Westside Community Schools Case Study

However, this case had caused the immediate confrontation of the California Supreme Court. They declared the admission to be unlawful and, they enjoined the school from considering the race of an applicant. This showed that Supreme Court contributed in trying to take part of the civil rights movement and the experience would influence other places to prohibit it from happening again. Until now, they would be allowing discrimination when accepting applicants into certain colleges. It also showed that they took charge in not allowing segregation and treating everyone with equal treatment.

The plaintiffs represented Lemon who had a child in a Pennsylvania public school believing that there was a violation of the separation of church and state. “In Rhode Island, the plaintiffs argued that it went against the Establishment Clause. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs agreeing that there was indeed a violation of the First Amendment” (Lemon v. Kurtzman,

Constitution. The First Amendment contains two clauses regarding religion’s role in government, the Establishment Clause which prohibits the government from establishing a national religion, and the Free Exercise Clause protects citizens right to practice whichever religion they please (as long it doesn’t violate government laws) (First Amendment). Many do not seem to comprehend that forcing a person to perform a ritual linked to or acknowledge the existence of someone else’s deity is equivalent to hindering their rights to or freedom of religious practices and systems. Children and teenagers have blindly underlined the belief that America is set under a Christian god or, more generally, a deity from a realm of monotheistic religions. “‘One nation under God’ is indisputably a statement of religious belief.

“Forrest Gump” by Winston Groom Forrest Gump was banned in 1999 at the Bay Point School in South Dade County, according to “The Pennsylvania Center”. It has been banned for the following reasons: “pokes fun at blacks”, uses explicit language, and has sexual content. While I can see why the book was banned, I don’t think it should be. Students should have the freedom to read what they please. Just because a book has racial slurs, doesn’t mean it should be banned.

Conversion Therapy Although many people have strong convictions against gay people, sometimes leading parents to attempt to change their children’s sexual orientation, it should be banned on a national level for parents to be able to force their children under the age of 18 into conversion therapy because it is unconstitutional, it evidently damages the child's wellbeing, and the methods have never even been proven by credible research. Members of the ex-gay (anti-LGBT) movement argue that banning reparative therapy is an infringement on the rights to freedom of speech and religion, while parents following this movement have similar feelings and believe that putting their child through conversion therapy will help them be ridded of an "unwanted

Pupils were told to remove items that they wore as a result of the school decreeing students to comply. Tinker was an individual who inflexibly decided that wearing an armband to school was a quintessential way to silently fulminate the armistice of the Vietnam War. The pupils wore black armbands to school and were enjoined to remove them forthwith, and they should. The reason that the pupils should remove the redundant article is that the action was uncalled for, and they were interrupting the disciplinary rules of the school. Although pupils are empowered with the ability to wear items that impart a political message, pupils are not supposed to impede events going on in the world.

Affirmative action was first proposed by Vice President Richard Nixon in 1959, and would be expanded upon during the civil rights era in the 1960s to end discrimination, and be away for white people to atone for what they had done to minorities in the past. Affirmative action allows minorities who are stricken by poverty to be accepted into school that they would otherwise not be. Thought this program had good intentions and heart, in reality it would only cause discrimination to become worse. Affirmative actions must be abandoned due to the negative impact it has on our colleges. There are a lot of arguments that defend the use of affirmative action and advocate its effect on college campuses.

Freedom of speech is explicitly guaranteed as a right to citizens in the First Amendment. It is true, though, that over the course of history, various limitations and exceptions have been put on these rights. One of the most well-known is the case of Schenck v. U.S. in 1919, which established that speech that presents a clear and present danger is not protected. Various other cases have also established that speech that incites crime or presents obscene material that violates the values of society are also prohibited. 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.

Horace Mann acknowledged many arguments made against common school reform during his tenth and twelfth annual reports to the Massachusetts Board of Education. Two of these oppositions included fear of religious division and concern of unwelcomed government involvement. In his advocacy for universal public education, Mann counteracted such disputes by insuring religion to be a private matter and government involvement to be a beneficial necessity for the common good. Resisters of common school reform accused supporters (including Mann) of introducing an “irreligious and anti-Christian” system and wanting to exclude religion from public education, while taking away religious authority and influence (Mann, 1848). Mann acknowledged these grave

In a court case a judge Lawrence Karlton “He states that the phrase ‘under God’ violates the children's right to be ‘free from a coercive requirement to affirm God’” (CNN). This shows that the Pledge is putting kids in an environment that might go against his/her believes. And according to Under God, “A surprising number of Americans nonetheless felt that the judges had a good point-that the reference to God in the pledge was an inappropriate endorsement of religion on the part of the government.”(Piereson). The government, by having students say the Pledge isn’t fair because it endorse or support religions with God, and not acknowledging the religions that don’t believe in

(2) Background Information As well as the lawsuit filed by Alton Lemon, this incident involved two other cases that fell under the same issue, Earley v. DiCenso and Robinson v. DisCenso. Both conflicts involved a state law passed, through the Non- public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968, by the state of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. This act gave the government permission to fund religious based or parochial schools. Although the schools provided textbooks and instructional materials for secular subjects, a Pennsylvania instructor believed that this act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Lemon argued that that by providing this money

The one that he particularly disagrees with is the direct/indirect distinction espoused by Justice O’Connor and four other justices. As Perry puts it, “I cannot fathom why it should make a constitutional difference that voucher money goes directly to a parent, who then gives it to the school, rather than directly to the school, upon certification that an eligible child has enrolled there” (10). Perry views both of these cases as constitutionally identical. He is wrong. In a later case (Ohio Pilot Project) that Perry himself brings up, Justice O’Connor endorsed a school voucher program that had the voucher “checks are mailed to the school selected by the parents, where the parents are required to endorse the checks over to the school in order to pay tuition” (10).

The statement was false and the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional to cause false danger. The supreme court said “ the convictions of the defendant for conspiring to violate certain federal statutes by attempting to incite subordination in the armed forces.” People now can 't make false accusations that will cause danger, it 's illegal. This man uses the first amendment in a harmful way causing attention to the case. Another case that the supreme court reviewed was “West Virginia State Board of Education V. Barnette” (1943 where in West Virginia the school board requires the students at school to salute the flag. The Barnette children were jehovah witnesses and saluting to the flag went against their religious beliefs.