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 Friday Morning
CT Bullying Law
Cyber-bullying Laws in CT
State Cyberbullying Laws
CT Cyberbullying Info
26 comments:
Blake Dawson
No I do not believe the majority opinion in my Supreme Court case was correctly decided. My case was about the young student reporters whose newspaper got altered by the schoolteacher with permission from the principal. The students claimed it was violation of there freedom of speech and took it to court. But I how ever disagree with the students on this one. The students had two articles one written about a pregnant girl in school and the other talking about sex. This is a high school paper not a real newspaper. Every thing that gets published in any school always has to be looked over by an adult to make sure that it is appropriate and those two articles were far from appropriate and the two superior teachers new it. The problem was, was that the students didn’t have time to alter the newspaper so the teacher just took out 2 full pages of the paper. That is not the teacher’s fault at all. The students should have known that writing about pregnant teens and kids having sex was not appropriate for 14 year olds to read. The Courts how ever in the long run found the kids to be right and that there was a violation of the freedom of speech but if I were the teacher I would have not changed my actions at all.
I feel that, in the Goss v. Lopez case, the majority opinion decided correctly. In the Goss v. Lopez case, 19 students were suspended without a hearing. By not having a hearing before getting suspended, it was a violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The due process clause says that the state must respect all rights that are owed to a person. By not letting these students have a hearing before getting suspended is taking away some of the rights that they deserve. I agree with the majority decision to take the suspension off these students permanent record because their rights were violated so they shouldn’t have to have consequences from the actions of other people.
I believe that the majority opinion in my case was correctly decided. In my case of Bethel vs. Fraser, Mathew Fraser spoke to the senior class of his high school to nominate a classmate for a spot in student government. His speech consisted of lots of profanity and sexual innuendos, he was suspended for his actions. In this case Fraser argued that his first amendment rights were violated and that he should have never been punished because of freedom of speech. I do believe that freedom of speech should be granted to students but it is also clear that schools have the responsibility to create a positive learning environment for all students and this factor can not be overlooked. By the school taking action they showed that they were trying to take control of a situation that is affecting all of the students and the environment they are learning in. So overall I do believe that the ruling in this case was just and fare and I do agree with the 7 to 2 ruling.
I think the majority opinion in the Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier case was decided correctly. A teacher decided to delete two pages of the school newspaper written by students. They thought the articles about teen pregnancy and divorced parents included personal details about students that shouldn’t be shared with the rest of the school. The students argued that it violated their First Amendment, and brought it the District Court. The students were not happy with the outcome because the court was on the teacher’s side, so it was then taken to the Court of Appeals. This time the teacher didn’t agree with the outcome, so the case was brought to the Supreme Court. The majority opinion in the Supreme Court was that teachers will be allowed to censor student articles only when necessary. I think that this was a fair decision because they made a compromise between the two sides. In this case, the students will still have the right to write whatever they want, as long as it is school appropriate. Also, teachers can only censor their writing to a certain extent. Freedom of speech is commonly subjects to limitations. In a public school, students do not have the same freedom a speech as they do outside of it. I believe students should have more rights in school. I think that a lot of public schools limit students’ freedom too much.
Rachel Lenoir
The case I reviewed was T.L.O vs. New Jersey and I do not agree with the majority verdict. The case was about how T.L.O was suspected of smoking in the girls bathroom and for this her bags were searched for cigarettes. When the cigarettes were found the principal continued to look through her bag finding marijuana and rolling papers. New Jersey ruled against her and she sued for violation of the 4th amendment. In the supreme court they also ruled in the schools favor. I believe that the school violated her 4th amendment rights because they continued to search her bag even after finding what they were looking for. With out suspect of her having a possession of drugs there was no probable cause giving them the right to search her bags further. Also the evidence that was found after the cigarettes were discovered should have been usable in the case.
Given the information on the court case that we received, I do not believe the Supreme Court correctly decided on the case of T.L.O. vs. New Jersey. The principal had suspected T.L.O. of smoking in the girls’ bathroom and searched her bag for cigarettes. He almost immediately found cigarettes but had continued to search her bag. He then found rolling papers and marijuana. This is a violation of the girl’s 4th Amendment rights since he continued to search after finding what he was looking for. Since the principal had suspected T.L.O. of smoking cigarettes not marijuana, he had no probable cause anymore to be searching her bag. However, the bag probably smelled like marijuana, which would have given the principal new probable cause to look for other drugs at that point.
