“The end justifies the means,” is a saying that almost everyone stumbles across at least once in their lives, but does anybody really stop to think about the actual meaning of it? Well, its technical definition would be that the end result excuses whatever was done to achieve it. So the next question would be, is that all this statement means? No. This saying is a simple way of stating that if there is a reason for what you do, a fight to achieve something, the treachery and torture that you endure and enforce is balanced by meeting the goal. A perfect example of the truth in this sentence is the movie Lean On Me, in which a hot-headed principal desperately struggles to regain control of Eastwood High School, and return it to it’s former state …show more content…
Under normal circumstances, it is, especially if taking away that right invokes danger. But the initial situation of Lean On Me would not fall into the category of “normal circumstances.” In fact, it could be categorized as quite desperate. That is why, although it enraged the fire department and the school board, when Joe Clark chained the doors to keep students from letting the wrong type of people into the school, the decision was justified. Now it can not be denied that chaining the doors was a fire hazard. It is a simple fact, which Joe Clark was completely aware of, but the choice to do so was not unwarranted. The school was facing a more immediate danger than a potential school fire; drug dealers, gang members, and disgruntled former students. An ex-student beat up a current student, and pulled a knife on Joe, so Joe took …show more content…
This was completely unacceptable in the eyes of the students, their parents, and many others. It could even be argued that this was a violation of the right to an education. Yet Joe Clark did not make this decision lightly. He did not pick 300 random students and kick them out, He made sure that all of the students he expelled were the students that were the root causes of trouble in the school, and that none of them were being expelled without reason. The students that were expelled were the main influence that caused the rest of the students to behave so poorly, and after they had been expelled, the entire school saw improvements, Even if these students had stayed, they wouldn't have graduated, and would have failed all of their courses anyway. Joe Clark also showed his consideration in this decision by listening to Sams’ story, and letting him back into the school, so long as he stayed on the straight and narrow. This showed that Clark saw the necessity of this action, and was wholeheartedly willing to
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
Should a school be able to censor their students? This question has reached the supreme court multiple times, such as in this case, or in Tinker vs. Des Moines. While restricting a freedom may be annoying, it can be necessary, but when is it dictatorship, and when is it necessary? That is what is questioned in this court case. The U.S. Supreme Court had a difficult decision in the court case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier, and they were right in their ruling, because even though censorship is often overused, in the classroom, it is often needed, and though the fear of a dictatorship in any place is often scary, it is needed in a classroom full of rowdy minors, even in my experience many of my classmates have inappropriate outbursts.
[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
Yelling, name calling and humiliation, these are just some of the things that Joe Clark had done to transform teachers who were once looked down upon by students to people that they now look up to. Through harsh methods Joe Clark was able to change teacher that once had no control over their students to people who are now looked up to, but in-order to change them he had to do more than just give them respect they had to earn it and work hard to earn it by changing how they behaved with their students. From the evidence shown it can be said that Joe Clark like his teachers to act quickly and on command thus preparing them to act quickly without notification if something were to happen in the school that would require their immediate attention. From one of Joe Clark’s quotes he states that, “Discipline establishes the format, the environment for academic achievement to occur”, meaning that without a firm hand of authority in a high position of a school, teachers will not act to their full potential because they will feel
To avoid disturbance and disruption and to create and maintain a safe learning environment, public schools often adopt policies that forbid certain acts on the part of students. Included in many of these policies are prohibitions on hate speech. The opinion of the court in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) broadly stated that students retain their first amendment rights when they enter the school, but the breadth of that statement is not without limit. Schools may narrowly curtail free speech rights to the extent necessary to maintain good
Freedom of Expression is a right that all Americans can joy on a daily basis, now imagine if it were a controlled right? That doesn’t make it a right, more so something that we can use when the government says so. In November of 1968, 4 students organized a silent protest against the US policies in Vietnam, which ended with suspension from their local schools. The issue was brought up in court, which led to split consensus. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court was that the expression of speech couldn’t be prohibited unless it was a disruption and harmed the rights of others. The dissent opinion stated that if freedom of speech was without a limit to an extent, who says it could lead to school being a platform for the exercise of free speech instead of education. The argument came to the conclusion of defining the rights and freedom of speech for children in school. I agree with the majority opinion, seeing the freedom of expression shouldn’t be controlled and such.
