the right to suspend the kids without going through the proper procedures.
After I read the Supreme Court case, Vernonia School District V. Acton, and saw that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district, in a way I would have to say that I agree with the Supreme Courts ruling but at the same time i disagree. The school does have a right to drug test student athletes for their safety since if the students get hurt, it is the schools problem. But i feel also that since the parents disagreed with it, them maybe the student wasn't hiding anything they just felt this was a violation. Suspending him from the team was a little extreme i feel but i guess that is what the school had to do.
In the case that I read, Bethel vs. Fraser, I felt that he court ruling was incorrect when siding with the school. A student made an inappropriate innuendo during a campaign speech to his fellow classmates. Because of the explicit lines he used, it was seen as unacceptable for the age of the students. Fraser was suspended from speaking at graduation.
I believe that this was a violation of the first amendment, because even though the school has a right to minimize what students can say, Fraser was not making any personal attacks or threats. He might have made some people uncomfortable but he did not harm anyone. Obviously Fraser could’ve gotten his point across without making the innuendo. It was unfair that Fraser had his speech previously read by teachers and none of them told him he couldn’t say those things, they just advised him not to. They could’ve told him to change it or revise what he said. I think the punishment from the school was too severe for what he did as well. A detention might have been more reasonable, but taking away his right to speak at graduation was unnecessary.
Case: T.L.O vs. New Jersey
Now that I have read the case, and the majority opinion in the Supreme Court established that only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, was needed to conduct further searches, I feel that the majority decision was the right one. Whereas I do not like the fact that this means that the administration can virtually do anything it pleases by saying it has a reasonable suspicion for it(such as doing a search of your locker because they have a REASONABLE suspicion that there is a stolen book, etc. there), I think that this was the wise decision.
Teenagers are very prone to doing things that will get themselves and others around them in trouble, and as we are under the watch of the school while we are in school, I feel that the school should have this power, as it may help them deliver justice faster.
Although the fourth amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, as a reasonable suspicion can be a "reasonable" reason as to why the school takes the actions it does, it is a right the school can enjoy.
Also, if I was 99% sure that someone had, for example, stolen my calculator, I would not want the school to have to get a warrant before searching said person's locker, because it could be long gone by then.
I basically agreed with the majority ruling in my case. In New Jersey vs. TLO, the principal searched the girl’s purse for cigarettes and ended up finding drug paraphernalia. When the girl was convictied she said it had broken her 4th amendment rights. The first appeals court denied her claim, the second one ruled in her favor, and the Supreme Court eventually decided that schools may search student’s possesions if they have reasonable suspiscion. While it doesn’t seem very fair to us as students, the law is neccesary for the school to keep us safe.
While never having anything worth searching for in my bag, I’ve seen people get searched before. It is not a pleasant experience and as adolecents it’s a sharp jab at our independence and pride. And in the constitution it states that we have a right to privacy. But schools need specialized rules because it’s a special situation. And if someone was carrying something dangerous, it’d be better to lose some dignity than lose some classmates.
And whereas the principal in TLO’s case had no right to go further into her purse, they found a loop hole around that and the court’s ruling was decided in his favor anyway.
In my case (Bethel vs. Fraser) I do not agree with the decision of the Supreme Court to side with the school district. However, his speech may have been under what the school district considers "disruptive" or "offensive", and under that i can understand why the school district decided to punish him.
I believe that his speech was fine and wasn't disruptive or violent to the assembly. And even if he said things such as "Jeff is a man who will go to the very end- even the climax, for each and every one of you." i would not consider this to be outright vulgar. I think that students should be allowed to say anything they want in school, as long as it isn't violent or disruptive. And in this case i wouldn't consider this speech to be disruptive because it was at a election assembly and no real learning was going on.
I do feel that students have the right to due process and should be given an explanation for why they are being suspended before their actual suspension dates. The 14th amendment, which includes due process is important for students. Education is a right for students and should not be taken away without due process. If the students are to be suspended, they should have a right to be informed ahead of time and have time to get a hearing for their case. I knew someone who was suspended due to having a box cutter in their back pack, and I found the decision too quick for a proper and fair decision to be made. I understand that the school is responsible for the students and strive for a safe environment, but I believe those who get suspended have a right to challenge the suspension and have a right to know of their punishment ahead of time.
In addition, although I did not read a case about this issue, I feel the Cheshire school teams should be allowed to wear their uniforms. I know that girls lacrosse and tennis are prohibited from wearing the uniforms because of the razor backs, but I feel this is unfair. Plenty of girls (not on the teams) wear strapless, razor backs, or spaghetti strap shirts so if these girls are not prohibited from wearing this clothing, the sports teams should have the right to wear their uniforms as well.
