Therefore, colleges should definitely prevent people who have a background of violence and crime from speaking at their campuses for the safety of their students. However, this also means that speech that does not call for violence should not be prohibited, no matter how offensive it is. After all, when all of these historical standards are picked out and taken into account, what we are left with is the bare backbone of our nation’s philosophy: the freedom to express your true
Schools have been evaluated by different organizations on whether or not they should be involved in off-campus cyberbullying. Some believe that they can be involved in off-campus to stop suicide or emotional distress and to stop them from putting the victim through lots of pain. Others believe that schools shouldn’t intervene in cyberbullying outside of schools because it affects their right to the first amendment which is “The freedom of speech”. Cyberbullying should be taken into the hands of the school if it happens off-campus because if nothing happens then it can get a child hurt or even killed. Students who are targeted by cyberbullies have no way to escape from the attackers brutality, who can drive the victim to suicide or self harm.
Typically, we consider the problem to be with illicit drugs but not for drugs that are over the counter or even prescribed by doctors. Created with good intentions, the zero-tolerance policy law, was, in fact, was not entirely thought out which ultimately lead to it having adverse outcomes within our school systems. When we send our children to school, we want to make sure it is the safest environment for them to brighten their futures and expand their horizons. We do not want to send our children to a situation where they can face potential exposure to illegal substances or potential weapons, which is why the zero-tolerance policy was developed. It was primarily designed to make schools a drug free environment.
With all the negatives that school has to offer, Kern strongly suggests that students should stay in school and stick it out because in the end, going to school gives students security and options later on in life. Kern shows his strong favor of staying in school by talking about how each field of study has worth, school pushing an individual out of his/her comfort zone is a good thing and how good students don’t need to teach themselves. In the end, school might be tough to start and tough to finish, but the benefits of an education are ones that keep on giving no matter how old a person
Alan Gribben, the editor of the new edition, asserts, “Seems to me I'm doing something constructive by simply eliminating a word that's a clear barrier for many people”. However, the word ‘nigger’ itself does not cause any problems; it’s the intolerance of people exposed to it that makes the word secluded from society. The setting where this issue is most prominent is in high school classrooms. While the use of ‘nigger’ may cause inappropriate behavior by mischievous students, the censorship does more harm than good. It would prevent readers from understanding the word’s prior applications.
With revisions to allow students and staff to have more say in the code, and through a pledge of honor the code could run more effectively in schools. Until this can happen a code cannot be forced upon people who have no say in the content. With these revisions I believe an honor code could be effective to prevent most students from cheating by raising their moral standards for their school and for themselves. By obtaining these standards schools will be able to advance out of the past creating a brighter future for the people of the
There is nothing wrong with protesting as long as it is kept peaceful and does not disturb the school or students inside of it. The Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School is a case that is still reflected upon today. It is referred to in cases concerning freedom of speech. I think that when most people read about this case and look at all the fact and details they will see and agree that students of all ages should be allowed to exercise their rights at school. Schools can make decisions concerning what they want to happen and how they want people to act while on campus, but they can never decide that the people in their building are not entitled to their
Dress codes are put into place to promote the safety of the students. An article published by Fresno.edu compiled a list of benefits to a dress code. Some of the benefits included are helping the student dress appropriate to protect the student wearing the clothing and the fellow students. Dress codes give students a feeling of safety and comfort when they see their students wearing similar, if not the same, attire as their fellow classmates and would not feel like a target of bullying if they cannot afford the same brands as their peers if there was a more lenient or no dress code at all. One of my fellow classmate, Rodney Louima, brought light to this topic by telling me, " Dress code is good because it doesn't make a person feel bad that they don't have all the "hot brands" because we all basically look the same no matter what the brand.
Only if Miss Joker has taken care of learners or supervised them when playing in ruby field there could be no damage, because Miss Joker would make an assurance that learners do not go or play near the sprinkler. The school as a whole supposed to make sure that the sprinkler is removed, they must promote and encourage the culture of safe environment so that learners will use the knowledge in their homes and use it in future for parenting
Based on his research, Charles Haynes inferred, “ In finding for the students, the court was a very clear that schools could not ban student expression because they dislike it or think it may start conflicts. They must have evidence that the expression may cause conflict.” (Haynes)
They also say that there needs to be a balancing test with schools ability to have law and order to run classes to make sure legal activities and drugs aren’t in the school to get in the way of educational objectives. This case is freedom vs order argument. They say that the vice-principal had the constitutional right to search the bag, he had reasonable suspicion and that is the magic word that gives students expectation of privacy while balancing it with law and order of the school. The court goes on to say that he’s further not violating the constitution because once he saw the evidence, it was in plain view and theirs a plain view doctrine which is another exception to the fourth amendment which
Finally students may not cause a serious disruption to the educational process. It is imperative that school administrators understand the underlying argument of property rights in relation to student’s school attendance. The school administrator represents the government, and as such must provide equal protection to all students to take advantage of this right. They also must understand the relevance of taking away an individual’s right without due process of the law, which is particularly relevant to suspensions and
Also, that the policy “…did not address a proven drug problem at the school.” The US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma upheld that the policy was in fact constitutional based on the existence of a “special need, indicated by accounts of drug abuse since 1970.” The verdict would be reversed in the appellate court. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals reaffirming that like in the district court, the policy was in fact, constitutional. As for the defendants, or School Board, they would argue their cases in the oral trail in the Supreme Court. Linda M. Meoli (one of the advocates in the oral trial) expressed one of the schools boards’ argument saying that “Tecumseh 's policy represents a natural, logical, and rational application of this Court 's decision in Vernonia V Acton.” School board also argued that the state of Oklahoma and its schools districts allowed the
If someone was silenced on that site then there would be a violation of rights, however, that is not the case. Since this was done on school property and part of the curriculum students speech do not have to be respected to such degree. In conclusion educators such as the principal cannot violate the First Amendment by exercising his power of editorial censorship over the content of student speech in a school-sponsored extracurricular activity as they protect certain potential concerns, such as teen
The First Amendment says that we are in tiled to your own freedom of speech even as a minor. In schools the teachers are trying to limit what students can say, do, or wear. There should be some restrictions placed but not as many as there are. It should stay where students have freedom of speech because it opens students up for more opinion in the class and on there work. It also lets students feel like they are not being controlled by someone.