Discipline in the Public Schools - Essay Example

Discipline in the Public Schools: An Analysis Public schools are important s for shaping the personalities as well as imparting the education to children at a younger level. Few current cases and rulings of public schools are discussed in this paper with the justification and analysis of each. Tinker vs Des Moines Independent School District (1969): The case took place between the Tinker family and the Des Moines Independent School District in which these students were studying at that time. The Tinker family was the petitioner, and the school district was the respondent. (TINKER vs DES MOINES DISTRICT SCHOOL) It was in 1965 when John tinker his sister Mary Tinker and a friend Chris Eckhardt wore black armbands on their sleeve in protest of the Vietnam War. The school faculty told them to remove those armbands, but they refused. As a consequence, John, Mary Tinker and Chris Eckhardt were suspended. (TINKER vs DES MOINES DISTRICT SCHOOL) The Tinker family protested and the sued the school district saying that they had violated the students right of Freedom of speech (Jacobs). The case was tried at Supreme Court, and the Tinker family won the case. The Supreme Court gave the ruling that the school official do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" (TINKER vs DES MOINES DISTRICT SCHOOL). However, the court further added that the right of freedom of choice must be maintained within the limits. It should not in any way disturb class activity or invade rights of others. The impact of this case had been huge for the next years and many times the Tinker reference was used in courts. One such instance was when Mathew Fraser of Bethel High School was suspended by the school for giving a speech containing sexual innuendos. The court, however, favored the school and the suspension was upheld a speech containing sexual innuendos. The court remarked that it was fair of the school to suspend the student for using vulgar language within school boundaries. (Jacobs) The Tinker case edges on the boundary of what is right and what is not. It depends on the situation and the way people use their rights given to them by the constitution. The Tinker family wore black armbands in dispute of the war against Vietnam, but it was not invasion of school guidelines that are handed to students. War is means of destruction, no matter for whatever reasons it is fought. It takes lives of innocent people. It has been seen today that even football players wear black armbands to condemn racism. In 2002, people went out on the streets to condemn attacks on Afghanistan, but it was only a movement in which people took part (Pinto). Nothing violent took place. Same was the case with Tinker family they just wore armbands in protest of the war and possibly to side more students with them and show the State that the youth is not supporting the cause. It was not any act of violence. There was huge unrest among the American public in response to the Vietnam War, in general. (Hodbodova). So, the Tinker family stood right in the case. If the case was tried in 2012, the decision would have stayed the same. In the twenty first century, people have much more freedom of choice and speech. We have seen many times people coming out on the street and not supporting the cause, such as the War against Terror in Afghanistan (Pinto). Goss vs Lopez: Administrators of Colombus, Ohio, Public School System-CPSS, appealed against the ruling of three-judge federal court that was in favor of high school temporarily suspended students of CPSS, on the grounds that Fourteen Amendment was violated for a chance of hearing was not afforded to them. The ruling directed that reference to suspensions to be removed from the record of the students. (GOSS ET AL. v. LOPEZ ET AL.) The judgment had evoked Section 3313.66 of Ohio State (that provides free education to children of 5-21) which states that the Principal of a public school can, either suspend a pupil for up to 10 days or expel him/her. In case of expulsion, the parents are to be informed who can appeal to the Board of Education which after hearing can reinstate of uphold Principal’s judgment. There is no provision of hearing for the suspended students and the nine suspenders were denied of Fourteen Amendment. (GOSS ET AL. v. LOPEZ ET AL.) The appellants contested that education at public expense was not a constitutional right so the Due Process Law cannot guard against expulsion for the state statutes or rules protect against property rights. The ruling stated that the appeal lees cannot be denied the fundamental right to education. (GOSS ET AL. v. LOPEZ ET AL.) The appellants put forth that right to education of the Clause can be evoked in case the student is subjected to “the severe detriment or grievous loss” and 10 days of suspension do not fall in this category. This was refuted on the grounds that education is the foremost function of the State even 10 days of suspension could have serious effects on the child. (GOSS ET AL. v. LOPEZ ET AL.) Hence, after the court maintained that due process applied it embarked on the process to be adopted by the public schools. It acknowledged that, for smooth disciplined administration, suspensions or expulsions may be required, but it is the duty of the disciplinarian to inform the student of his/her misconduct and also to give an opportunity of hearing as well. Notice of early hearing to be served to the student except in cases where a student is a direct threat to the academic system can be immediately expelled. The suspended students be given notice to hear his/her version in order to avoid any erroneous decisions by the disciplinarians. More formal procedures may be required in case of long suspensions or term or permanent expulsions. I uphold the verdict on the following grounds: 1. Justice unheard is justice denied. No matter how trivial a punishment one should be given a chance to present his/her point of view. 2. Education is a fundamental right of each citizen and one should not be debarred on personal judgments. 3. Temporary misconduct related suspensions may not only create an emotional stigma for the student but if recorded his/her chances of higher education will be bleak. New Jersey vs T.L.O: The case was regarding the invasion of private rights of a student. The petitioner T.L.O, Terry, was caught smoking in the bathroom by a teacher. She was taken to the Principal, who then asked to check her purse (Jacobs). Upon checking her bag, cigarettes and marijuana was found. Consequently, police was called, and Terry was convicted for usage and selling of drugs. Terry pleaded, and her case was taken to Supreme Court. The court favored the school by remarking that students have "Legitimate expectations of privacy but that must be balanced with the schools responsibility for maintaining environments in which learning can take place."". (New Jersey v. T.L.O.) The Court took a fair decision because it was not due to vendetta of the teacher against the student of any kind that he tried to search for her bag; instead she was caught smoking, and as it was not permissible within school premises. So, it was every right of the faculty to search for the bag so that they may have significant proof against the student to suspend or expel her. The decision of the Court would have been the same as it is still not permissible for students to smoke within school premises, so obviously they would be checked if they had been caught and the same verdict would have stood. References GOSS ET AL. v. LOPEZ ET AL. No. 419 U.S. 565 . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 22 January 1975. Hodbodova, Zuzana. The Vietnam War, Public Opinion and American . Diploma Thesis. Brno: MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO, 2008. Jacobs, Tom. 10 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know. New York, 15 September 2008. New Jersey v. T.L.O. No. 469 U.S. 325. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 28 March 1984. Pinto, Jennifer De. Publics Views of Afghanistan War Have Turned Sour. Washington, October 2009. TINKER vs DES MOINES DISTRICT SCHOOL. No. 393 US 503. United States Supreme Court. 24 February 1969. Read More