School boards often do not adequately justify their reasons for denying High School Students their first amendment rights. Usually, the
Neither should they say irresponsible statements to purposely harm others. This amendment gives The freedom of speech enables people to state their opinions openly and try to convince others to change their minds, but it doesn’t prevent social of peer pressure to conform to what others think. The freedom of speech also does not include making or distributing obscene materials, burning draft cards as an anti-war protest, students making obscene speeches at a school-sponsored event, or the ability for students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. It also does not permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school
Ever since the first school shooting, a lot of people have changed their beliefs on this subject. I was in eighth grade when the shooting at Columbine High School took place. Before that shooting, I never would have considered something like that happening. Now, it is seventeen years later and school shootings almost seem like an everyday thing. That is sad, but it is true. This is why I believe a student should not have a high expectation of privacy while at school. The law used to be more lenient, but these circumstances have changed that. Right after Columbine, a lot of states had a zero tolerance law. According to the Center for Public Education site, this law said that if a student was caught with contraband they were given a strict punishment, no matter what the circumstance was. The laws have changed some over the last few years, and are not quite as strict as that. The schools still have to ensure that every student is safe, though. It is common for schools to have metal detectors or bring in dogs on a regular basis. Once they have a reason to suspect a student, they have the right to search their belongings. I believe this is well within their rights as administrators who are trying to protect the school as a whole. I realize that students may feel violated, I have been there. It was always an inconvenience to have to sit outside the hallways while the dogs searched each room. I never felt like it was wrong when they did find something though. So many students would bring large amounts of drugs, guns and knives to school. If it weren’t for the measures that the school took they would just be walking around with these items. I hope these laws never change, and my kids have the same protection that I did. I would hate to imagine my child going to school with guns and drugs within an arm’s reach. I believe the issue of student’s privacy is one that many people can agree with each other on.
In the visual text Stand by Me directed by Rob Reiner an important theme is growing up, Maturing, experienced new emotions, and the importance of friendship.These themes are portrayed by four young boys.thourgh their risky mission they have unlifted.Rob Reiner using a variety of techniques to show their experience that led them through a life-changing and metaphorical journey.
Everyone in America should be guaranteed the freedom of speech granted by The Constitution. In 1988, the court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier that schools \could limit freedom of speech in school if they had “educational concerns” (Jacobs). The problem is that “educational concerns” is too vague and school districts are able to use this as a loophole to get away with removing articles that do not need to be removed. Often, the concern is based on perception and image more than anything else. Angela Riley’s article “20 years later: Teachers reflect on Supreme Court’s Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ruling” quotes Frank LoMonte, executive director of
“Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...”. This is what our first amendment speaks about. The freedom of speech and expression. Schools have been violating this law in the place of school dress codes. There should not be a dress code in school because it violates the first amendment, they do not support creativity and they are expensive.
Does a beetle’s death require as much thoughtful consideration as a human’s? Is a beetle only less significant as a human due to the contrasting proportions? Does size matter at all? A dead beetle lies on a path through a field and is meditated on for only a glance. The passing person then continues the right of way. Wislawa Szymborska attempts to change our ideas of death to comprehend that even small things are relevant as shown in the poem, ‘Seen From Above,’ by utilizing the imagery of the dead beetle, through claiming death’s metaphorical right of way, and with the contrast of a deceased human and a dead animal.
The intent of the Fourth Amendment is to guarantee security against unreasonable governmental searches. Because school officials are actually
The state and town passed laws and ordinances as the school year drew near in order to keep the school from integrating. Even the state governor refused for the desegregation process to happen without resistance. Some blacks also opposed the desegregation for fear of future repercussions. The nine brave students, however, refused to be stopped.