In the court case of Hazelwood vs. Emerson, I believe that the Supreme Court did not decide the outcome correctly. The case was about the students who belonged to a journalism class and were writing the newspaper that was to be distributed throughout the school. One of the articles was about the issue of teen pregnancy and in the article, some of the pregnant teens in the school were described but never named. The other article was about divorce and a student was quoted basically calling her father a dead-beat dad. Right before the paper was distributed, the school newspaper adviser, Howard Emerson reviewed the articles and decided to remove them from the already-printed papers. The students sad this action went against their first amendment rights and I agree. However, the case went all the way to the USSC, which ruled in favor of the principle. I believe this was the wrong decision because the students used all the proper journalism techniques and made sure that everything was anonymous. They also gave the father an opportunity to comment. The first amendment also gives people the right to free speech and press which should protect the students from what they publish to a certain extent. I understand that it's the school newspaper so there might be a point where limits are necessary, but the kids weren't encouraging sex or teen pregnancy. I personally would not have written abut what they did; however, they seemed to have followed all proper journalism techniques. Lastly, the USSC said that the articles weren't appropriate because not public forum was created, but I'm sure if someone who read they paper had something to say they could write a letter to the editor or make comment in a future article to get their say in. Overall, I just think the whole thing was blown a bit out of proportion and not as big of a deal as made out to be and I also believe that the USSC ruled wrong. The ruling set a percedent for all other school newspapers now, so who knows what administrators may censor out now?
In the Bethel vs. Fraser case, Matthew Frasier talked to his school about electing a student for school government. In his speech there were sexual innuendos and curse words. Since his speech consisted of that, he was therefore suspended. I believe that the majority opinion was correctly decided. Fraser disagreed with this because he thought his first amendment rights were violated. He believed that he has his freedom of speech and should be able to have said what ever he wants. Of course students should have the right to say there opinions, but not in a disrespectful way. Cursing and sexual innuendos are frowned upon at school, which they very well should be. School is suppose to be a safe place for students, administers did the right thing by suspending Frasier for his actions. Overall I believe the majority opinion was right, and it did not violate Frasier’s freedom of speech, since he abused it, himself.
In class, the group that I was in examined the case Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton. This case was based on the school instituting a policy of random urine analysis for the athletes. The school believed this was necessary because the athletes were known to be the ringleaders and encouraging a drug culture within the school. The students sued the school, stating an infringement on their 4th amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court sided with the school, stating that they thought the policy did not infringe on the students’ rights. This case thus upheld the constitutionality of random drug tests. The courts stated that even though tests were considered searches and thus fell under the 4th amendment, the school had a reasonable reason for the random drug testing due to their interest in keeping the student’s safe while in the school.
Personally, I believe that the Supreme Court made the right decision involving this case. It might just be because I am not a student athlete, but I believe that in many cases that school is too lax when instituting drug policy. These tests were for the benefit of the other athletes, to make sure that no other accidents occurred on or off the field. Although the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures, the random analysis policy that the school instituted does not fall under this. I believe that the school did not violate the student’s 4th amendment rights.
I believe that the Supreme Court ruled correctly on this case. Veronia School District versus Action’s final conclusion was that the school drug policy for athletes was constitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments. “Acton” was denied participation in his school’s football program due to his refusal to take a drug test. I believe that this policy is reasonable because Acton was a member of the school, a student, and in “committing to the temporary custody of the state as schoolmaster”, he should recognize that he doesn’t have the same rights as a free adult. Drug use in students was exasperated by the standard drug sports culture set. In addition, use of drugs also leads to sports related injury so in the interest of the students, the school has grounds to drug test. The drug test not only would lead to a possible decrease in drug culture throughout the entire school, but also prevents sports related injury. First off, the fourth amendment, “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against reasonable search and seizure; no warrant shall be issued but upon probable cause” is proven to not have power in school. Only reasonable suspicion is necessary.
Kerry Chavoya
I do feel that the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case that I had was correctly decided. The case I had was Goss v. Lopez which was the only case we all looked at as a class that the students won. This case was about 10 students that were suspended from school for misconduct without a hearing. When the students challenged the principal, a 3 judge district court declared that apellees were denied due process of law in violation of the 14th Amendment because they were “suspended without hearing prior to suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter. The principal did not explain why he/she was suspending them which takes away something that the 14th Amendment gives everyone. The amendment states that life, liberty, and property cannot be taken away without due process of law. The court I think made the right decision because the principal had not told the students why they were suspended, read and followed violation/punishment in the schools’ handbook, or gave the parents notification. The principal had taken away all 10 of the students’ rights because they are entitled to due process whether they are in school and out of school. This was a great case because it set a precedent for other cases to come and teaches schools that children in school may not be granted rights they have outside of school but they are for sure entitled to due process.