Case: Bethel vs. Fraser
First and foremost, I feel that the court decision in this case is not only unconstitutional but works against the true purpose of the school system. The denial of student rights in this country is atrocious and serves to make minors second class citizens as well as not preparing them adequately for the real world. In this case, the student who used a sexual innuendo in the public forum was suspended for three days because the speech caused harm to the student’s ability to learn. The fact of the matter is that a speech which is given by anyone will inevitably offend someone. And thus, because sometimes this speech can offend, governments in the past and today prohibit and limit such speech because of this. But, this is exact same reason the founding fathers decided that the first amendment was a necessary part of the constitution. Free speech is not always positive speech, nor does it have to be, but it is right guaranteed and endowed when we have entered into a social contract with other humans. You cannot limit that right to only allow speeches that is politically correct or free from profanity without infringing on someone’s personal liberty, thus infringing on the social contract of people. It is embarrassing to see the country deny the future voters of America one of their most important rights. I believe very strongly that your right to speech should be the same in or out of school because the real world is not a bubble like what the Supreme Court or other offended may believe it is. Everywhere you go, there will be hateful and profane speeches, but limiting it in school is neither good in the utilitarian or personal sense, and it makes the country’s future not ready for what the world is like.
Secondly, I feel that the majority of the public school system in this country is fundamentally flawed and downright inefficient. The basics of school rights is that wherever you live, the town you pay taxes to must provide you with education “free” from the point of entry up to high school. The town is then responsible for making all the decisions of the school system and running it for the best interest of all of the stakeholders such as students, parents, taxpayers, and employees. However, this system to me is a disservice to America’s future and an infringement on personal liberty. I am not arguing for the case against universal schooling. That is fundamentally a great idea, everyone deserves schooling no matter what income you are from because it is not your fault whatsoever that you are born into your background. However, what happens is that if one lives in a poor neighborhood, then consequently there will be less tax dollars to fund the school which will hurt your right to education. Also, if the majority of the voters who may have no stake in the school, such as an older voting population, may not have the student’s best interest when it comes to funding. Also, the running of the school by the town may not be the best option for students, as administrative competency is not a requirement to be elected. Thus, this leaves the students with very little choice. That is why government, preferably at the state level, should issue a voucher system in which parents are given an educational “coupon” where they could send their children to whatever school they want, and cut off direct funding for schools from local areas. This will give parents the choice to send their kids to school which fits their needs best, and cut off tax payer dollars from incompetent administrators and failing schools. These schools can originate from existing schools being privatized, or have some sort of partially subsidized schools where businesses compete for these coupons for profit. The competition for these students will make these schools fight for better teachers, keep test scores high, and make students more and more competitive for college admissions. It will let parents pick schools whose philosophy they agree with, and if they don’t agree with that schools philosophy of free speech limitations, searches, or whatever else then they can send their kids somewhere else. The free market system and Adam Smith’s l invisible hand will direct these schools toward competency and world class excellence. This system would get rid of the federal government’s infringement on student and parent rights , get rid of the notion that where you live affects what future you will have, give equal opportunity for every student from every background, and create a culture where school is not just a legal requirement but a privilege.
Ashwin Singhaviranon
Period 7 Civics
In the supreme court case, Bethel vs. Fraser, the supreme court ruled in favor of the school stating that although the first amendment guaranteed the freedom of speech, schools are not considered to be a public forum; therefore, students do not have the freedom of speech in schools. Another argument of the supreme court was that any behavior that is considered to be disruptive to the educational environment can be prohibited in school and the supreme court judged the inappropriate speech as disruptive to the learning environment.
Although the majority opinion ruled against the student, I believe the charges are no justified. First of all, after reading excerpts from the speech, I believe that this speech, although containing some innuendos, is not disruptive to the learning environment. It does not have foul language, racist remarks, or hate messages. The speech was intended to be funny, which it was, and the student should not have been suspended as a result. In addition, the student was given probation without a due process. Although a teacher told him it was a bad idea, no one told him what the consequence would have been. If he had known he would get suspended, I completely believe that he would not have delivered the speech. In conclusion, I believe the majority opinion of the Supreme Court was incorrect in that this small incident was made into a big one.
Bethel v. Fraser
I have to disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling on this one. While Fraser’s speech was crude and a sign of his own immaturity, he should not have been penalized for it, nor should the right to free speech be so abridged in schools. Fraser did not offend anyone with his speech, as the ancient judges with their long out of date sensibilities seemed to believe, nor did he disrupt education, as the speech was made during an assembly and thus did not disrupt classes. Furthermore, I doubt that even young freshmen were shocked by Fraser’s words. The youngest quarter of any high school can be just as, if not more, due to their immaturity, dirty-minded as their elders. Besides, when truly vile and offensive things can be heard dozens of times per day in the hallways, the school is ridiculous to crack down on a minor innuendo.
More important than the content of the speech is the student’s right to free speech itself. The free exchange of ideas greatly improves education and is conducive to an intellectually stimulating environment. While Fraser’s speech appears to be the product of a simple mind and intellectually useless, the fact that he was censored means that school administration is free to censor anything they don’t particularly care for. Not only is such a school violating the Constitutional rights of their students, but it is also restraining intellectual growth and encouraging conformity. I am aware that many of the less intelligent students would abuse this right, but even this can have two positive effects. One: it would give easily-offended students a thicker skin so that they can distinguish between inane rambling and things that they really should challenge. Two: the power of the inarticulate and/or bigoted students to say as they pleased would expose them as the foolish and/or vile people that they are, invoking the wrath of their fellows and thus discouraging stupid and/or bigoted behavior.
