Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association
Throughout the years, many Amendments to the Constitution have been created. The first Ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution in 1791. These Amendments guaranteed citizens certain privileges that the government could not take away. The First Amendment guarantees U.S. citizen’s five equally important rights. First, it gives us the freedom to criticize the government openly. Second, it prevents us from being forced to print only what the government wants in the newspaper. Third, the First Amendment inhibits the government from establishing an official religion. Fourth, it allows us to come together publicly or privately, in order to form political groups with different ideas. Finally, it allows citizens to ask the government to change by collecting signatures and petitioning. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect our rights as U.S. citizens. In the court case Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, Brentwood Academy felt their rights were not protected and took legal action for infringement of the First Amendment. This long-standing court case had me asking the question, “Is it acceptable for high schools to recruit potential athletes?” The conflict between Brentwood Academy, a private school in Brentwood, Tennessee, and the TSSAA, an administration that oversees TN high school athletes, began in 1997. It all started when
All students, kindergarten through twelfth grade are protected under many various education laws, as well as their basic rights. Title IX is a landmark case from 1972 that removes the bias of gender discrimination in any educational program or activity that receives federal financial assistance (Title IX, 1972). Title IX does not mean that each sex needs a football, basketball and dance team, it means that there needs to be three equal opportunities for each sex. Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) was a more recent case of discrimination based on sex in relation to funding of a girl’s basketball team. In addition to Title IX, Section 1983 also upholds the civil rights provided by the Constitution, (42 USC 1983). Grove City College
School boards often do not adequately justify their reasons for denying High School Students their first amendment rights. Usually, the
In the Supreme Court Case Bethel School District #43 vs. Fraser, the main constitutional issue under scrutiny was the first amendment rights and what they specifically cover. The parties involved in the case was the Bethel School District itself, and the high school senior from that school named Matthew Fraser. The court hearing itself happened in 1986 but the incident causing the court case happened in 1983. The incident occurred at Bethel High School in Bethel Washington, and was an ongoing controversy until it was put to rest by the Supreme Court.
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
The topic I’ll be discussing will be the biasedness in media about a particular topic, the US Supreme Court’s decision on the case of Alexander vs. Holmes County Board of Education. The case involved a previous Supreme Court ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education, where they gave schools to desegregate public schools “with all deliberate speed.” 15 years passed and school districts were still segregated, so the courts gave them till the beginning of the next year, 1970. This gave some schools a very abrupt shock as they had to conform to the decision. As something that opinionated, it allows news media to explore and write about such a topic.
The Tinker vs. Des Moines case helped determined and interpret legal rights of young citizens for the first time. A group of students made a decision to wear black armbands to school to support a peace establishing agreement during the Vietnam War. As a result, the participating students; Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and John Tinker got suspended for their actions (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District).The school outlawed and attempted to penalize petitioners for a “silent, passive expression of opinion”, that didn’t cause any commotion (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist). The parents decided to sue the school for disrespecting the student’s constitutional rights of expression.
Cases that involve the First Amendment in school systems have always been around but the issue of finding a balance with these freedoms is
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
This case involves the Plaintiff, Kelly Pryor, and the Defendant, National Collegiate Athletic Association, in a complex argument that involves racial discrimination under Title VI and the NCAA adoption of Proposition 16 as well as Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation claims. The court must carefully consider the claims Pryor has brought forth and determine if the discrimination of Proposition 16 was purposefully adopted by adding certain education requirement to ultimately hinder the amount of scholarships awarded to incoming black student athletes. Throughout this case analysis, I will weigh the different evidence presented from both parties and report the court’s reasoning for decisions made in Pryor v.
James Loudermill was dismissed from his job as a security guard for the Cleveland Board of Education for failing to disclose a prior felony conviction on his application. Loudermill, a classified civil servant under Ohio law, filed an appeal with the civil service commission stating Ohio statue provided he could only be terminated for cause; therefore, he was entitled to administrative review of his dismissal. Nine months after the appeal was filed the Commission upheld his termination. Loudermill filed suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging the Ohio statute that provided for administrative review of a discharged public employee was unconstitutional on its face because it did not provide an opportunity for the employee to respond to the charges against him prior to being discharged. The suit also alleged the Ohio statute was unconstitutional as applied because he was not given a prompt appeal hearing by the Civil Service
The Fourth Amendment states that a search is constitutionally unreasonable unless there is a warrant issued supported by probable cause. The interests in schools are different because they must maintain order and discipline of children and their Fourth Amendment rights must be balanced. One type of search that has arisen lately is the strip search. The Supreme Court had not directly ruled on the constitutionality of strip searches until 2009 with the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding. This paper will break down the topic of strip searches in public schools into three parts. Part 1 will show how the Supreme Court decisions have defined the rights of school children under the Fourth Amendment. The second part will compare and contrast different court cases that have dealt with strip searches. The third, and final part, will look into responses to the problem and recommendations that schools should use when dealing with strip searches.
According to the April 2012 case of Olson v. The Tukwila School District, under the recreational use immunity state there are three conditions that protect public recreational areas from lawsuits. The three conditions, which are cited under Cregan v. Fourth Mem’l Church (175 Wn 2d 279, 283-84,285 P. 3d 860 (2012)) are:
The Courts should strictly interpret the U.S Constitution to prevent personal judgement and opinions from changing a fair decision. In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the board of education of the West Virginia Legislature attempted to make the pledge of allegiance as a mandatory activities in public schools and refusal to participate will be dealt with in some way. Two Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not allowed to pledge to symbols according to their beliefs, were expelled for not saluting the flag. The decision of the Supreme Court was “constructed” based on the first amendment that states that promises no restriction on free exercise of religion and therefore the mandatory salute was banned. If the courts were
The court case, Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, held on the 28th of January, 1998, Regarded the matter of the legality of NCAA student athletes being drug tested. In this case Plaintiff Jennifer Hill, a student athlete at Stanford University who objected to the NCAA’s student athlete drug testing program. Hill cited Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution; granting California citizens the right to privacy. Hill is not alone in this objection to the program instituted by the NCAA. These students in objection primarily oppose the program believing that the tests athletes must submit to are so extension and reveal extensive personal medical information they may wish to keep private. The defense’s counter argument is that the NCAA has a “legitimate regulatory objectives in conducting testing for proscribed drugs,” citing both student-athlete safety and maintaining the sanctity of collegiate
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