Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Uniforms in school debate
School uniform policy essays
School uniform policy essays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Uniforms in school debate
In the Defoe and Spiva case, the plaintiffs, Tom Defoe, a minor by and through his parent and guardian Phil Defoe, and Phil Defoe, prosecuted the defendants Sid Spiva, Merl Krull, Greg Deal, V.L. Stonecipher, John Burrel, and the Anderson County. The fact was that the Plaintiff Tom Defoe was a high school student who attended Anderson County High School (ACHS), and Anderson County Career and Technical Center (ACCTC) until December, 2007. Both of the ACHS and ACCTC have a dress code that prohibited racial and ethnic symbols, gang affiliations, vulgar, subversive, or sexually suggestive language, and any items that promote alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, because there were several racially charged incidents happens in that district in the past sixty years. In 2006, the plaintiff Tom Defoe has worn the clothes with the Confederate flag for two times, even though the school officials asked him to remove it and gave him warnings that he has already violated the dress code. Therefore, school decided to suspend the plaintiff Tom Defoe. In November, 2006, the plaintiffs alleged the Anderson County School District of violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments, …show more content…
Instead of relying on the reasoning of Tinker, the concurring opinion deviated the main opinion from the case Morse v. Frederick. The concurrence has the opinion that the racial tension in the public school is caused by the problem of drug abuse. The concurrence stated two reasons to choose to follow Morse rather than Tinker. On the one hand, the evidence could not strongly show the threat of substantial disruption, so the concurrence did not believe the evidence could apply to the Tinker analysis. On the other hand, the concurrence viewed Tinker to be the exception to the rule, instead of the standard, because the mode of analysis for Tinker is not
The issue of racial balancing has even come up in court for charter schools. The concern that charter schools could become segregated schools prompted the Beaufort County Board of Education v. Lighthouse Charter School Committee ruling in 2003. The ruling stated that all charter schools in South Carolina will be in line with the local school districts of their location. Several other states have also adopted a similar ruling about charter schools. (Gajendragadkar, 2006).
Matthew's father appealed the school district's actions on behalf of his son to the federal district court. He alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. The District Court held that the school's sanctions violated respondent's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that the school's disruptive-conduct rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the removal of respondent's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule makes no mention of such removal as a possible sanction.
... the resulting damage to the criminal justice system. Opponents of this theory prefer a conception of the truth which relies on empirical evidence: if the existence of racism cannot be proven in individual cases, it should not be taken for granted when rendering decisions. Proponents of critical race theory favour a conception of the truth that takes into account the historical presence of racism. Judge Sparks' decision, as upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, set a precedent for the future recognition of critical race theory's thicker conception of truth which recognizes the presence of racism in the criminal justice system.
Board of Education (1954) which was a case of racial segregation of children that were discriminated against in public schools that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Next, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) the Court decided that monetary damages of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which demonstrated sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015b). Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) held a lawsuit under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that was against sexual harassment, denying a student of equal opportunity the school provided and subjecting them to facing discrimination in an elementary environment (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015a).
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
Mary Beth Tinker was only thirteen years old in December of 1964 when she and four other students were suspended from school because they wore black armbands. The black armbands were a sign of protest against the Vietnam War. The school suspended the students and told them that they could not return to school until they agreed to take off the armbands. The students did not return to school until after the school’s Christmas break, and they wore black the rest of the year, as a sign of protest. The Tinker family, along with other supporters, did not think that the suspension was constitutional and sued the Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Supreme Court’s majority decision was a 7-2 vote that the suspension was unconstitutional (Tinker V. Des Moines).
Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994)
The case under review involves Bill Foster, who attends a large high school in the northeastern part of the United States. Due to a strong gang presence in the high school, the administrators created a strict policy which denies students the wearing of earrings, jewelry, athletic caps, and emblems. Foster was suspended for wearing an earring to school. He claims that wearing the earring was a form of his self expression and individuality; his intention was not as a gang emblem, but rather a means to attract girls. Foster is suing the school district for violation of his freedom of expression right, guaranteed under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The case specifics involve a student who made a provocative speech to the school body and received a three-day suspension. The schools yet again where given the right to violate his first amendment rights by not letting him give the speech which is not justifiable because the first amendment is supposed to give him all the rights that would allow him to make that speech. One huge case that involves vast majority of most students is the case named Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls 2002.
The request for an injunction pushed the court to make a difficult decision. On one hand, the judges agreed with the Browns; saying that: “Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children...A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn” (The National Center For Public Research). On the other hand, the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson allowed separate but equal school systems for blacks and whites, and no Supreme Court ruling had overturned Plessy yet. Be...
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
In a case similar to Fraser, a student was sent home twice for wearing a Marilyn Manson t-shirt with a three-faced Jesus on the back. The t-shirt also referenced biblical statements that were deemed inappropriate and disruptive to the learning environment. The court found that the school had the right to impose action for words or phrases that were considered vulgar and offensive. Just as with the Fraser case, the ethical significance is that students do not have the right to wear articles of clothing that depict messages or images in an offensive, public manner.
In the 1960s, some Americans were against sending troops to Vietnam because of the many lives risked; others were against sending troops because of the money it would cost. In 1965, a group of Des Moines high school students met up and agreed to wear black armbands that following week to protest against the Vietnam War. Rumors got around to school principles. School Principals passed a rule forbidding armbands to be worn at school to prevent disruption in the classrooms. In December, five students wore armbands ignoring the school’s new rule. They were asked to take off the armbands, and they refused resulting in suspension ("Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist"). Then the parents of those complained that the first amendment rights of those students were violated. This case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that students still have their rights of freedom of speech and expression in school in a 7-2 vote in favor of Tinker (“TINKER v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT”).
Dress codes and uniforms have been deemed legal by the United States Supreme Court. As long as the dress code or uniform regulations pass a four-pronged test. Opposition for school uniforms holds fast to preserving the sanctity of freedom of speech. The supreme court ultimately has decided that dress codes and uniforms do not violate the freedom of speech. In Harold W. Mitchell and John C. Knechtle’s study of the first amendment rights and dress code, they note that in 1968 in Ginsberg v. New York the supreme court ruled that “[t]he state has power to control the conduct of children that reaches beyond its scope of authority over adults (491).” Mitchell and Knechtle go further into explaining the 4 pronged rule the supreme court uses to judge if a rule is against the freedom of