Unfortunately, I think that there is a good chance that the student that Fraser endorsed won the election.
In the case of Bethel vs. Fraser the Supreme Court made a poor decision, as they ruled in favor of the school. A student gave a speech nominating a fellow student for vice-president; however, this speech had a couple of sexual innuendoes. The school did not feel the speech was appropriate and suspended the student from school and took away his privilege to speak at graduation. The boy’s father fought back and the case ended up going to the Supreme Court.
The speech-giver has the right to freedom of speech. However, since the speech was given at school, the circumstances are a bit different. One can’t say anything they want at school, which makes sense because the purpose of school is for students to learn and anything that becomes an obstacle to learning shouldn’t be allowed. This speech did not distract students from learning. Also, since a majority of the students voted for the speech-giver’s candidate, it shows it was not offensive but simply a humorous nomination. In addition, a few teachers actually were shown this speech before it was presented. Although they advised against going through with the speech, they did not tell him that he couldn’t say it. So by giving that speech, this student had done nothing wrong. If the teachers told him that he could give the speech and he would be suspended if he did, the student would probably have edited his speech or not given it at all.
In the Vernonia School District V. Acton, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district. I would have to agree with this. Acton believed his suspension for not taking a drug test violated the 4th and 14th amendment. By looking at all of the other cases discussed, it is clearly obvious that our rights are more limited in school because they want us to be safe. School is not a public forum therefore they have the ability to put restrictions on our rights. The school stated they had the right to randomly drug test kids and it's not so they could get them in trouble. It's because they care about them and want them to be safe. Not to mention the fact that if they did allow players to play a sport while on drugs, they could get in serious trouble. They had every right to drug test randomly because of reasonable suspicion. Extracurricular activities are different from an education. Everyone has a right to an education but if you alter your performance in sports by taking a drug, in no way do you have a right to participate anymore. Why Acton didn't just take the drug test is beyond me, he would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.
In my opinion, the majority ruling of Goss vs. Lopez was correctly decided. For a punishment as serious as suspension or expulsion (punishments that could appear on the student's permanent record) the student needs to, at least, be given reason for such punishment. For one, I agree that schools need to explicitly explain why the student. Education is a right and extremely inmportant for any human being. By taking it away, without reason, the person's rights will be violated. Therefore, it's only right to explicitly explain the reasons why such right was taken away.
Also, every person should have a right to explain their side of the story (as enforced by the 14th ammendment) to prove that they deserved or did not deserve the punishment. For example, if the students were in fact, not responsible and were still punished, the school would be in the wrong. Hence, the real culprit would be unpunished and there be studnets wrongly blamed, which hurts everyone's learning process. So it's highly reasonable to enforce due process anywhere, especially in school.
I also believe that the decision was proper because it is, in due time, also beneficial to the students' learning process. By having the notification of the deed, the trial, etc. the students will learn what conduct is appropriate in school, whether or not they did the deed. It sets a precedent for fairness between the students and the administrators, and is a loud warning to all students against any misconduct.
I personally don't have any experiences relating to school punishments and due process, but I do know that even for detentions and punishments that do not go on the student's records, the staff at Cheshire High gives explicit warning and reason for the punishment. CHS also allows hearing for students that could lose class credit, so that they have a chance to explain why they're failing to meet the class requirements. This I believe is fair and just.
In my case, Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier, it could have definitely gone both ways, but for my opinion i think it was decided correctly. . The case involved the First Amendment. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that a school newspaper is not a public forum. I agree with their decision. I fully understand that as administrators their job is to be able to control and agree with what kids write in their newspaper. They are just trying to keep it a good safe school, not a school where the newspapers are discussing birth control or talking about their parents divorce. Also, the school has to keep in mind that the kids parents are sending their children to school wanting them to only be exposed to appropriate things. The other side to this story is that freedom of speech plays a huge role. Maybe if the writers of the newspaper went a different way about how they wrote, their articles could of stayed. I am assuming they crossed a boundary though which did violate this amendment.
I believe that the majority opinion of my case, Goss v. Lopez, was correctly decided. In this case, a group students were suspended for misconduct without reason. These students did not receive any kind of notification or hearing before suspension. The students argued that the school had violated their 14th amendment rights which includes due process. The court ruled that the school had indeed given no notice of the students' suspension beforehand and therefore, the principal had violated the 14th amendment.
I think it was unfair the students were not told about their suspension. Anyone has the right to due process whether they are in school or out. For example, I know that our school follows this by having the student go to the assistance principal's office for notice. So after this, I agree with the majority opinion and that students should be given a hearing before any suspension.
Nick Cesca
In my case, (Vernonia School District V. Acton), I agreed with the ruling in that the school had the right to randomly drug test high school athletes for the use of steroids. I believe that it shouldn't matter if a student athlete refuses to take the drug test, he or she should have to take it anyway, one because he or she is cheating the game and having more advantages than the other players who are not on drugs. Secondly, they are putting themselves in danger, by taking the drugs. It is a very serious health risk. That's why I feel that taking steroids is useless, it can only hurt you.
