Education Vs Doyle

In this case two students who were female where smoking in the laboratory. When caught one of the students admitted to smoking as for the other she denied when asked to search her purse she denied so instead the vice principal still searched and found the cigarettes and rolling paper. When digging deeper he found little amounts of marijuana and a pipe zip lock bags and a card with many of

[The educator] Shall not on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, marital status, political or religious beliefs, family, social or cultural background, or sexual orientation, unfairly:

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.

If Phillip Malloy had sued the schools the school would have won. There were plenty of witnesses telling of what Philip did, and plenty of examples of why Philip was wrong.

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

In the article, Education and Schooling: You Can Have One Without the Other, Mwalimu J. Shujaa of the State University of New York discusses the importance of learning that there is a difference between schooling and education. Can education exist without schooling or vice versa? Shujaa’s article gives an insight into the conjunction of schooling and education and how they impact the culture of African Americans.

Although the superintendent has the authority to hire and fire teachers, it would be within his best interest to do so based on appropriate legal footing rather than personal bias. The superintendent’s recommendations for Barnhart’s change of employment appears to be grounded in bias. From the beginning he was a dubious supporter of Barnhart as athletic director. He has no proof that she contacted the reporter so is basing his decision on the weak legal footing of assumption. Understandably, he is doing so to balance teacher rights and promoting harmony within the work place which ultimately supports student learning. Several court cases provide guide lines for achieving this balance. The cases of Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) and Connick v. Myers (1983) developed a two pronged test to check the balance. First, does the speech address matters of public concern? Assuming Barnhart did contact the reporter, yes, the information is a matter of public concern since it involves Title IX, a federal civil law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education activities. It is a federal law that high schools treat boys’ and girls’ sports equally. Also, can Burnhart demonstrate her speech interest outweigh the harmony of the district leadership? Again, yes, the speech is not affecting her immediate supervisor, principal Tara Hills as supported by Fales v. Garst

The meeting continued with board member Jason Hopp presenting Dr. Matthew Flannery, formerly the principal of Shiloh Hills Elementary School, for a roll call vote to approve him as the new Assistant Superintendent of the WIlson School District. Mr. Hopp spoke for approximately two minutes about the credentials, reputation, and record of quality performance that Dr. Flannery has documented during his time with the district. A five-year contract was approved on an 8-1 vote, with Mr. Martin voting “no”. It may be worth observing that Mr. Martin is known as the “no man” of the current board, and often tows one of the more conservative lines of all board members. One can speculate that he may have felt

The Plaintiff contends that Baylor’s knowledge of the potential threat Elliott and other student-athletes posed as well as their deliberate lack of concern subjected her to an increased risk of being sexually assaulted. Specifically, Hernandez alleges that the university failed to address and intentionally concealed the sexual violence committed by football players for several years; the Plaintiff also states that Baylor’s staff was directly and repeatedly told about the sexual assaults committed

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

Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers were put in a very tough and uncomfortable situation, as principle and vice principal, when Ann Griffin made a racial comment. Watts and Brothers administered a primarily African American school. Ann Griffin is a Caucasian teacher who made a racial remark to the principle, Freddie Watts, and vice principal, Jimmy Brothers, of the school she was administered to. She stated that she, “hated all black folks.” This required them to question her ability to perform her job correctly without having a racial bias towards black students. A decision must be made regarding her removal. Ann Griffin does have the right to free speech however, discrimination could also effect her students in a negative way.

In order to prove Thomas liable in this situation, there would have to be evidence of proximate cause (Essex, 2016). The student, or student’s family, would need to be able to prove that there is a relationship between the principal’s breach of duty, and the injury the student suffered (Essex, 2016). I have dedicated the remainder of this paragraph to describing the ways in which Thomas may be in breach of his duty. Thomas has the responsibility as the school principal to ensure that Homewood High School has highly qualified teachers. It is his responsibility to recommend to the board the person best suited for the

In 1974, Dwight Lopez and eight students were suspended for 10 days on behalf of destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment at Central High School in Columbus, Ohio. Lopez testified he was a bystander and he was innocent. In addition, Lopez testified approximately 75 other students were suspended as well. Lopez claimed his suspension without a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. During this action, the principals did not perform hearings for none of the affected students before ordering the suspensions. Due to the students not given a hearing, the principals’ actions were challenged and a class-action suit was filed asking for declaratory and injunctive

James Loudermill was dismissed from his job as a security guard for the Cleveland Board of Education for failing to disclose a prior felony conviction on his application. Loudermill, a classified civil servant under Ohio law, filed an appeal with the civil service commission stating Ohio statue provided he could only be terminated for cause; therefore, he was entitled to administrative review of his dismissal. Nine months after the appeal was filed the Commission upheld his termination. Loudermill filed suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging the Ohio statute that provided for administrative review of a discharged public employee was unconstitutional on its face because it did not provide an opportunity for the employee to respond to the charges against him prior to being discharged. The suit also alleged the Ohio statute was unconstitutional as applied because he was not given a prompt appeal hearing by the Civil Service

To sum, the case is about an advertising the newspaper included some inaccurate story about the civic leaders, civil right events, and Sullivan. Sullivan (a public official) believed that the defamatory comments that were made of him were making a negative impact on his life, thus he sued the New York times. The court in Alabama at the time ruled “The law … implies legal injury from bare facts of publication itself, falsity and malice are presumed, general damages no need to presume.” Thus, the court from Alabama gave Sullivan a compensation of five hundred thousand dollars. New York times decided to take this case to the supreme court because they believe their 1st amendment rights were being violated. Therefore, a new question arose whether the first amendment protects defamatory, false statements concerning public officials? The court ruled that the 1st amendment does protect the publication of all statements, even false ones, concerning the conduct of a public official except when the statement was made with actual malice. Once again, we notice the irony of freedom of speech the issue is citizens are not informed that under the 1st amendment there is sufficient rights guarantee. It is not solely having the right to express our emotions towards the government, it is to expose information to citizens and have the citizens decided for themselves. Democracy does not work if the government or public official try to hide information from its citizens. Democracy function when there is a clear majority of press that expose the truth and allow people to determine what the issue is. Press must be able to protect us against an overreaching government. Sometimes executive power tries to control the press because they do not want to inform the truth about that for example the Watergates scandal, Edward Snowden, Wiki leaks and