In this case, Augusta State University counseling student Jennifer Keeton expressed desires to refuse treatment of LGBT patients and subject them to conversion therapy, and then refused to go through a remediation course required by the university. Keeton was then dismissed, and the court case ruled that the university she was at did not violate her First Amendment rights (Lambda Legal). Keeton was dismissed because of her refusal to set aside her personal beliefs, and her refusal to counsel LGBT clients. Barbara Herlihy explains, "the faculty relied on professional codes of ethics and accreditation standards in determining that the students were engaging in unacceptable discriminatory behavior” (pg. 151).
In Loco Parentis Restricting Student’s Autonomy The Latin phrase “in loco parentis,” which in Latin directly translates to “in the place of a parent,” refers to American universities controlling their student’s actions through discriminatory restraints (Lee 2011, 66). Universities and colleges during the 1960s were regulating student’s personal lives through administrative rules and would take disciplinary action, like expulsion, if broken. “From the mid-1800s through the late 1950s”, courts supported universities acting “in loco parentis” in respects to their students (Lee 2011, 66). Higher educational intuitions where not necessary acting how parents would; they where not honoring students for their academic achievements, but rather they
Shiell, the author of “Campus Hate Speech on Trial,” opposes speech codes on campus and insists the importance of a university to “distinguish genuine harassment from mere offensiveness” (169). In order to achieve equality, a university must adopt “educational and economic measures” instead of imposing punishments due to the fact that educating has a better result in the long run (169). Also, universities must make sure that due process rights are under the protection, meaning that you might not be sinful although you are accused of disobeying speech regulations (169). Shiell believes that universities should come up with some policies that are concentrated on conduct rather than speech since speech is tolerable but not the action (169). Even if a university must set up rules to regulate, it should regulate speech that is a “targeted, intentional, repeated verbal abuse serving no legitimate academic purpose” (171).
This is yet another true and respectable reason of why Americans should not let any group take away the standpoint of making the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance mandatory. A final argument for the why the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance should be mandatory in school is because making all student across America recite the Pledge of Allegiance is not and should not be a forceful action. Instead, it is and should be a simple statement of patriotism (Kurlander). The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a baptist minister and christian socialist by the name of Francis Bellamy. Bellamy’s pledge was published to commemorate the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus
Fisher, but they held the the Court of Appeals did not hold the University’s admission policies to a standard of strict scrutiny so the judgement was incorrect. In previous judicial precedent in cases dealing with minority admissions, the Court has held that they are reviewable under the fourteenth amendment, these such cases must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny to determine whether the policies are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. If the policy does not meet this standard, then race can not be considered in any admissions process. The Court stated the it was the job of the reviewing court to verify that the University policy in question was necessary to achieve a more diverse student body and the any race-neutral alternative would not achieve the same level of diversity.The Supreme Court said the lower courts did not conduct a sufficient strict scrutiny examination in this case. Justice Ruth Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion in which she argued the the University treats race as merely one factor in the overall decision to admit a student, which is permissible under previous judicial precedent.
The Court decided that holding such a requirement places the state of Maryland firmly on the side of those people who believe in God and are willing to state their belief. The First Amendment expressly prohibits a state from taking this position. Although the candidate has the option of not pursuing public office rather than declaring a belief in God, the test is an unconstitutional encroachment on the
Constitutionalist do not support ending the life of an unborn regardless of whether it was an assault. Constitutionalist believe that the U.S borders should be monitored to prevent immigrants to enter. They also are against illegal drugs and would want to have restrictions on them. They also support religious expression. They support Christian schools and allow equal rights to pray and learn about their beliefs.
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
Such crucial decisions may concern faith, moral values, political affiliation, marriage, procreation, or death. The federal constitution guarantees the right of individuals to make these decisions according to their own conscience and beliefs. The government is not constitutionally permitted to regulate such deeply personal matters. The right of privacy protected by the Constitution gained a foothold in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. (1965), in which the Supreme Court struck down a state statute forbidding married adults from using birth control because the statute violated the sanctity of the marital bedroom. Acknowledging that the Constitution does not mention the word privacy anywhere in its text, the Court held that a general right to privacy may be inferred from the express language of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as from the interests protected by them.
Although the Good News Club claims that they are being discriminated for their opinions, this case raises the issue of a government run public school explicitly supporting religion. Both the District Court of New York as well as the Court of Appeals hold that the public school’s religious discrimination was constitutional because there is no separation between religion and the activities of the Good News Club. Despite the lower court's rulings the Supreme Court holds that the school created unconstitutional religious discrimination since religious groups may not be excluded from participating in a limited public forum, as long as the group is only performing permitted activities from a religious viewpoint. This case follows the both the narrow and literal interpretation of the Establishment Clause, which follow the belief that the government is simply not able to declare a national religion or provide government preferential support to a religion. On the other hand, supporters of Jefferson and Madison’s ideal on the wall of separation between church and state would favor that exclusion.
“Ever since the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) became a federal law in 1996, gay advocates have been trying to remove any restrictions from this law and pass same sex marriage as a whole.” (Examiner.com 2006-2015). These advocates wanted this law to pass not only within the state they reside in, but nationwide. During this time, same sex marriage was looked down upon. America is supposed to be the land of the free. How are we free if we can’t marry who we want?
Based on a serious of previous cases, the First Amendment rights of freedom association and speech should apply to college students on a university campus as it does in any other public forum. Therefore, the university should not impose excessive restrictions on students’ expression of these rights, and, if done so, the university should have accurate and applicable justification as to why it must limit these rights. The Healy court held that the First Amendment does, “…authorize advocacy, group activities, and espousal of change. Purposes must be drawn between advocacy, which is entitled to full protection, and action, which is not. Petitioners may, if they so choose, preach the propriety of amending or even doing away with any or all campus
The RFRA prohibits the government from substantially burdening religious free exercise unless it must do so to further a compelling government interest. Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell referenced RFRA, as the corporation believed that the health-insurance coverage they were mandated to provide to their employers violated “their sincerely held religious beliefs.” (Hobby Lobby, 1). Hobby Lobby is a family-owned corporation that believes that providing contraception is morally wrong. Similarly, Bridges, the sole owner of the Paradise Found corporation, subscribes to a religion of which a primary tenet is that polygynous marriage, specifically marriage of one man to multiple women, is a mechanism of expressing strongly held religious convictions. Therefore, Bridges is attempting to align his argument with that of the Hobby Lobby