Full Version: Students and the Constitution
I just got done talking to a kid that works in the same building as me and somehow we got on the topic of dress codes in schools. He goes to Abraham Lincoln High School in Colorado and the dress code of that school expressly forbids the wearing of the colors red and yellow (no matter how small), flannel, trench coats, and any sports related clothing. . .evidently the rules have something to do with gangs. I was quite surprised by these rather strict dress code laws. Then I started thinking about a Supreme Court Case I had studied in a college civil liberties class I took. The case was in 1969, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School Dist; in this case three high school students were suspended from school for wearing black bands on their arms protesting the war in Vietnam. The U.S. Supreme Court decision acknowledged student rights. Stating that students do not "shed their constitutional rights...at the schoolhouse gate" (393 U.S. at 506). But that was in 1969. . . .
Supreme court decisions since then have been more concerned with the school administrators rights than that of the students.
In 1988, Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that school administrators could censor a school-sponsored news-paper. (violation of freedom of the press??)
In 1985, New Jersey v. T.L.O, the US Supreme Court gave school officials the discretion to search students and their belongings. (violation of the 4th Amendment??)
Also in 1985, Bethel v. Fraser, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the suspension of a student whose speech before a school assembly was considered inappropriate. (violation of freedom of speech??)
So my question is: Should a student "shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates"?
-Kisov
Supreme court decisions since then have been more concerned with the school administrators rights than that of the students.
In 1988, Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that school administrators could censor a school-sponsored news-paper. (violation of freedom of the press??)
In 1985, New Jersey v. T.L.O, the US Supreme Court gave school officials the discretion to search students and their belongings. (violation of the 4th Amendment??)
Also in 1985, Bethel v. Fraser, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the suspension of a student whose speech before a school assembly was considered inappropriate. (violation of freedom of speech??)
So my question is: Should a student "shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates"?
-Kisov
Not really. But let's also remember: they are minors 
Hugo put it well in another thread. He said he limmited free speech at home one time, after his teenage son cursed his mother.
Those court cases are pretty vague. Could you elaborate or provide some links?
I mean, sure, it's a violation of the 4th to rumage through someone's locker. But what does the ruling actually SAY? That they have that right because the SCHOOL not the STUDENT own the locker? Or is it ok if there is something explosive in there which could cause harm to other students?
I hate to say it, but those cases could be taken out of context.
Lets also remember that the court doesn't make laws. Congress does that. The supreme court rules on the constitutionality of occurances, on a case by case basis.
Leave your rights at the door? No. But kids also need structure and rules.
--cheers
Hugo put it well in another thread. He said he limmited free speech at home one time, after his teenage son cursed his mother.
Those court cases are pretty vague. Could you elaborate or provide some links?
I mean, sure, it's a violation of the 4th to rumage through someone's locker. But what does the ruling actually SAY? That they have that right because the SCHOOL not the STUDENT own the locker? Or is it ok if there is something explosive in there which could cause harm to other students?
I hate to say it, but those cases could be taken out of context.
Lets also remember that the court doesn't make laws. Congress does that. The supreme court rules on the constitutionality of occurances, on a case by case basis.
Leave your rights at the door? No. But kids also need structure and rules.
--cheers
QUOTE(Digital Patriot @ Mar 7 2003, 05:42 PM)
Not really. But let's also remember: they are minors
where in the constitution does it say one must be an adult to be guaranteed the rights it grants you? I never got the concept that only adults have full rights.
Remember that constitutional rights are a balancing act and remember that schools are generally dealing with minors and the responsibility of providing a safe environment for all of them.
The case I have read more about than the others is Hazelwod. But without going surfing here are the rights of the schools in these instances in my understanding.
Schools can search school lockers when they have a reasonable suspicion of illegal behavior.
Students do not have the right to create an inflammatory environment with their actual or symbolic speech. This is a judgement call, but wearing a shirt that says "I hate ni**ers" would be an obvious example.
In Hazelwood the Supreme Court made a distinction between publications that would be construed a student forum and publications that could be construed as public representation of the school as approved by the administration. Judges have to make the interpretation of whether that newspaper is a public forum for students or the official voice of the school.
Questions that might be helpful when considering how you feel about these limitations on some of these students constitutional rights include:
If there is information that there is a handgun or explosive on campus in a locker do you want someone to have the authority to check for these items to prove that the students are safe from this threat?
Do you want students to have the right to walk around school tormenting other children about their ethnic background or religion without allowing schools to be able to take action against the venom-spewer?
I work at a private school and these issues come up (although we have more latitude in invading students' constitutional rights than a public school does) and I would love to hear more comments about this subject.
I'll go hunt up more informative reviews of these cases and issues.
The case I have read more about than the others is Hazelwod. But without going surfing here are the rights of the schools in these instances in my understanding.
Schools can search school lockers when they have a reasonable suspicion of illegal behavior.
Students do not have the right to create an inflammatory environment with their actual or symbolic speech. This is a judgement call, but wearing a shirt that says "I hate ni**ers" would be an obvious example.
In Hazelwood the Supreme Court made a distinction between publications that would be construed a student forum and publications that could be construed as public representation of the school as approved by the administration. Judges have to make the interpretation of whether that newspaper is a public forum for students or the official voice of the school.
Questions that might be helpful when considering how you feel about these limitations on some of these students constitutional rights include:
If there is information that there is a handgun or explosive on campus in a locker do you want someone to have the authority to check for these items to prove that the students are safe from this threat?