If you're a student athlete, you should absolutely not be taking steroids, that's why I think they should test kids. It's very unfair for the other kids who are not on the drugs. If you're not an athlete and just like lifting and taking steroids, I'd say that's fine. You can't test those people because they're not playing sports. But if you're an athlete, it's not just you that's at risk, it can also be the other athletes you're playing with including kids on your own team. To me, it just doesn't make any sense to take a drug that will make you stronger. It's a huge health risk and it makes it unfair for the other athletes who are not on the drugs.
I believe he should still be allowed to go to school and be educated, but playing a sport for me, is out of the question. If you cheat, especially with something as serious and as dangerous as taking a drug, you should be banned, no questions asked.
I do not believe that the majority opinion in my Supreme Court case, Bethel School District v. Fraser, was correctly decided. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that students do not have the right to free speech, when such speech could potentially disrupt the learning environment of the classroom. I take issue with this decision on several counts.
First of all, I believe that this decision is interfering with our right to an education. When schools are allowed to arbitrarily suspend students whenever they say something that might offend the administration, they are taking valuable time in school away from those students. Fraser was suspended for two days – having missed school in the past, I know a two-day absence can be disruptive to the learning process, and absences should be avoided for the best educational experience. Schools should only be allowed to disrupt students’ education under the most dire disciplinary circumstances, not merely for stating something that might be considered offensive.
Secondly, I disagree with the grounds of the decision that what Fraser said was disruptive to the education process, at all. He used sexual innuendo in a speech at an elective school assembly. There was no learning to be disrupted, and it can be speculated that the only people he truly offended were a few prudish administrators. From my experience, students routinely hear things in the hallways and on the buses much more offensive than the contents of Fraser’s speech. The vast majority of the student population was probably vaguely amused, and nothing more. I do not think this qualifies as disruptive behavior grave enough to warrant temporarily denying Fraser access to education.
Finally, I take issue with the Supreme Court’s decision to deny students of their First Amendment rights. According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” The Supreme Court decided that schools are not a public forum, meaning that the First Amendment does not apply to students in school. Essentially, our schools have the right to censure us whenever they arbitrarily deem our opinions or manner of expressing them to “disrupt the education process.” I believe that this philosophy on the nature of education is deeply flawed. We, the students, are the future voters of America. We are expected to eventually meaningfully contribute to society. This means having intelligent discussion and debates about issues that we might disagree with or that might offend us. How can we learn to do so if our schools prevent us from saying anything they deem offensive? What kind of example are our schools setting for the future voters of America if instead of discussing and intelligently addressing dissenting opinions, they silence them? Even recently, in Cheshire High School, I know students whose opinions were not allowed to be published in the Rampage, because they disagreed with the administration’s stance on an issue. (I realize this is more appropriate to a discussion Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, but it still has bearing on our First Amendment Rights.) People are not allowed to express opinions deemed offensive or that might cause dissent among students – I know people who have been silenced or have been afraid of facing disciplinary consequences for addressing issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the school budget, and criticisms of our new principle, among other things. How can we learn to effectively express our opinions and deal with opposing ones if the administration silences us on anything they deem controversial? Shouldn’t we be learning to have meaningful dialogue on controversial topics?
Case: Bethel vs Fraser
I feel that the decision in my case wasn't fair. All Fraser did was use a little crude humor during his speech. The school thoguht it was okay to suspend him for it. It did not affend or insult anybody or anything. The Supreme Court disagreed with lower courts, and said that the high school had the right to suspend Fraiser because of his behavior. This means that they did not see any direct violation of the students 1st amendments rights.In my opinion I would have agreed with disciplining the student in some way. Although his behavior may not seem so, i believe it was innapropiate for school. In my opinion, the punishment should have been a detention, not a suspention.
I strongly believe that the majority opinion in my case, Goss v. Lopez, was lawfully and correctly decided. In this case, students were suspended without a hearing after some type of misconduct. Students were never notified of this suspension and were not offered the option of having the hearing in which they should be entitled to. In this case, each student’s 14th amendment rights were violated. This amendment grants each citizen their natural rights, including due process. After being expelled for disorderly conduct, the students should have at least gotten written notice as to why and when the suspension was taking place. What this meant was that the student’s rights were taken in the chance to explain their side of the story.
I agreed with my case: Bethelvs Fraser, becuase it is not ok to m ake these speeches during school hours. There is a time and place for everything and the sexual induendos were not called for and the student was also advised not to do it. The teachers may not have cam out and said not to do it but they said that it was not a good idea to do so.
But i do not agree with the part where they took away his right to speak on graduation night. There is nothing in their school's disciplinary guide saying that, that offense consequenced that. He could have just had the suspension, which i would agree with but to take away such honor of speaking on your graduation night because he made people a little uncomfortable, i think that is just ridiculous.