In the Supreme Court case I was assigned involving student rights, Bethel School District vs. Fraser, the applicability of the first amendment in the public school system was called into question. When Mathew Fraser made a “lewd and offensive” speech at his high school nominating a fellow classmate for class office in front of an auditorium of 600 students he was suspended for breaking the school’s disciplinary rule. At first both the district court and the appellate court sided with Fraser and said that the school district was out of line in suspending Fraser and in violation of his first amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the two lower courts however and held that the school district did have the ability to limit student’s rights to free speech if the educational process is obstructed or the school finds what is being said to be offensive. The dissenting opinion claimed that as time goes on the threshold for what is considered offensive changes. Society becomes more immune to words or ideas previously considered indecent. I agree with this dissenting opinion. I believe that the speech that Fraser made would not have been found to be offensive by the student body and if anything they would think that it was funny. Fraser should be allowed to retain the same rights in school as he possesses outside of school and that includes his right to free speech. Restricting students’ rights to express themselves will only make them more resentful and does not reflect the American ideals stated in our Declaration of Independence that all individuals should be treated equally. Even though most of them are minors and they are under the temporary custody of the school it is unconstitutional to deny them the rights of any other citizen, particularly their right to free speech listed in the first amendment. I disagree with the Supreme Court’s final decision on this case and believe that the dissenting opinion was much more justified in this situation.
According to the 14th Amendment everyone has the right to privacy. In the case Acton vs. Vernonia, James Acton was a boy who played football. Vernonia High school adopted the Student Athletic Drug Policy because the school was concerned drug use increased the risk of sport injury. This authorized random urine tests to the kids who played sports. James Acton denied the test when he was asked for a sample along with his parents; they also denied James from doing this. I disagree with the Supreme Court, they agreed with the school. This case violates Amendment 4, people’s rights to privacy. So James should not have taken the test due to his right of his own privacy. Even though he is/was on school property, if the school has no suspicion then they should not ask for a sample. Vernonia should only ask for a urine sample or questions if they are suspicion of something that is happening.
Kelly Gunneson
I agree with the decision the Supreme Court ruling regarding the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case. In the case, students in a journalism class decided to write an article about teen pregnancy and divorce for the school newspaper. The articles included interviews from a student whose parents were divorced and drew attention to the student who was pregnant. The principal decided that the two pages containing those articles needed to be deleted. The students felt that their First Amendment right to freedom of press was violated. They decided to bring the case to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri but a decision was not reached. The case was then brought to the Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school supporting the principal’s demand to delete the articles from the newspaper. I agree with the ruling because the newspaper is a product of the schools curriculum. The newspaper may be seen by parents, the administration, and younger students in the school district. The material in the articles’ may make the readers feel uncomfortable and angry. If people are upset about the topics, the articles should not be included. Also, the newspaper is a curricular activity so the school has the ability to sensor and control the content of the final product. Even though it is a form of press, it is a school assignment so the school has the right to control its content. Lastly, even though the students have consented to have their names in the paper, other people may learn the details of their situation that they did not know before. The articles could draw a great deal of attention to the students and cause others to think of them differently. The students would be subject to negative publicity. For example, there have been students whose parents have gotten divorced. They often do not want to tell others about the situation. By including their names in articles, this would upset them. Even if they consented to being included in the article, they would not realize the large amount of attention that they would receive. Those are a few of the reasons why I agree with the Supreme Court ruling in the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case.
Alyssa
I do not feel the majority opinion in the case i was assigned to was correct. In the T.L.O vs New Jersey case a girl was accused of smoking in the school bathroom. Her principle suspected her to be so he went ahead and searched her bags. After he found what he was looking for he continued to look through It. In his search he found marijuana and other drugs. I think the school violated her 4th amendment rights and because of that I do it agree with the majority opinion. They had no probable cause in the first place since he did not think she was smoking marijuana.
