Condemn Beth's Argument Analysis

"Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students."

The court decided that the facts do not simply support the conclusion that the School District could have forecasted a substantial disruption of or material interference with the school as a result of J.S.'s, the perpetrator, profile. Under Tinker, therefore, the School District violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when they suspended her for creating the profile.

Oliver Wendell Holmes High School took part in a community wide health fair. The school set up a booth and asked their students to participate. The teachers gave extra credit to the students that attended the health fair, and the student would have to sign in at the schools booth to verify their attendance. Susie Speeker, a student at Oliver Wendell Holmes High School, attended the fair with her family. While at the community wide health fair, Susie held up a sign which stated marijuana should be legalized for compassionate use. A fellow student that attended the same school as Susie took a picture of her holding the sign and published it in the school newspaper. The principal of the school saw the photo and suspended Susie for violating the schools policy by promoting illegal drugs at a school function. Since Susie’s suspension, she claims that she has been harassed by other students and teachers at her school. Susie claims that her grades have dropped which could result in limited college choices. As a result, Susie claims her civil rights under 42 U.S.C § 1983 were violated.

[A student] may express his [or her] opinions, even on controversial subjects…if he [or she] does so without materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and without colliding with the rights of others. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason – whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior – materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional

On Page 83 Dr. Palleni tells Mrs. Malloy, ”Students cannot break-- cannot make a disturbance in the classroom. Straightforward rule infraction.” AVI In this quote it is shown what rule Philip Malloy had broken. He was creating a disturbance, which is why he was kicked out of the school. OnPage 1 in the memo it says “Please all rise and stand at respectful, silent attention for the playing of our national anthem.” AVI The rule that Philip broke is right on the first page in the memo. Stand at respectful, Silent attention. The rule Philip broke is right in the memo that he was sent most likely when he entered the school. He broke the rule, suspension is deserved. On Page 105 Dr. Seymour says “The answer is no. We do not have such a rule. Absolutely.” AVI This is said by Dr. Seymour while he is speaking to Jennifer Stewart. He is saying that there is no rule against singing the star spangled banner. On Page 111 the conversation states “Ms. Stewart: …. You suspended a student, Philip Malloy, for singing “The Star Spangled Banner”? Dr. Palleni: I did no such thing!” AVI In this quote, Dr. Joseph Palleni is defending himself after he is accused of suspending Philip for signing the national anthem. This shows that Palleni did not suspended Philip Malloy for singing the national anthem. He suspended him for some other reason, for creating a

School boards often do not adequately justify their reasons for denying High School Students their first amendment rights. Usually, the

Historically, legal issues regarding the grading of assignments containing religious material have come to similar decisions. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), a group of students decided to express their views about Vietnam by wearing black armbands to school. Although the district attempted to punish them for this, the Supreme Court ruled that the students were expressing a form of “symbolic speech” and were protected by the First Amendment, as long as it did not disrupt normal school functions. Similarly, expressing views of religion in school is protected if it does not disturb the educational process. According to Haynes and Oliver (2007), students have the right to express religious beliefs “in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions” (p. 65). An educator must

He could say whatever he wanted and that would be protected. But the school could also punish him how they saw fit. They also ruled that his due process rights had not been violated because he had no way of knowing whether or not he would be getting in trouble for his actions due to the school's code of conduct not needing to be as detailed as a criminal code of conduct. I believe that in this instance they made the right decision due to the fact that their reasoning makes sense. The first amendment gives citizens the right to say what they wish and have any opinion that they wish. It does not say that it will protect us from the punishments we may receive by voicing these opinions in an inappropriate way. As for his due process rights, he really had no way of knowing what course the school would take in punishing him, therefore no due process rights could be applied because the code of conduct at the school was not detailed enough for it to work in that

The right to freedom of expression of ones religion is at stake in this case. Mrs. Williams has a right to express her religion freely. However, based upon the Establishment Clause which prohibits any law “respecting the establishment of religion”, she does not have the right to force others to conform to her way of thinking. At the same time, students and community members have a right to express their religion, too. They also have a right not to have another person’s religion forced on them. So there is only one individual right at stake here, but it is not possible to respect this right of behalf of all the claimants. While the majority of the community, the school board, and some students will feel that it is Mrs. Williams’ right to keep the bulletin board posted, some community members, students, and ACLU feel it is their right not to keep it posted.

The suspensions without hearing violate the students' Due Process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The due process clause of the fourteen amendment provides procedural protections, such as notice and a hearing before termination of entitlements.

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

Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his

Unquestionably, Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) argues “[…] the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption” (Morse et. al. v. Frederick, 2006, p. 1). This argument from Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) demonstrates that court recognized it was a First Amendment violation on the school. However, Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) provides the decision from the Supreme Court stating “[…]

They merely exercised their free speech and expressed their ideas in student forum. The school administration should have respected the students’ free speech and ASUCI’s autonomy. Additionally, the administration should have tried to protect students from backlash, even if they did not support the decision. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, “the way to preserve the [American] flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently”.

The subject of student rights has caused a lot of confusion and anger for decades now. There are two different sides that everyone seems to fall into. Some people want the constitutional rights of students to be fully protected within the school. The other side believes that, as a public institution, schools should regulate what is said or done by students to protect everyone involved. This is where it gets confusing, because it is hard to draw the line between what is allowed or not. The three most interesting topics that I chose to cover are a student’s right to free speech, religion within the school and student privacy.