So i would have to agree with the courts decision to limit the First Amendment right, of freedom of speech, because the speech was completely inappropriate and that was not the time to say those things. But i do disagree with the fact that he was not able to speak at his graduation. That is taking things a little too far.
I do feel that the majority opinion in the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case was correctly decided. The Supreme Court ruled that the principal did not violate the students’ First Amendment rights by taking the articles about divorce and teen pregnancy out of the school newspaper. I don’t disagree with this decision, because I can see how a school newspaper is not considered a public forum. I know that the principal was just trying to maintain an appropriate learning environment for students, and I know there are some parents out there who probably wouldn’t want their children to read about these issues in the school newspaper.
I would like there to be fewer limitations on students’ rights in school, but I understand that in situations like the one in the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case, school administrators should have the right to exercise control over the matter, especially if they are doing what they believe is best for the students.
My group and I revised the Goss vs. Lopez case from the state of Ohio. Nine students were suspended from Marion-Franklin High School for 10 days due to the destruction of school property and disrupting the learning environment.
The state of Ohio had a law which stated that only expultions had the right to file for an appeal in front of the Board of Education, not suspensions. With out being able to file for an appeal, the suspension could seriously harm their reputation and affect their future employment and education. A three-judge District Court struck down the law, saying that it violated the students' right to due process of law. The Court reprimanded the school for its violation of the 14th Amendment. The court, split 5-4, held that the state had violated due process by removing the process of a hearing.
I believe the majority opinion in my Supreme Court case was correctly decided. Although students shouldn’t act out and create issues such as vanadalism and disrupting the education of others, they shouldn’t fall victim to poor futrures. By this I mean, one’s reputation and future employment shouldn’t be jeaprodized because of an idiotic decicision in high school.
In Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier the Supreme Court rules that the school has the right to censor a school newspaper. The students felt that their first amendment right had been violated by the school for deleting two of the srticles that were written. I actually agree with the Supreme Court. I think that as the school is reasponsable for the saftey of all the students that they need to censor the paper. With the ages in the high school ranging from 14 to 18 there are some topics that are not approprite for the younger kids. You cannot see a rated R movie until you are 17 and thats becasue those movies have a mturity level unsuitable for kids under 17. Therefore the Supreme Court was correct in saying that the school officals can censor the school newspaper.
Dom Severino
In the case Goss vs. Lopez, nine high school students and one junior high student from Ohio were suspended for an unspecified conflict without a hearing. The students took the case to court because they didn’t receive a hearing before the suspension which violates the 14th amendment in the constitution. The 14 amendment forbids states from denying any person, life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The Supreme Court was in favor for the students as it turned out that the school did violate the 14 amendment. I believe that the case was dealt the right way. The amendment was violated and they students should be given a notice and afford some kind of hearing.
The case that my group was assigned was Veronia School District vs. Acton. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district, which allows for random drug testing of athletes due to reasonable suspicion that students may be taking performance enhancing drugs. This supreme court ruling would allow for random drug testing for any extracurricular activity.The main purpose of the drug testing was for the safety of the student athletes. Due to the adverse side effects of these types of drugs, the school district wished to prevent any harm being done to the athletes. The Supreme Court ruled that drug testing athletes was constitutional, specifically to the 4th and 14th amendment.
The 4th amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure, which Acton believed the urine testing required for the drug testing was. Yet the court ruled that this was not unreasonable because student athletes have a lesser privacy expectation than other students. Also, athletes are not required to participate and therefore schools have the ability to deem what is reasonable for extracurricular activities. The school districts main goal was to protect the students safety, by disabling the use of performance enhancing drugs. I agree with the courts decision because not only does it keep the athletes safe, but it also prevents athletes from having an unfair advantage. As a student athlete I would not be against drug testing, because in the end it is truly for our own saftey.
I feel that the majority decision in my court case, Veronica School District vs. Acton, was not correctly decided. The Constitution states that people are free from search and seizure without probable cause. I do not believe that probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion as usually used in cases involving schools, was present in this situation. Acton was not specifically targeted as the leader of the school drug culture, rather some of his teammates may have been. There was no reason to suspect that Acton could possibly be using drugs. I found all reasons stated that described why the fourth and fourteenth amendment did not apply to this case to be entirely ridiculous. Using a school locker room before an athletic event is entirely different than giving a urine sample in front of a group of teachers.
My personal experiences and opinions make me greatly opposed to this decision. Yes, I understand that many athletes are involved in the school’s drug culture. However, a major reason to allow students to play on school run sports teams is to give them something to do rather than participate in illegal activities. A football player who was kicked off the team for testing positive in a drug test would no longer spend their Friday nights at their football game; rather they would attend parties and attend the football games drunk along with a large percentage of the school’s students. I also find the decision to test only one sports team or all athletic teams is stereotyping. To me, it is a less extreme version of “randomly” screening every Arabic man to pass through airport security. If they are going to test one group, they need to test everyone.