In my opinion, the court case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier was correctly decided. In this case, a group of students brought their argument to the district court claiming that their school had violated their first amendment rights to freedom of speech and press. The issue was caused when the school newspaper advisor brought the paper to the principal to read over before it got published. The principal decided that two of the articles (1 about teen pregnancy, the other about divorced parents) were not suited to be published. The principal claimed the articles were not appropriate for younger readers, did not contain both sides of an argument, and did not disclose the identities of the subjects of the article well enough. Rather then start a long process of remaking the newspaper without these articles (as it was nearing the end of the school year and could risk not having it printed at all), the principal pulled the two pages containing the articles. The students who wrote the paper felt as though their rights were violated. When brought to the district court, the school was ruled in favor. It was soon brought to the appeals court and the supreme court, where the school was again ruled in favor of. The court said that the school has the right to change the newspaper as long as there are reasonable concerns including but not limited to: inappropriate content, inadequate style, inadequate research, etc. Additionally, it was said that because it was a school newspaper, and not officially publicly released press, it did not violate the rights of the freedom of press. I personally agree with how the court ruled. It is at the school newspaper's advisor's discretion to decide what should and shouldn't be published, as that is his job as advisor. Additionally, though the constitution does give the right of speech and press, this is not held true in schools. The school needs to protect the students as well as educate them, and they should do what they feel necessary to carry this action out, as long as they have a reasonable argument for doing so, and do not just remove the articles because they disagree with the opinion or dislike the topic. Such things as inappropriateness, lack of privacy, and lack of research are reasonable grounds to remove the articles. Though the principle was forced to remove other articles in that process (because he had to remove the pages) it was a small sacrifice in comparison to having to revise the whole paper and risk not having ANYTHING published. In my opinion, the school and the court were correct in their ways.
In the case of Bethel School District vs. Fraser, the Supreme Court had to decide whether or not it was constitutional for a school district to discipline a high school student for delivering an inappropriate speech at a school assembly. Matthew Fraser, who was suspended for three days and prohibited from speaking at graduation after making such a speech, sought a trial, claiming his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have been violated. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the school was entirely within its rights to discipline Fraser in this situation, because his “vulgar and lewd” speech was undermining the fundamental mission of public education. I agree with the Court’s view that Fraser’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was not violated. The school could not have accounted for all possible forms of misconduct in its rules, but Fraser had consulted two teachers, who had discouraged him from giving the speech, warning that it would lead to “severe consequences.” Thus, Fraser was fully aware of the consequences of his actions and chose to deliver the speech anyway. For this reason, I hold that his right to due process had not been violated. However, I still feel that his First Amendment right to free speech should not have been limited. While the Supreme Court pointed to the school’s rules banning “obscene” language, I hardly think Fraser’s speech could classify as “obscene” or “profane.” The Court also claimed the speech to have been offensive to students. However, as a high school student, I merely found the speech amusing; I was not scarred in any way. This makes me think that the teachers simply assumed the student body would be offended because such language was offensive while they were growing up. They may not be aware that it has become more acceptable in high schools these days. Thus, I believe the students have a better feel of what is offensive to them, especially at an assembly pertaining to student office elections. I can understand how, with a different audience, the speech could be deemed inappropriate, but in this case, Fraser was not severely disrupting the school’s learning environment. For this reason, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the school district concerning Fraser’s First Amendment rights.
I agreed with decision of the Supreme Court in the case Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier. This case was brought to the district court because the students writing the schools paper felt that their first amendment rights of freedom of press were violated. Emerson, the new school’s newspaper advisor, brought the paper to the school principal, Principal Reynolds, to be reviewed before it was printed. Principal Reynolds said that two of the articles on teen pregnancy and divorces were inappropriate for the school’s paper. He asked Emerson to remove these two pages from the school’s paper was printed. The students were upset that these pages were getting pulled from the paper after they worked so hard on writing them. The students first took this case to a district court, then the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court. Each court ruled in the favor of the court. The court said the school had the right to remove the articles as long as there was reasonable concern about the content. The court also said that this did not violate the students’ first amendment right to freedom of press because it was only a school newspaper. I agreed with the courts because the information that the students wrote about was inappropriate for a school newspaper and the Principal was right to remove it from the paper.
