Mr. Flemming's Case Summary

I have supported the dominant part assessment of this choice because of the way that the school had supported the daily paper. I trust this gives the school the correct motivations to evacuate the pages, and the way of the articles doesn't help the case much either. These articles most unquestionably would have been an ungainliness and extremely diverting to the understudies too. Since these articles had sullied the rights and prosperity of others, it was of everyone's highest intrigue the articles were evacuated. I agreed with a slacked understanding in this circumstance. Although understudies hold rights, some of the time there is a circumstance where particular rights ought to be controlled to stay away from interruptions inside

In the pursuit of education, students strive to learn and develop their understanding of the world that surrounds them. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of the school administration to provide the means to that end. Yet, there is a polarized divide among schools and their interpretation of freedom of speech. This occurrence is experienced primarily at the university level but can be seen at all levels of education. At the epicenter of this dispute is the notion of censorship, specifically whether or not it is feasible to restrict what can and cannot be said by faculty and students alike. Advocates of freedom of speech assert that censorship violates our First Amendment right, a liberty that is inalienable. Proponents also argue that

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.

According to Essex (2006), one of the requirements placed on schools is that they remain viewpoint neutral. This means that if the literature was suppressed because it was religious in nature, the suppression violated her First Amendment rights, even in the school setting. In all court cases, the real message has been that schools are responsible for making sure parents and students are aware that the schools are merely sending messages indiscriminately from religious and non-secular sources and that they are not in support of any of them (Essex, 2006). Really the essence of the article is that sound policies must be in place, well documented, and consistently followed for a school to be able to regulate what a student says or distributes and there must be no endorsement of any particular ideas from any group or student.

Moreover, Bok cannot be considered as a credible source simply because of his familiarity with Harvard University. Although he was educated and served as president of Harvard, one cannot deem him an expert on the topic of freedom of expression. Bok does not make a single reference to any work he has completed that would make him any more qualified, to speak about this topic, than any other person. On the other hand, Bok successfully incorporates both sides of the argument and attempted to explain why his way of going about the issue was the most beneficial overall. For example, he describes the incident as “a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community based on mutual respect.” With this, he refers to people’s desire to say what they please while keeping it appropriate for anyone to hear. The reader is convinced by his reference to both sides of the argument. Further, he goes into detail regarding why people should and should not regulate or restrict their First Amendment rights. In turn, the reader is slightly convinced of the author’s argument because he accurately conveyed the positions of whom he disagrees with.

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

The motivational approach Mr. Ferrell is using is intrinsic reward. Because of the personal satisfaction, he has. He follows the rules of Right-Way super market which lead him to believe he is making an significant contribution to this organization (pg.296). Which he seems to think means he does not need to listen to his employees. Mr. Ferrell exhibits elements of scientific management. He sees Amy as more of a machine than a human being there to work not to suggest concepts for a business, he’s worked at longer. Whereas, I would use extrinsic rewards as a motivation. This ensures that an employee knows they are appreciated it can be as simple as telling them what a good job or in this case listening to an employee’s ideas.

4- The committee and Ms Beckel decided to include a religious studies curriculum in the program. The principal approved of it. However, Ms Wright one of the community members did not. She threatened to show up at the committee meeting with the media. On the day of the meeting, Ms Wright showed up with a placard protesting the use of the bible in public schools.

In 1969, a group of students filed a lawsuit against their school district claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated because the school district wrote a policy that prohibited them from wearing black armbands in a silent protest of the Vietnam War. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) ruled that students are entitled to their First Amendment rights as long as they are not causing a disruption to the school environment. This paper outlines the procedure and rulings in the case as well as other legal rulings that have expanded on when censorship of students is protected in public school settings as well as provides a personal reflection on how such matters can impact my future as a school administrator.

Was Fred Doyle’s First Amendment rights violated when Mount Healthy City Public Schools refused to renew his teaching contract due to contacting the radio station and sharing school news

John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Echardt all attended the same public school. They decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. They were asked by the school to remove the armbands but the kids refused to do so. This resulted in the suspension of all three students. Through their guardians, the scholars sued the school region for infringing the scholar’s right of expression and looked for a directive to keep the school from suspending them. The Tinkers took to court. The Tinkers claimed that they were suspended for essentially expressing their views on the war. They thought this move made by the school

Although the book was challenged nearly seventeen years ago, the school district suffers their own form of injustice in today’s community; problems that would have impacted the challenging even more, are just now being brought to the surface. The hate crimes were no different, these acts of violence and intolerance put the safety of the high school on the line. One day a student found a swastika drawn in a bathroom of Paul Schreiber high school, students in the community don’t tolerate that kind of behavior “hate does not represent who were are, or who we are meant to be as a community,” (McAtee 1). The book being challenged was the board’s way of deflecting these kinds of actions from happening, ultimately they happen anyway. Just last year, a bomb threat was made at the local high school. The bomb threat was notified and police increased to safely watch the schools in the area. It was classified as an “unconfirmed and unrealistic” bomb threat, but nonetheless, the police came to protect anyway. The students don’t want this kind of behavior in their schools as well as board members. The Board was not just looking at the time of the present, but wanted to ensure the safety of the students that had yet to come. Banning a book does not change what goes on outside the pages of a book.Violence is in everyday society, there’s no stopping

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 “[…]

A group of student created “The Spectrum” and 2 pages of “The Spectrum” contain stories of of divorce and teen pregnancy. These stories were controversial because not everyone had the same opinion about them. Especially the principal who thought the 2 pages of the newspaper was inappropriate so he censored them. This caused outraged because the student thought that the principal’s action violated the 1st Amendment which is their freedom