The majority believes that the circumstances were reasonable for the alleged crime that was being committed in the school. The school has an obligation towards the protection for the other students and to maintain order within the school and that the rules of the school not to be broken. The search for the pills are considered just because the search was of places that the pills could have been hidden and if not for the fact the rules were broken and the information about Redding’s disbarment of pills were brought to the attention of the school officials the search would not have occurred. The main disagreements between the parties are the way in which the search was handled. It is an agreement that what the student decided to do were against
School prayer is illegal, so having a school officiated prayer can lead to fines and other litigation. Not everyone agrees that school prayer should be banned however. Some say that banning prayer is illegal. They claim that, thanks to the first amendment, that prayer being banned is a violation of religious rights. Of course, banning prayer is illegal, which is why prayer is not banned, but prayer led by school officials or prayers officiated by the school are.
I feel that Redding’s rights were definitely violated. There was no reason to search a student based off of a tip from another. I feel at most Redding should have been questioned, made empty her pockets, and possibly patted down by a female staff member. In my opinion the administrators should have been held liable for their decisions. It doesn’t matter that the search fell under school policies.
Schools have the legal right to suppress your freedom of speech if it interferes with learning, as explained in “What Constitutes Free Speech for Students” when the author includes “1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, unless public school officials can show that language would “materially and substantially” interfere with discipline, they cannot censor students.” (“What Constitutes Free Speech for Students?” 1) So, was this students shorter skirt due to her high a real distraction? Now the entire ordeal of her having to be pulled out from her learning environment to change into much less appealing clothes in no way benefited anyone 's learning but prohibited the students learning with the added effect of her self of steam being destroyed. Ava is not the only example of enforced dress codes interfering with learning more than it benefits it, there are hundreds of thousands of these
Our right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press is hindered within our school systems. If your opinion offends someone than you are given consequences for speaking your mind. That doesn’t sounds like our first amendment is being upheld to me. In the court case Morse v. Frederick it was stated that “Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner [Bong Hit 4 Jesus] and suspended Frederick for ten days.” The court had ruled in the favor of Morse and one of the reasons behind their decision was because she qualified for immunity from the lawsuit. “.
Her education had been quite rigid, and she commented in Fundi that she did not see schools as places where one was necessarily "free to express an opinion," something she was very anxious to do” ( “Ella Josephine Baker” ). Ella thinks she has a more important role in the world than teaching. She wanted a place where children could speak freely about racism and discrimination without getting in trouble. Jem and Scout think people are judgemental because of race. “Jem and Scout believed that Tom Robinson would be acquitted, but he was found guilty by the all white jury” ( Magill and Kohler 6594 ).
The National Coalition against Censorship explained that "Even books or materials that many find 'objectionable ' may have educational value, and the decision about what to use in the classroom should be based on professional judgments and standards, not individual preferences."  In the 1982 Supreme Court ruling on Board of Education v. Pico, Justice Brennan wrote that taking books off of library shelves could violate students ' First Amendment rights, adding that "Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books." ” (ProCon.org). Banning books in school can create a problem for the teachers that are trying to assign something to the class. With the new addition to the first amendment schools will have the rights to any books.
School uniforms can restrict students from expressing themselves, according to the first Amendment of the US Constitution it guarantees that all individuals have the right to express themselves freely so if the constitution says that than schools should not have school uniforms (supreme court). School uniforms also promote conformity over individuality and at a time when schools are encouraging an appreciation of diversity, enforcing standardized dress sends a contradictory message that many people disagree with (Howe II). School uniforms do not stop bullying and may increase violent attacks, overall, there is no evidence in bullying literature that supports a reduction in violence due to school uniforms (Jeffords). Students just don’t like school uniforms a peer-reviewed study by researchers at the University of Nevada at Reno found that 90% of seventh and eighth grade public school students did not like wearing uniforms (Wharton). Overall, I think the reasons to implement a school uniform outweigh the reasons to vote against
The First Amendment Free Speech Clause requires courts and school districts to weigh and balance the need for a safe, orderly school environment conductive to learning and guarantee the right to speak or engage in expressive activity (Darden, 2006). This means that if students are not disturbing others from learning then they are allowed to express their selves freely. This resides back to the Tinker verse Des Moines ICSD case, when principals suspended students for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled in favor for the students stating that school officials must demonstrate that the speech would disrupt school activities, which in this case it did not (Darden, 2006). Speech is not just considered
1985) (Ehlenberger 31). The courts decided that students have 4th Amendment rights but in concern for public safety it was decided "school officials, do not need probable cause or a warrant to search students" (Ehlenberger 31). Although the schools do not need reasonable suspicion to search students, I believe that they should wait to use drug dogs until they have confirmed the problem. This was the case at Longmont high school in Colorado where they discovered there was a drug problem. Upon learning of the problem the principal; Mary White said "To keep the problem from growing, I decided to try a controversial, but rapidly growing, means of interdiction: using dogs to sniff students lockers" (Robinson).
There is an immeasurable contrast between Newdow 's entitlement to speak with his youngster which both California law and the First Amendment perceive and his asserted right to shield his little girl from impacts to which she is uncovered in school in spite of the terms of the guardianship request. So it was inferred that, having been denied under California law of the privilege to sue as next companion, Newdow needs prudential remaining to get this suit