Introduction.
From the First Amendment students given an opportunity to explore the conflict between government’s exercise of power and individuals rights, the courts as well recognizes students’ rights guaranteed by the Amendment. Courts have balanced the First Amendments rights and the necessity of schools to teach without disruption caused by free speech and expression as the exercise of those rights could interfere with learning. Most school administrators indicate that schools should enhance immunity and free speech because exchange of thoughts and ideas is extremely prominent in a learning environment.
Right to Freedom of Expression.
Freedom of expression flyer for students, emphasize that school publications may not print obscenities, libelous statements, statements that will disrupt the educational process, or statements that tend to be an invasion of privacy. The court of appeals for the first circuit decided in the Yeo v. Lexington case in 1997, that journalists at Lexington High School in Massachusetts had the right to refuse ads submitted to their publications (Hinchey 2001). The court said that there was no legal duty on the part of the school administrators to control the content of the editorial judgments of student editors of publications. The court decided that decisions made by students’ editor were not attributable to the school.
The case of Castorina v. Madison country board. In this case, students wore a controversial seal on their shirts. The character preached racism although the students insisted that it represented their culture. The principal orders the students to go home or display their clothe inside out for the rest of the day he argues that any clothes or device that is obscene, disrespectful s...
... middle of paper ...
.../filtering/individual.htm
A Guide for Educators - Filtering - Individual Rights. (n.d.). College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved October 5, 2011, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/censorship/filtering/individual.htm
Hinchey, P. H. (2001). Student rights: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Thomas, S. B. (2004). Public school law: teachers' and students' rights (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson A and B.
Schwartz, E. G. (2006). American students organize: founding the National Student Association after World War II: an anthology and sourcebook. Westport, CT: American Council On Education/Praeger.
Speech Rights of Public School Students. (n.d.). UMKC School of Law. Retrieved October 5, 2011, from
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm
No greater obligation is placed on school officials than to protect the children in their charge from foreseeable dangers, whether those dangers arise from the careless acts or intentional transgressions of others. Although the overarching mission of a board of education is to educate, its first imperative must be to do no harm to the children in its care. A board of education must take reasonable measures to assure that the teachers and administrators who stand as surrogate parents during the day are educating, not endangering, and protecting, not exploiting, vulnerable children (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003).
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the students’ first amendment right was violated. They were not able to express their opinions freely. The first Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” (Classifying Arguments in the Cas...
“Marvin L.Pickering, a high school science teacher in Illinois wrote a letter published in a newspaper denouncing the board of education's choice of allocating of funding between athletics and academics, he also criticized the superintendent who did not inform the local taxpayers why they were actually paying more for the school. After posting the letter, the high school teacher was fired because the board claimed that he delivered false information that could affect the efficiency of the school administration, it damage the reputation of the board of education and of its superintendent and that it could possibly encourage “controversy, conflict, and dissension” between the school staff "Detrimental to the best interests of the schools"(Findlaw.com, I) . Pickering decided to sue the school for violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and of equal protection because he claimed that he has the right to free speech and is allowed the same rights as everybody else.“
The history of the FERPA Act began in 1974 when the act became the law; up to that time there was very little legislation on privacy within schools (Groves & Groves, 1981). Senator Buckley of New York was concerned with the lack of privacy within schools; the Buckley Amendment was enacted on August 21, 1974 (Groves & Groves, 1981). The two hugely significant impacts of the amendment is 1) people are required to be informed of their rights. 2) Helps educators reflect on their record and document policies in order to avoid conflicts with federal law (Groves & Groves, 1981). There have been many cases since the Buckley law, which have specified regulations within schools, which have affected both state and district policies.
How the judicial branch rules in cases relating to the 1st and how they relate that to all the rights of public school students. This includes anything from flag burning to not saluting the flag to practicing religion in school. The main point of this paper is to focus on the fact that schools have a greater ability to restrict speech than government.
Censorship even extends to school dress codes. A school dress code is a set of rules about what clothing may or may not be worn in schools. As previously mentioned, a set of criteria are used to determine whether or not student expression should be censored in schools. For censorship involving dress codes, there are two: the “Tinker disruption standard” and the “forum issue,” which determine if student expression disrupts the school day and by who it is regulated, respectively (Emert). One case involving censorship of the school dress code was of a boy who violated his school’s dress code (Nguyen). Zachary Guiles, a thirteen year old boy, had to cover up his shirt denigrating former President George W. Bush, which violated his First Amendment rights (Nguyen). The shirt showed President Bush’s head on a chicken with derogatory names. It had images of oil rigs and lines of cocaine (Nguyen). A student, who had opposite views as Guiles, notified the administration of the shirt (Nguyen). Guiles was sent home on May 13, 2004, when he didn’t cover up the shirt after being asked to. The next day, Guiles’ wore the shirt, which was covered with tape and the word ‘censored’ was written on the tape (Nguyen). The school which Guiles attended, Williamstown Middle High School in Vermont, said that the shirt violated the dress code. Guiles’ parents felt that their son’s “rights to engage in political speech” were violated, and they sued the school (Nguyen). Guiles did not win the lawsuit in December 2004, when the US District Court for Vermont ruled in favor of the school, saying the images were “’plainly offensive and inappropriate’” (Nguyen). Guiles appealed, and the Second Circuit court ruled that the images were not offensive an...
Price, Janet, Alan Levine, and Eve Cary. The Rights of Students. Carbondale, Il.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988.
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.
Today schools are changing to integrate the 21st century. Therefore, it is imperative that educational administrators are aware of the legal framework facing the issues in schools. There are many issues the administrators will face and they must know the constitutional rights of individuals and the school. The Constitution contains the laws of the United States.
"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
Students claim that requiring them to wear mandated uniforms deprives them of their ability to freely express themselves through their choice of dress. However, freedom of expression does consist of the rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and to petition the government, but the first amendment does not grant people the right to act any way they want without actions taken. Numerous schools have a straightforward dress code policy enforced. If these policies are violated, then the students could face consequences for their
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
school goes against the First Amendment, whether it's in the classroom, over the loud speaker, or
Marla Iyasere said that, Students and faculty should not lose there first amendment Constitutional rights as they walk onto school property, and a teacher should have some measure of control over what they choose to speak and teach about (Lyasere 25). In the academic society, academic freedom is decided by the location or occupation or role in the society you are in. Many professors believe this should not be the case, such as Marjorie Heins, a former NYU adjunct professor who serves on the academic freedom and tenure committee of the American Association of University Professors. Heins said, “The lack of respect for freedom of speech permeates the whole enterprise,” (Saul). This means without freedom of speech in the classroom students and teachers will beat around the bush and won’t be able to fully explain certain concepts. Academic freedom allows the people in the classroom to connect on another level. Students will be enrolled in the course because of interest and not because of a requirement and teachers will be teaching a subject because of a passion. This bond in the classroom will bring a higher success