Pickering V. Board Of Education Case Study

[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

Alice is justified in not returning to change the grade because the student has to earn the grade, he could have tried to correct it before leaving class. The principal and Alice's colleagues are trying to peer pressure her into doing something that is not beneficial for the student it only benefits the school's reputation. "School authorities should avoid any actions regarding evaluation for dismissal that may be viewed as harassment or intimidation by the affected teacher" (Essex, 2012, p. 267). Alice is protected by tenure for this type of situation, it is restated that tenure "protects teachers from well-connected parents who may push their own children’s interests to the detriment of others" (DeMitchell & Onosko, 2016, p. 4-5), which is similar to this case.

In the Emerson v. Board of Education Case New Jersey passed a law authorizing local school boards to provide transportation of children to and from school. The Board of Education of Ewing Township, following this law, authorized reimbursement to parents of money spent by their children on public buses. However, Arch Everson, a resident and taxpayer in the Ewing Township school district, learned that a reimbursement was going to parents who sent their children to Catholic schools as well. He then claimed that this money supported religion and violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Ultimately, the court ruled that the new law was not in violation of the establishment clause.

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

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.

It can be concluded Teachers are held to a higher standard then non-educational occupations, as “The Supreme Court has acknowledged that a “teacher serves as a role model for…students exerting a subtle but important influence over their perceptions and values” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 251). Teachers must be conscious to the ideology their actions, words, and mannerism can directly influence their student audience. The 1st amendment freedom of expression offers protection to teachers as it applies to the following clause, “Public employees’ comments on matters of public concern are protected expression if they are made as a citizen and not pursuant to official job duties” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 233).

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

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

As an educator, it is extremely important to know educational policies. On top of the knowledge, it is also imperative to respect the rights granted to students in the democratic society. Attached above is an article, published by the first amendment center, regarding how the first amendment is employed within public schools. The first topic in the article is titled speaking out in school. Here I learned that the school cannot limit the student’s freedom of speech, unless it is hindering the environment to learn, and even then, there is a lot of grey area. Here the school must be able to provide substantial evidence that the student’s writing, speech, or expression would cause great disruption. This also ties directly into school dress code and uniforms required by the school corporation. Students, in many

An educational assistant filed a formal grievance against another teacher that stemmed from a situation that was taking place after school hours. Two teachers were engaging in a sexual relationship outside of school and the female teacher found out the male teacher was also pursuing a similar relationship with the educational assistant. While the activities were taking place outside of school, the consequences spilled over into the school day causing a disruption. The assistant accused the teacher of bullying her at school and in front of the students as she was shouting at her in the hallway. The grievance was filed to the school administrator, which he in turn sent it over to human resources to investigate. The matter was eventually

Some school officials might think that students should not have a total right to free speech. They can fight that you can’t take away that right because the First Amendment states that you have the freedom of speech or expressing yourself as long as you don't take away someone else's rights. Then you have a problem because the First Amendment won’t support or save that right. But there is no such reason to disagree or disapprove. However, everyone has a right of free speech, as long as you don’t violate anybody else's

The others stakeholders in this case are the community that the school resides in and the students that Miss Loring teachers. The community is a conservative one that Mr. Endicott admits would have a huge issue with Miss Loring teaching their children if it was found out about her secondary job. The overall questions revolves around if the educational disruption that might be caused by the community finding out about Miss Loring’s job out weighs her right to individual

The ethical issues presented by this situation are primarily related to free speech. Does anyone have more of a free speech right than another? It appears sides have been taken by specific groups, but any decision will affect the entire university. The

Schools are not public forums where the freedom of speech would be as protected as they would if they were in a park or other grounds. Schools have the right to set a precedent that is condusive to learning for all who are within their walls.

In our everyday lives, the 1st amendment -freedom of speech- is a fundamental right. Free speech gives us the power to express solely who we are, and it protects individuals from losing this right. Nonetheless, free speech can be limited under some circumstances. For instance, free speech can be limited at schools if the speech impacts students to learn in a safe environment. During World War II, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which made it a crime for any person to convey a message which interfered with the war effort. In the case of Schenck vs U.S., Schenck had lost his case because his 1st amendment didn’t protect him from using obstructive speech. Despite this limitation, free speech has its positive consequences. It encourages the flow of new ideas among people and can better represent groups with similar and differing opinions and beliefs in our society. Therefore, for a school to serve the community effectively, the 1st amendment is significantly more crucial and should be a limitation on government power.