(Period 7)
I had the case of Goss v. Lopez. It was ruled 5-4 in favor of Lopez and students. I agree with the majority in this case. The students were denied their right to due process under the 14th Amendment. Being a student myself, I would want a hearing before being suspended. The students in the Goss v. Lopez case did not get a chance to make a statement of defense for themselves. By holding a hearing both parties could discuss what happened, and proceed with appropriate punishment, therefore not making the suspension a one sided affair strictly in favor to the administrators.
I believe that the majority opinion in the Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier Supreme Court court case was correctly decided. This case argued the constitutionality of censoring two articles in a high school newspaper. The students argued that their First Amendment rights, their right to a freedom of press, were violated. Because a school newspaper is not a public forum, however, this "right" can be limited on school grounds by an administrator. If complete freedom of press was allowed, havoc could very easily ensure. Restraints are absolutely necessary. I think it was completely reasonable that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Principal Reynold's decision.
My group was assigned the Veronia School District vs. Acton case. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district should be allowed to drug test students who participate in extracurricular activities. They ruled this because they believe that students who participate in sports have a higher tendency to become injured if they were using drugs, particularly performance enhancing drugs. This ruling was decided with direct citations to the 4th and 14th amendments.
The 4th amendment states that there is no right to unreasonable search or seizures. This however did not pertain to this case because the Supreme Court ruled that this did condone a reasonable suspicion. This is because they ruled that this was only for the benefits of the athletes so they wouldn’t get hurt. The school only did this cause they wanted to help the students to keep them healthy. I agree with the decision of the court because not only does this prevent any student from gaining a competitive edge in the game it also helps to prevent injury. And being a football player like Acton I would not hesitate to submit to a drug test because it is only for my health and to keep the competition fair.
I feel the dissection made by the Supreme Court in the Vernonia School District Vs. Acton was a good dissection. This case was brought to the Court because the school wanted to pass a random drug test on sports teams, when students refused to par take they where told they could no longer play. I feel like this is an extremely fair choice on the Courts part. There is no law making sports mandatory in a school, sports are extracurricular and thus players should need to go through extra needs to play them.
The parents of the students did not want their children to be drug tested, why? Was this just a way for parent to protect the innocent identity they have of their child? In actuality it doesn’t matter, if the children do not go through the test they shouldn’t have the right to play a sport.
I could have a biased because I don’t play sports, and could actually care less about any high school sports team, but I agree one hundred percent with the Supreme Court on this case.
The case that I recieved was Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school concluding that the Principal did have the right to remove the 2 articles in the school newspaper that he deemed inapropriate. Though the students felt that their First Amendment rights were violated, the school newspaper was not considered a public forum.
I agree with the Supreme Court ruling in this case. The school and Principal are both responsible for what the students learn and read. They should have the right to censor and make decisions on all aspects that the student body may read in order to have a safe learning environment. Parents send their children to school with the understanding that what they learn will be apropriate. Some may have not been happy to find that their children were reading the material discussed in these two articles. Though the students were unhappy with this decision, the Principal was right in removing the articles. By doing this, he ensured that the school newspaper would be apropriate for all ages.
In the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmier, I feel that the Supreme Court ruled correctly in favor of the schools, saying that the school is not a public forum. The students sued because they felt that their 1st Amendment rights - which explains freedom of speech, etc - had been taken away when they tried to publish two articles in their newspaper and the principal had them removed because of inappropriate content. However, the school is not a public forum, meaning that it is not a general public place; therefore one cannot just say anything they want. I agree with this majority opinion of the courts because a school should be a place that is kept safe and where students can feel comfortable without other students saying offensive things. After all, school is meant to be a secure learning environment. Students should be able to run their own newspapers and post things around the school, but they should make sure it is approved.
Although I do agree with this ruling, I still feel that students, especially high school students, should not be so restricted when it comes to expressing themselves in newspapers, speeches, etc. If school administrators want us to start acting like young adults, shouldn’t they start to treat us more like we are? We should be able to have more a freedom to say what we want in school, especially as we get older. However, this could only really be possible if people did not become so offended by even subtle things. So for now, schools should just remain the non-public forum providing a censored environment for students.
In my case Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier students had gotten in trouble for putting articles in the school paper talking about teen pregnancy and divorce. The principle took the articles out because he did not think they were appropriate for school. The students fought this because they felt they had their freedom of speech taken away from them. The courts ruled against the students because the school newspaper is not considered a public forum. I would have to agree with the courts decision on this case. I understand that the administrators were not trying to violate the students first amendment rights but to look out for the good of their students. The material that was supposed to be published is not something that is appropriate for all students to be reading. I’m sure if it was published in the paper many parents would complain saying its not right. The school did not take any rights away from the students in this case, they were simply helping them.
Case: Fraser vs Bethel
I don't think the majority was corretly decided. The School went overborad. True, what Fraser said may not have been the best choice of words, but it wasn't like he was swearing or making fun of someone. He was simply making his speech entertaining.
True, Freedom of Speech should be limited to students, but not to the extent of what Fraser said. he didn't say anything to cause harm and all of the "explicted" stuff was only indirect refrences, it's nothing like what student's say in the hallways and even in classrooms. If i was a student hearing the speech, I would've thought i was funny and memorable.
