School Law Module Three Reading Reflection Essay

1) Since the injured plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt, why is Ford being sued for failing to test the seatbelt sleeve?

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.

Dress codes violate the first amendment. Students should have the ability to express themselves as it is their right to do so, but schools are prohibiting them from being able to express themselves. In the article Are Student Dress Codes a Violation of Civil Rights, Yates Kimberly claims, “If a school district can show that political

Yet, in 1999, when Serrano High School first banned the wearing of clothes with certain colors because they were feared to be "gang-related", the students had no choice but to comply. While the School Board does retain the right to censor some forms of expression because they are inappropriate in language or may cause a disruption to the learning process, the idea that students are not allowed to wear clothes because of their color begins to push the envelope. In 2003 the school board took this a step further and banned any hat with a logo other than the schools logo on it because of the prevalence of hats with inappropriate logos on them that might be gang-related or have a double-meaning. However, this reasoning was never justified with any event or occurrence that would prove these hats were becoming an issue of security for the students. Often times, the only form of expression a High School age student has is the clothing they wear, and the banning of their selection of clothing without giving justification is equivalent to restricting any other form of free speech without justification. The fact that school boards only vaguely justify their reasons for certain dress code restrictions is enough to warrant a reasoned inquiry by the students into why their speech is being suppressed.

Censorship cases often bring about debates over students’ first amendment rights. Students’ first amendment rights are important to preserve so that students can not be excluded from meaningful works or literature. It is understandable for the government to design educational plans as a way to get its voice into classrooms, but “the truth-promoting function of the First Amendment provides no reason, however, to question the right of students to explore a variety of ideas and perspectives, and to form and express ideas of their own” (Brown, 1994, p. 30). Schools already place a restriction on religious material or material addressing current political controversy (Brown, 1994).

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

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.

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

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

The First Amendment gives the citizens of the United States their most important rights: the right to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, and the freedom of assembly. Over time these rights have worked themselves into the everyday lives of United States citizens. However, there are still places where our First Amendment rights may be compromised. In the school system, finding a balance of respect and freedom of speech and press is as difficult as learning out to tightrope walk. One wrong step and you could be compromising the learning environment of the entire student body.

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

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom

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.

One example, of how a government in school district, many students are able to express themselves through what they wear to school, students and teachers are free to speak their minds on public school grounds. They can even wear T-shirts with messages, dye their hair funky colors, and wear jewelry or buttons that make a social statement. But, even with First Amendment protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, there are limits in the school setting. And figuring out where the line is drawn is fairly complicated, and more teenagers are facing restrictions as the school’s boards across the country adopt more stringent policies.

Last year there was no disruptions in class because of band t-shirts. Before class one day two kids were having an argument about a band. One of them liked the band and the other did not. As they were arguing class started and the teacher came in the room. She told them to be quiet and they did. There was no more arguing or discussion about it. Therefore it did not disrupt class because they stopped right away, so it didn’t break any rules.