posted
Since there are many people well-versed in law here, I thought this would be a good place for an answer.
I am aware that certain rights are curtailed within a school, for the obvious reason that there needs to be some semblance of peace for education to take place.
Does anyone know the specifics on this? Which rights are curtailed and to what extent?
I am beginning a micro-newspaper of current and controversial issues, and I would like to include an article on that in the first issue.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe Dagonee hasn't posted to this thread.
There are a whole slew of supreme court cases on education. This is an extremely broad area that you've invoked--is there a particular issue or situation that sparked this thread?
posted
Well, specifically the extent of the first ammendment, but without the 'establishment of religion' bit -- I know a good bit about that already.
I'm more concerned with how far the rest goes legally in the school:
"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I could generate a comprehensive summary. I'll throw out random items, and you can ask for more details on the interesting ones. Note that all of these rights are actually incorporated via the 14th amendment due process clause when it's a state-run (not federal) school. All comments assume elementary through high school, not college.
1st amendment
Religious Establishment - there can be nothing that suggests the school is sanctioning a religion, so no prayer (even w/ opt out) as part of a school event - during class, assembly, or school functions outside normal school hours. Religion may be taught in a comparitive way (Judiasm teaches X, Christianity Y, Islam Z, etc.)
Rleigious free exercise - schools must make facilities available to clubs of a religious nature on the same basis as other non-curricular clubs. Religious speech by students may not be regulated differently than other non-school-related speech. A student acting in an official capacity (student council president, for example) may not make public prayers when acting in that capacity.
Free press - student papers have few if any rights, because the owners of the papers are the schools. So schools exercise editorial control pretty thoroughly. Student-run web sites, not using school name or logos, have been attacked by school officials, but I believe unsuccessfully (I'm sketchy on this). Student papers not affiliated with the school (underground papers) may be banned entirely from campus.
Assembly - I think schools have unfettered control over students organizing for protests, etc., but I'm not positive. Safety makes me think this is very likely.
Speech - student speech may not be entirely banned. For example, students may wear a black armband to protest a war. Absent a dress code, not all messages can be banned from t-shirts. Obviously, schools can control when students may talk. I don't know of cases, but I suspect students may not have political opinions expressed in assignments held against them in grading. But likely this is very hard to prove, so it may not come up much. Speech made outside school is very hard to regulate, but since Columbine "threatening" speech is fair game. And many things other than explicit threats are considered threatening.
2nd amendment
Schools may ban guns from school property.
3rd amendment
Schools may not quarter hall monitors or safety patrols in student houses without consent.
4th amendment
Lockers can be searched, so can backpacks. Students can be required to submit to drug testing to participate in extracurricular activities, but so far students can't just be randomly drug tested. In general, the standard is lower than probable cause for searches.
5th amendment
Students have a fifth amendment right to remain silent, but I believe for internal school punishments silence may be held against you. Due process is a direct right under the 14th, and means that there must be notice and a hearing before schools deprive students of certain rights (probably long suspensions and expulsions).
The rest have no direct applicibality to schools.
Dagonee P.S, Before you write an article, you have to research these to confirm - they're off the top of my head, and some aren't from law school but from stuff I studied way back in the 80s.
posted
Is this in response to the recent tumult over the Pledge of Allegiance? Is there a specific activity you want to see or not see in your school? I am assuming it's some kind of prayer.
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I highly reccomend We the Students as a resource for this kind of info. I took a Constitutional Law class in high school, and we used it for our textbook. It's good.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
:: giggles :: I actually got We the Students signed when I went to DC for the Presidential Classroom...in fact...the line for the book signing was where I met Mayday.
Dag, to what extent can a non-selective public school (elementary or secondary) demand uniforms? I can understand a decency dress code, but I never understood what gave some public schools the ability to demand a strict dress code with uniforms. Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
The decision first analyzes when dress constitutes speech, then analyzes the three principle cases on student free speech, then tries to fit clothing into the framework.
Ultimately, the judge decided in this manner:
quote:However, unlike Tinker, a dress code is "viewpoint-neutral." That is, the school board did not adopt the dress code in order to censor a student's particular viewpoint.
Go to: School Law ArchiveBecause the dress code does not fit any category perfectly, Judge Parker used a hybrid standard of scrutiny for weighing the students' rights against the school board's interest: The uniform policy satisfies the First Amendment "if it furthers an important or substantial government interest; if the interest is unrelated to the suppression of student expression; and if the incidental restrictions on First Amendment activities are no more than is necessary to facilitate that interest."
Once Judge Parker decided to use this hybrid standard, he easily found that the dress code satisfied the standard. The school board clearly has an interest in improving "the educational process," he found, and the board's purposes in adopting the uniform code -- to increase test scores and to reduce behavior problems -- were not related to the suppression of student expression. Moreover, he said, the plaintiffs had not presented any evidence to challenge the board's evidence about higher test scores and fewer disciplinary problems.
posted
Speech is heavily restricted when the administration is concerned gangs are endorsed. For example in my school class colors were originally red for freshmen, blue for sophmores, black for juniors, and white for seniors. However, the next year red and blue were removed because they were "gang" colors. School officials have also banned certain national flags because they represented gangs. I would expect that for these reasons many schools wouldn't even let you wear a black armband.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That depends on the interpretation of the armbands. My school in all its high and mightyness was paranoid as to what could be construed as endorsing gangs. For some reason, the administration seemed to genuinely think that students wearing certain colors served as an invitation to gangs to come and terrorize our school. If the armbands are interpreted that way then they could be banned unless my school was just violating the USSC's decisions the whole time.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's one of the fun things about law. You can't know if something is unconstitutional unless you find a case exactly on point (there never is) or you actually try the case.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the armband was operating as a gang symbol, for instance people being beat up who were wearing one in the "wrong color", perhaps.
However, unless the school could show the armbands disrupted learning, particularly if the people wearing the armbands were engaging in political speech, the school didn't have a leg to stand on most likely.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm....Judge Parker's ruling makes me feel dirty for some reason.
quote: On the constitutional question, I believe that Judge Parker is correct: Students do, indeed, have a First Amendment right to select the clothing they wear to school, but a school board may have an interest in regulating school dress that outweighs the students' First Amendment right.
One would assume that being the FIRST Amendment, it would be the most important (thus most weighty) rule pertaining to the inalienable rights of humans. Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is, that unless specifically ordered by the courts any given school will continue to ban items that they deem innapropriate regardless of whether they have the legal right to do so. In the time between a court ruling against the school, the rules are still being enforced.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