I can see where the Judges and teachers are coming from in this case. But they don't live in the time we live in. things that adults know as offensive are everyday talk to teens now. So I can't really blame them for being offended.
In the Supreme Court case, New Jersey vs. TLO, the principal searched the fourteen-year-old girl’s purse because of reasonable suspicion. He began his search with the finding of cigarettes and then preceded his search, coming across other drug paraphernalia. When convicted, this student believed that the school principal was in violation of her Fourth Amendment Rights, and contrary to her beliefs, in school Fourth Amendment Rights are basically none existent. Due to the idea of probable cause vs. reasonable suspicion, the principal was within his jurisdiction during the search and seizure of the purse and paraphernalia. The court decided that schools are allowed to conduct searches on student possessions if there is obvious reasonable suspicion. I feel as though the court was correct in their ruling in the New Jersey vs. TLO case. Even though as students, we may not feel that this is fair; looking at the bigger picture, the searches are done to protect the well being of the students, which makes the ruling seem appropriate. We have to keep in mind that schools are not public forums, and therefore certain Amendment Rights that we may have out of our lives in school do not apply while in school, solely based upon the idea of safety which in my opinion is completely understandable. This leads to my reasoning behind agreeing with the majority ruling of the New Jersey vs. TLO Supreme Court Case.
In my case,Vernonia School District vs. Acton, I agreed with the ruling that the school had the right to randomly drug test high school athletes for the use of steroids. In my opinon I believe that the athletes should take the drug test whether they want to or not. By the altheltes using steriods this is not fare to the other players..This would be cheating and having more advantages than the other players who are not on drugs. I do not agree with young athletes using steriods to give them a highger chance at winning a game, This is very unhealthy and unsafe.
Therefore, I do believe he should still be allowed to go to school, But should be banned from being able to play any sport at the highschool.
The case that I looked at was Veronia School District vs. Acton. In this case, the Supreme Court decided to act upon random drug testing for athletes in the school district due to suspicion of using performance enhancing drugs. One of the football players and his parents went against this and was no longer aloud to play. I agree with the play in regards of the constitution states that people are free from search and seizure without probable cause. This case, in my opinion, did not show any reason or probable cause for the Supreme to take over and randomly drug test every athlete on the football team. The WHOLE team shouldn’t suffer this nonsense when there was no sign of drug usage. If it was one student with drug suspicion, then just drug test that one student. The fourth and fourteenth amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search…hence the random urine test was uncalled for.
In my cass of Goss vs. Lopez I feel that the Supreme Court decided correctly. The case was that several students were suspended from school and not given a proper hearing, violating their 14th amendment right to due process. The students should have been able to meet with a figure of authority to tell them why they were suspended and to tell their side of the story. However they were merely suspended without being told the cause.
This ruling was correct in my opinion because I think that people should know why they are being punished. If you don't know why you are being punished then you don't have a chance to learn anything. I also think it is important to be able to tell your side of the story. If you get this chance it is possible to get your punishment over turned (although very unlikely.)
In the Supreme Court case, Vernonia School District V. Acton, the supreme court ruled in favor of the school district, and I would have to agree with the ruling. The courts said that the school had the right to randomly drug test athletes because of their reasonable suspicion that some teams were taking performance enhancing drugs. In addition, those types of drugs can increase the chance of sport related injuries. Therefore, since the school is in charge of the safety of its athletes, they had a right to drug test them in order to keep them safe. However, Acton thought that it was a violation of his 4th and 14th Amendment rights, so he refused to take the drug test, and was then suspended from playing football.
Like I mentioned before, I would have to agree with the supreme courts. Not because I think the school should be allowed to search or test us for whatever they feel like, but because in this particular case I don't think Acton's rights were violated. If you play an extracurricular sport, you play by their rules. Extracurricular sports don't have to adhere to the schools policies. And, since if an athlete gets injured, the blame can sometimes go to the coaches or the school, they need to cover themselves; which can include drug testing to make sure the athletes aren't increasing their chance of injury. Also, while everyone has a right to an education, you don't have a right to play football, its an EXTRAcurricular activity; Hence why Acton's right of due process was not violated. In conclusion, I didn't think that Acton's right were violated so he should have saved everyone a lot of hassle and just agreed to take the drug test in the first place.
As for my own personal experience, I have only needed to do a drug test once, and I consented. So there was no dispute over rights, but I didn't feel like they were being violated.
Amanda Thomas
I feel that the majority opinion in my case, Hazelwood vs. Kulhmeier, was correctly decided. My case dealt with the First Amendment but more specificaly the freedom of press in schools. The Supreme Court ruled that a school newspaper can be censored by an administrator. Students' freedom of speech and freedom of press can limited. I agree with the decision made. I completely understand that administrators have the right to create a safe and nurturing learning environment.
I can see why the students did what they did, by taking the situation to court, but I don't think they realized why what was done was done. They had probably worked hard on their articles and didn't want to see that all go to waste but the principle was right for protecting other people. If I were in their position I would have talked to my advisor beofre going ant further.
