Bethel School District No. 403 V. Fraser Case Study

Bethel School District v. Fraser 478 U.S. 675, involved the Bethel School District and a student named Matthew Fraser. The case dealt with freedom of speech in public schools. During a student government speech Fraser used inappropriate language that included sexual innuendos in order to nominate a fellow classmate. The speech created a rowdy audience of over 600 students. Fraser argued that the school violated his First Amendment rights when they suspended him for his endorsement of a fellow classmate. After being tried and appealed in the Ninth Circuit in 1984, the case found it’s was to the United States Supreme Court in 1986. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and ruled that school officials did NOT violate Fraser’s

In the case of Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, several students in January of 1990 sued the school board alleging that Westside's refusal to allow the students to start a Christian club violated the Equal Access Act. Some students wanted to form this club and be given the same privileges and meeting terms as other after-school schools in this district. The administration initially denied the request, and the school board upheld the administration's decision. The Court of Appeals found in favor of the students in June of 1990.

The following cases are utilized: Pickering v. Board of Education, Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, Connick v. Myers, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeir, and Garcetti v. Ceballos. The case, Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court acknowledged teachers have the right to voice personal views as they relate to issues of public concern (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014). More specifically, “The Pickering case is one of the most influential court cases concerned with the balancing of teacher’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression against the state’s interest in promoting efficient schools” (DeMitchell & DeMitchell, 1990, p 385). If a teachers voices personal views that are damaging to coworkers, school procedures, ones’ occupational performance, and does not directly relate to public concerns there will be grounds for disciplinary actions (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014). This constitutional rights stands both inside and outside of the classroom, as educators can utilize various methods of communication, such as social media, written artifacts, visual relics, and expressive language. In the case, Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier, a teacher’s personal opinion can be expressed within the contours of a classroom when applicable to pedagogical reasons. More specifically, “Reasoning that the teachers was speaking for the school, the court concluded that teachers are not entitled to express views in the classroom that are counter to the adopted curriculum” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 242). If the topic discussed within the classroom is controversial in nature it must be censored, thus deeming appropriate to a youthful audience. In conclusion, it is imperative for educators to ‘think before they speak,’ as their actions can have detrimental impacts on key stakeholders as well as their

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

Citizens in America are born with a various amount of rights. One of these rights include the freedom of speech and expression. However, school administrators have the ability to restrict a student’s expression. The Supreme Court Cases ‘Bethel School District v. Fraser’ and ‘Frederick V. Morse’ gave schools the right for the administrators to discipline children when they see fit. Students should be able to express themselves in any way without fearing that their school administrators will discipline

These errors may have been as a result of SRO being new and not being familiar with school protocol. Also, according to the established due process requirements from Goss v. Lopez (1975), since Truant continued to deny the charges, he should have been able to explain the evidence and given the opportunity to present his version of the events. He was given the opportunity to explain what happened in class, but not for testing positive on the drug test. By his statement it is not clear if he was told that he tested positive for amphetamines. If he does have a diagnosis of ADHD and taking medication, that would explain the positive result of the urine sample. But, since this conversation has not taken place with his parents, this issue remains in question. Since he did indeed test positive this is in violation of Offense #3 (Narcotics, Alcoholic Beverages, and Stimulant Drugs – A student shall not be under the influence of any

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, two Supreme Court justices, Abe Fortas and Hugo Black, give their testimony through writing, in which, Fortas agues in favor of the students and gives valid evidence in order to prove his case. However, Black, while he leans in favor of the schools focuses mainly on his opinion that the decision should be left to the school officials and not the courts.

This article discusses Jane Doe, a Texas high school girl sexually molested by a high school teacher. Jane Doe filed a civil suit against Taylor independent School District. The reasons were, the school board permitted violations of due process and violated her equal protection rights. Jane thoroughly established her constitutional rights and proceeded with her claim. The teacher violated the fourteenth amendment to be free from sexual abuse by a state employed teacher. The court ruled in favor of Doe, stating that there was no action taken in order to prevent the violation of her rights. This case impressed me, it was very interesting. I believe that the teacher violated the student rights and the school failed to properly respond to the claims of molestation. I was also shocked that the school district was not proactive toward Doe needs.

Based on the presented facts, it is the opinion of this writer that the educator’s termination will be upheld and the defendant will win the case. Using Fowler v. Board of Education, 819 F. 2d 657 (1987), as precedent, the actions of the plaintiff caused a substantial disruption to the learning environment. While educators are afforded the right of academic freedom “to speak freely about their subjects, to experiment with new ideas, and to select appropriate teaching materials and methods” (Hillman & Trevaskis, 2014, p. 7-12), one should err on the side of caution, as “great deference is paid to the local board of education since they have the power to determine the curriculum and the materials used”

The second law case, 468 U.S. 883, was documented in the Supreme Court of United States on July 5th, 1984. The case lectured about Amber Tatro, an 8-year-old girl from Texas who was diagnosed with Spina Bifida, and discussed whether the school should provide catheterization service to her during class hours. This was the first case for the Court to define the distinction between “School Health Services” and “Medical Services”.

Tinker v. Des Moines Schools took place in 1969. The historical significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Schools is that the case detailed the rights of students attending public schools. The case originated when five children, four of which were Tinker children and one a friend of the children, wanted to wear black armband to protest the Vietnam War at their school. The administrators on the Des Moines School Board created a policy that required the students to remove the armbands or they would be punished. Three of the five children were suspended from school. In District Court, the court ruled that the Des Moines School Board were justified in their actions.

Justice Ruth Ginsburg’s opinion in a 2009 Supreme Court case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, effectively answers the question. In this case, a 13-year-old girl who had been strip-searched at school by the authorities on suspicion of hiding some ibuprofen pills that may be bought over-the-counter. When her fellow justices expressed that they are not troubled by the search, Ginsburg says, “They have never been a 13-year-old girl. It’s a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn’t think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood.” Her words reveal that women judges bring a new perspective and understanding of the effects of the laws on women and young girls.

I researched the Friedrichs vs California Teachers Assn case which proposes to be a game

A public school student who was named Joseph Fredrick attended Juneau-Douglas High School. He was suspended for displaying a banner saying " Bongs Hits Jesus", at a Olympic Torch Relay that was part of a school activity. Deborah Morse the principal at Juneau-Douglas High School was worried that the sign could be interpreted by people as advocating illegal drugs. Fredrick was then suspended by Deborah Morse for not obeying and violating the schools policy that doesn't allow advocating the use of illegal drugs. Fredrick sued them because he believed it was violating his right to freedom of speech.