In the case between James Acton vs Vernonia School District 47J, student athletes were told to submit to random urine tests. The student opposed to the drug tests and argued that it violated his 4th and 14th amendments which protect you against random search and seizures and the right to privacy. The case was brought to the Supreme Court and the court took the side of the Vernonia School District saying that the urine tests did not violate the rights of the students because the school is doing what they feel is right to keep the students safe. As a student I believe that the policy does not infringe the students rights due to the fact that they are playing a sport for the school by choice and the school has a right to ensure that the students are safe and do not have any unfair advantages. If the student really cared so much about a drug test, he probably has something to hide.
In the case Goss v. Lopez I do believe that the majority opinion in the Supreme Court court case was correctly decided. I believe this because the Supreme Court sided in a 5-4 decision that the principal was wrong in suspending the students without a hearing or explanation. The students did not deny doing anything wrong, they only wanted notice or an explanation as to what they were being suspended for. Both in life and in school everyone is given the right for due process, or a procedure that must be followed in punishing these kids. I agree with the decision the Supreme Court made because if I was in the student’s position I would want a hearing.
I believe that the supreme court, in my opinion, was not the correct choice. My case was Bethel vs. Fraser, where a boy named Matthew Fraser was suspended and unable to make a graduation speech due to a Vulgar speech he made that was filled with sexual innuendos. Fraser argued that his first amendment's rights had been violated, and I believe that is the case. The speech did not harm anyone in anyway, nor did it distract anyone from getting an education. So I feel that this was a poorly made judgement.
Sean Murphy
Bethel v Frasier
I believe the decision in this case was the correct one, and that the students first amendment rights were fully protected. The student in question made a sexually suggestive speech during an optional assembly, with lines that acted as metaphors in describing a fellow student. The supreme court had to review whether his actions had disrupted an educational setting or not, and whether the student believed he would be breaking rules if he delivered the speech. Since the assembly was optional, and the students who reacted to the speech were not acting much differently than students in any assembly, it was decided that his speech did not disrupt and educational setting. Also, since the student reviewed the content of the speech which multiple teachers, it was decided that the speech was not explicit and therefore the student should not have been disciplined because his first amendment rights were violated.
In the court case I had, Goss vs. Lopez, the ten students that were involved eventually were given the outcome they deserved, and that was the right to a fair hearing instead of being suspended from school with no hearing or way of explaining other than to the principal and school authority. As stated in the 14th amendment, everyone has the right to due process, which says that the state must respect all rights that are owned by an individual. This right was violated when the school rejected the students a hearing in their case before action was taken to suspend them. Since a suspension goes on someone’s permanent record, they should have right to an explanation cause it can later affect them in the future, so the ruling the court made in favor of the students protected their right to due process and was ultimately the right decision in the case of Goss vs. Lopez.
Jordan Ruocco
I feel that the court ruling in Goss vs. Lopez was correct. The case was about ten students who were suspended for misconduct. The exact behavior was not stated. The students were given their suspension without any form of due process, and they thought that their rights had been violated. They took their issue to the state courts and got sided with two times. Then the school system appealed the case again and got the court to side with the school instead. However, the students then appealed to the supreme court, and the supreme court decided that the students' rights were tampered with. They claimed that the students' rights to a free education system was being challenged without any due process. The fourteenth amendment guarantees everyone the right to due process. In schools, the right to due process is still needed because everyone is promised a free education, so when their right to this privilege is challenged, there must be a process followed to prove that the chance at education they have should be revoked. If I were in their situation, I would want a path that I could take to try and state why I was doing whatever misconduct was taking place. This is a right given to everyone in The United States of America, and should not be taken away from anyone, including students.
E I
In any other setting besides a school environment I would have said no because it is unconstitutional to perform search and seizures without probable cause. However, because the student was in school I feel like there should be a different set of rules. Students tend to not know exactly the right things to do and are defiant to be subordinate to an authority like the school. Some students do drugs without knowing the terrors it brings, so it is dutiful for the "temporary guardians" at the school to teach and enforce their specific rules. Drugs may also have an adverse effect on the students performance at school and therefore legal actions should take place if it is a viable option to do so. Therefore, I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in TLO vs. New Jersey, that the fourth amendment does not apply in schools.
I beleive the Supreme Court decision on my case was incorrectly decided. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton was a controversial case involving a student refusing to be drug tested in order to play on a football team. Simply because the school claimed that athletes were the centre of drug culture does not mean it's okay to deny the privelage of athletics to an irrelevant drug user. I believe this should fall under the constitution's definition of unreasonable. Students would be discouraged from enjoying the privilege of athletics because of this practice.
Post a Comment