Do you want students to have the right to walk around school tormenting other children about their ethnic background or religion without allowing schools to be able to take action against the venom-spewer?
I work at a private school and these issues come up (although we have more latitude in invading students' constitutional rights than a public school does) and I would love to hear more comments about this subject.
I'll go hunt up more informative reviews of these cases and issues.
Here is a quote from the dissenting opinion in the Hazelwood case about the violation of the standard set in Tinker v. Des Moines
Here is an except from the majority decision of Hazelwood explaining the reason schools may limit free speech in certain publications.
Bethel v. Fraser involved the use of sexually explicit language in front of the entire student body. It overturned a district and appeals court ruling.
Here is a fairly insightful section of the ruling.
In that same ruling is a reference to Tinker and the N.J. v. T.L.O. decision.
This site also has the text of the dissenting opinion at the same link as above.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. goes beyond what I thought a school official could do and have the information hold up in court for a criminal conviction. This one seems to me to be the most controversial.
From the majority decision is this quotation.
From the dissenting opinion or more accurately a partially dissenting opinion, came this quotation.
Food for thought. Sorry for the long post.
QUOTE
In Tinker, this Court struck the balance. We held that official censorship of student expression-there the suspension of several students until they removed their armbands protesting the Vietnam war-is unconstitutional unless the speech "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. . . . "
Here is an except from the majority decision of Hazelwood explaining the reason schools may limit free speech in certain publications.
QUOTE
The question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech-the question that we addressed in Tinker-is different from the question whether the First Amendment requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech. The former question addresses educators' ability to silence a student's personal expression that happens to occur on the school premises. The latter question concerns educators' authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school. These activities may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum, whether or not they occur in a traditional classroom setting, so long as they are supervised by faculty members and designed to impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants and audiences.
Bethel v. Fraser involved the use of sexually explicit language in front of the entire student body. It overturned a district and appeals court ruling.
Here is a fairly insightful section of the ruling.
QUOTE
In our Nation's legislative halls, where some of the most vigorous political debates in our society are carried on, there are rules prohibiting the use of expressions offensive to other participants in the debate. The Manual of Parliamentary Practice, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the House of Representatives to govern the proceedings in that body, prohibits the use of "impertinent" speech during debate and likewise provides that "[no] person is to use indecent language against the proceedings of the House." The Rules of Debate applicable in the Senate likewise provide that a Senator may be called to order for imputing improper motives to another Senator or for referring offensively to any state. Can it be that what is proscribed in the halls of Congress is beyond the reach of school officials to regulate?
In that same ruling is a reference to Tinker and the N.J. v. T.L.O. decision.
QUOTE
In New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), we reaffirmed that the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings. As cogently expressed by Judge Newman, "the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker's armband, but not Cohen's jacket [Cohen's jacket said "###### the Draft"].
This site also has the text of the dissenting opinion at the same link as above.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. goes beyond what I thought a school official could do and have the information hold up in court for a criminal conviction. This one seems to me to be the most controversial.
From the majority decision is this quotation.
QUOTE
T]he legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search . . . Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be "justified at its inception" when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.
From the dissenting opinion or more accurately a partially dissenting opinion, came this quotation.
QUOTE
On my view of the case, we need not decide whether the initial search conducted by Mr. Choplick—the search for evidence of the smoking violation that was completed when Mr. Choplick found the pack of cigarettes—was valid. For Mr. Choplick at that point did not have probable cause to continue to rummage through T.L.O.'s purse . . . Therefore, the fruits of this illegal search must be excluded and the judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed.
Food for thought. Sorry for the long post.
First of all I would like to thank Eeyore for providing much better examples than I did. 
I'm inclined to agree with Eeyore on most of his opinion concerning the cases I had mentioned; and would like to delve further into the New Jersey vs. T.L.O. decision. The police have to state specifically what they are looking for when they serve a search warrant. . .why should this principal be allowed to bypass that? Also, I rent an apartment. . .therefore, I do not own it; however, I don't believe that my landlord has the right to search my apartment for anything illegal. So what is the difference between that and a school searching students lockers indiscriminately? Sure the student doesn't own the locker. . .but in many ways it is their private space. Can that space be searched and not be a violation of the 4th Amendment?
-Kisov
I'm inclined to agree with Eeyore on most of his opinion concerning the cases I had mentioned; and would like to delve further into the New Jersey vs. T.L.O. decision. The police have to state specifically what they are looking for when they serve a search warrant. . .why should this principal be allowed to bypass that? Also, I rent an apartment. . .therefore, I do not own it; however, I don't believe that my landlord has the right to search my apartment for anything illegal. So what is the difference between that and a school searching students lockers indiscriminately? Sure the student doesn't own the locker. . .but in many ways it is their private space. Can that space be searched and not be a violation of the 4th Amendment?
-Kisov
I work at a private school that has recently gone through a long drawn out incident with a period of intense investigation, two explosions and two reinstatements. We have legal grounds that go beyond public schools in carrying out our policies and investigations. This is a reason for my added interest.
However the scope of search and seizure allowable under the New jersey case is surprising to me. The possible justification is that students are minors (at least most of them are). But this seems to open the door for random searches with vague probable cause. And the Jersey case goes far beyond the rights of the police.
However the scope of search and seizure allowable under the New jersey case is surprising to me. The possible justification is that students are minors (at least most of them are). But this seems to open the door for random searches with vague probable cause. And the Jersey case goes far beyond the rights of the police.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.