Hazelwood V. Kummier Case Summary

Regardless of how the phrase and the autonomy of the First Amendment is challenged, religion and the need to maintain separation of church and state has been a great contest of the United States legal systems. The court system typically will remove itself from decisions within the higher education institution and leave such decisions to the administrators themselves to make the best decision for the organization, unless those topics in question legitimately violate a federal statute or clause related to the Constitution directly (McFarlane, 2012). Therefore, we will examine the application of the First Amendment within higher education.

This document supports limiting online student speech because the court ruled that even though it happened out of school, the school’s reason was strong enough to justify their actions toward K.K.

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.

The ruling in my case was the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bridget. They allowed students to meet on school grounds to discuss

This means that private employers and friends could violate things written in the First Amendment which has created many disagreements. I would like to take this time to point out that the public school system and the state or local government systems go together like peanut butter and jelly. They are interconnected with each other, giving the school system the responsibility of giving the students their First Amendment Rights.

In summarizing the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, it had to do with the respondent’s father who sued candidates, including a school region, affirming that the school locale's approach requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at his little girl's school damaged the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the father had standing and decided for the father. Certiorari was conceded to audit the standing and First Amendment issues.

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision of Warford v. Lexington News-Herald is an example of how the court defined an assistant basketball coach at the University of Pittsburgh as a private figure. Reggie Warford complained about allegations of recruiting improperties that he committed as an assistant basketball coach. The issue at hand was originally posted in the 1985 Lexington Herald, but were reprinted in 1986 under a special NCAA reprint publication entitled 1985: A Year of Crisis in College Athletics. The 1986 publication is the source of the libel dispute.

In closing, Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black both give valid testimony for their side of the argument; however, Fortas’ profusion of cited evidence outweighs Black’s mainly opinionated case. And even though this may seem like just another court case to be cited one day, it can go a long way in protecting students’

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

In 1997, a parent named Ms. Falvo demanded a very specific interpretation of the FERPA law from the Tenth Circuit court (Bennett & Brower, 2001). She had moved into a new district, which incorporated peer-to-peer grading, and then the teacher would have them read their grades allowed in order to record them. After her children came home and complained about being embarrassed, she biased the teacher and complained directly to administration and the superintendent of the district and demanded that this grading policy be changed (Bennett & Brower, 2001). Administration and district officials did not agree with Ms. Falvo citing that many of the peer graded papers were not recorded into the grade book and the students that were embarrassed were able to report their grades in confidence (Bennett &

Due to the student’s suspensions, father’s of students sued Des Moines Independent Community School District. Initially the case was filed in District Court which dismissed the complaint and upheld the schools’ authority to enforce the policy because a fear of a school disturbance would result from the armband protest. The case was then brought to the Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, which considered the case en banc. where the court was divided equally the case was granted certiorari. On

v. New Jersey (1985) was a Supreme Court case that had determined the fate of a young fourteen-year-old girl (for whom T.L.O. was to be her name), was caught by a teacher, smoking in a school bathroom at Piscataway High School in New Jersey. She was sent to the principal’s office, where he had searched her bag and found marijuana inside. She was then arrested, and convicted of selling drugs, but she declared that they had did an illegal search and seizure of the purse. Five years later (it was 1980 when it happened), the case reached the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 ruling, the judges had sided with the school district. Through this, it was an illegal search and seizure, but the court had taken towards the school. They said that the reason why they did was, “legitimate expectations of privacy with the equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place.” This meant that the school officials could do it, but the police couldn’t. They most likely were thinking that schools can be like the parents of children, and take away their belongings inside, and outside the

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.

In Walz Ex Rel. Walz v. Egg Harbor Tp. Bd. Of Education (2002), the Supreme Court ruled Walz’s complaint a dismissal because on three separate grade levels involved distribution of proselytizing pencils and evangelical candy with religious messages, but the school board did not allow it to be distributed in class or during school-sponsored or supervised holiday parties; therefore, Walz alleged the

Following the Hazelwood decision of 1988, school officials such as principles were given the right to censor student publications and practice prior review; reading the articles before they are published. Many school officials fortunately refrain from using their ability to do so. Sadly, nearly one third of journalism students and teachers have reported administrative censorship over their content