Emma Velcofsky
TLO vs New Jersey
After I read the case, and the majority opinion in the Supreme Court established that only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, was needed to conduct further searches, I feel that the majority decision was the right one. Whereas I do not like the fact that this means that the administration can virtually do anything it pleases by saying it has a reasonable suspicion for it(such as doing a search of your locker because they have a REASONABLE suspicion that there is a stolen book, etc. there), I think that this was the wise decision.
Teenagers are very prone to doing things that will get themselves and others around them in trouble, and as we are under the watch of the school while we are in school, I feel that the school should have this power, as it may help them deliver justice faster.
Although the fourth amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, as a reasonable suspicion can be a "reasonable" reason as to why the school takes the actions it does, it is a right the school can enjoy.
Also, if I was 99% sure that someone had, for example, stolen my calculator, I would not want the school to have to get a warrant before searching said person's locker, because it could be long gone by then.
I feel that the majority opinion in the Supreme Court court case Bethel vs. Praser was not correctly decided. Matthew Fraser nominated Jeff Kuhlman for student elective office, and during the nomination speech reffered to Kuhlman in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor. After doing so, Fraser was suspended for three days and removed from the school's list of candidates for graduation speaker.
Before delivering his nomination speech in front of his whole high school, Fraser had three of his teachers look at his speech. All three of these teachers advised Fraser to not give the speech. They told him that there would be repercusssions in doing so, but not once did they warn Fraser that he would be suspended or taken off the list of possible graduation speakers. This is the first reason why I disagree with the Supreme Courts ruling. The punishment for Frasers nomination speech does not "fit the crime."
The second reason why I disagree with the Supreme Courts ruling in the case of Bethel vs. Fraser is because of the First Amendment. Had this speech been delivered anywhere but in a high school, nobody would have batted an eye. It is because of the restrictions of freedom of speech in schools that this nomination resulted in such a large punishment. Fraser did not yell "bomb" or "fire," he simply made an offensive speech. Fraser did not swear, harm anyone, or personally attack anyone. Had I heard a speech such as this one in my high school assembly, I know it certainly would have raised some eyebrows, caused some underclassmen to be uncomfertable, or made people laugh, but it would not personally offend people or interfere with our schooling. I believe that the First Amendment should be honored in school systems, and that in the Supreme Court case Bethel vs. Fraser, it was decided incorrectly.
My case was Bethel vs. Fraser. I don't agree with the supreme courts decision and believe his first amendment rights were violated. It didn't disrupt anyones education and it's not like we haven't heard it before. the supreme court says that freedom of speech should be limited in schools, but not to this extent. Strip searching kids in school may also be legal but that doesn't mean it's right.
I am only accepting Period 5 comments for credit from here on.
The Bethel vs.Fraser was not correctly decided. When Fraser made that speech he didn't intend to to hurt people in any way. The teachers did read over his speech and all they said was not to read it they never told him that it was a violation of this rule.
The Supreme court had ruled the speech to be a freedom of speech should be limited. I feel that kids do have the freedom to say what they feel but at least limited to what they can or can not say. This speech was a violation of the first amendment.
Their are a lot of things kids say today but when someone said's something that you think is wrong explain to them why.
In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. I feel that the Supreme Court made the right decision. The fact that TLO got caught in the girl's bathroom at school smoking by the principal left him probable suspicion that she had cigarettes in her purse. When he further investigated and found the drug paraphornalia and bag of marijuana he did have a right to call the police. Schools have a right to protect the students who attend school even with unwanted search and seizures.
The case I read was Goss vs. Lopez. In this case ten students were suspended from school with no hearing or notice. The school violated the kids 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is all about due process which is that they need to follow a set of standards. These standards include giving people the notice and a hearing before accusing them of something. When the Supreme Court ruled the case, majority opinion went for the kids saying that their 14th amendment was violated. I feel that they ruled the right way since the 14th amendment is the same for everyone in and out of school. I know from personal experience that everyone is given due process because in school if someone is in trouble they are called down to assistant principles office and told what they are being accused of along with a letter sent home. Because of Goss vs. Lopez students are now given a right to a hearing and are able to fight any accusations that they believe are not true.
I believe that my case, Goss vs. Lopez, was correctly decided by the Supreme Court. The case described how ten students in total from Columbus, Ohio were each suspended from school for 10 days. This would have been understandable and justifiable if they had been given a reason and a hearing prior to their suspension from school. The students wanted to fight this, proceeding to explain that the Principal's decision violated the student's 14th Amendment rights, which more in depth means a violation of the due process clause. This means that the students were stripped of their Amendment rights and their entire hearing was essentially skipped, therefore violating The Constitution.
All courts involved in the case ruled in favor of the students, as I believe was the right way to vote. From personal experiences with situations such as this, I have taken note of the process that occurs. By law (partly because of Goss vs. Lopez) schools are required to bring the student down to an administrators office and give them a hearing about the situation at hand. So, in conclusion, I definitely believe that The Supreme Court made the correct decision in the 1974 case of Goss vs. Lopez.
No mas!
Post a Comment