After reading the summaries of
In Re Gault
,
Goss v. Lopez
and
New Jersey v. T.L.0.
, several important questions should be discussed. The method used by the teacher will depend on the particular class and their objective. It may be in preparation for the state debate competition or simply to better understand how the Constitution relates to teenagers.
Should school officials be able to do random searches of student property?
Should school officials be required to have specific reasons to believe wrongful conduct by a particular student has been committed, “probable cause,” before they are allowed to search a student, as is the case with adults?
Who should decide whether searching a particular student is reasonable?
Should school officials be required to notify a child’s parents and conduct a hearing before searching a student?
Should school officials be able to do the same things to students in school as parents are able to do at home—act in “loco parentis?”
Should school officials be required to have a search warrant before being allowed to search a student?
Do the rights of the group take precedence over the rights of an individual? Is the potential danger, for example, that a student may have a weapon enough to allow random searches of lockers?
Are students entitled to a hearing before they can be suspended? If yes, how formal should these hearings be? If no, why not?
Should teenagers charged with a crime have the same procedural protections under the Constitution as adults?
Should judges be able to treat teenagers in court in the same way as parents treat their children at home—act in “loco parentis?”
Which of the three cases discussed seems to give students the most freedom? The least? How do the cases differ? How are they alike? Which decisions, if any, do you feel were unfair? Why? Do any of the cases contradict each other? If yes, which ones and how?
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District
Free Speech
In l965,Christopher Eckardt was 16. John Tinker was 15 and in Vietnam was wrong and planned to protest by fasting and wearing black arm bands to school.
The Vietnam War was a very emotional issue and school officials feared disturbances. When they learned of the plan to wear armbands, they warned the students that they would be asked to remove them. If they refused they would be sent home until they returned without the armbands. All the Tinker children and Chris Eckardt wore the armbands. All were suspended.
The Tinker children went to court to protest their suspensions. Their lawyer argued that school officials had violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. A local judge dismissed the case. Two years later, in 1967, the case reached the Supreme Court.
The lawyers for the Des Moines School District argued that schools were not the place for displays of free speech. They said they needed to keep order in schools and that anti-war protests could cause fights. On February 24, 1968, the court ruled 7-2 that First Amendment guarantees apply to students. Neither students nor teachers, it declared, “Shed their constitutional freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The court went on to say, “We do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised or ordained discussion in a classroom.”
Justice Potter Stewart, while concurring with the majority said that he did not share the court’s “uncritical assumption that the First Amendment rights of children are co-extensive with those of adults. A child, like someone in a captive audience, is not possessed with that full capacity for individual choice which is the presupposition of First Amendment guarantees.”
In the dissent opinion, Justice Hugo Black pointed out that while he believes in the 1st and 14th Amendments, he does not believe, “that any person has a right to give speeches where he pleases and when he pleases.” The Vietnam issue is “highly emotional and may disrupt the learning process.” Justice John Harlan also wrote a dissent opinion saying, “School officials should be accorded the widest authority in maintaining discipline and good order in their institutions.”
The majority, however, felt that “students, in school as well as out are ‘persons’ under our Constitution. Students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the state chooses to communicate.”
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
-Student Censorship
As in the case of
Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School
District
discussed earlier, the
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier
case deals with the First Amendment rights of students to free expression. The controversy began in the spring of 1983 when Robert E. Reynolds, the principal of Hazelwood East High School, refused to permit the publication of two articles in the Spectrum, a school newspaper produced by students in a journalism class.
Principal Reynolds said he deleted the two articles dealing with divorce and teenage pregnancy because they described families and students in such a way that even though their names were not mentioned it was “clear the articles were going to tread on the rights of privacy of students and their parents.” School officials further said that the newspaper was an extension of classroom instruction and did not enjoy First Amendment protection.
A district court judge agreed with the school board’s lawyer who said that schools would be in trouble if people could change curriculum at the drop of a lawsuit. A court of appeals disagreed, however, and by a 2-1 decision overturned the judge’s decision saying the Hazelwood’s Spectrum was, in fact, a “public forum.”
The case finally reached the Supreme Court where on January 13, 1988, the court ruled 5-3 that school officials have broad power to censor school newspapers, plays and other “school-sponsored expressive activities.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling on this decision was not without strong dissent. In addition, several experts, organizations, and related court cases make it unclear exactly what rights to expression students do or do not have.
The
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
case, the topic for the 1987-1988 state competition, will be discussed further in section two of this unit.
Board of Education v. Pico
Library Censorship
In September of 1975, a politically conservative organization complained about several books found in school libraries. In February of 1976, acting on this list, nine books were removed from the school library for study by the school board. A committee of parents and teachers was also formed to look at the books.
The committee recommended that five of the books be retained but the Board rejected the committee’s report and only allowed one book returned to the library without restriction. Five students, including Steven Pico, brought suit with their parents and lawyers to have the books returned to the library. They claimed the Board’s actions denied them their rights under the First Amendment.
A District court judge upheld the school board’s right to remove the books. The judge felt that the courts “should not intervene in the daily operations of school systems” unless “basic constitutional values” were violated. Since the books were removed based on a conservative educational philosophy and not on religious principles, the court felt it was not a constitutional violation. While the court did say removal of the books may reflect a misguided philosophy, it was not a direct infringement of any first amendment rights.
An appeals court reversed the decision and the Supreme Court on June 25, 1982 upheld this reversal. Justice William Brennan in writing the majority opinion stated that, “access to ideas makes it possible for citizens generally to exercise their rights of free speech and press in a meaningful manner. Students need access to ideas to help prepare them for active and effective participation in society.” The Court further said that the library, “has special characteristics that make this environment especially appropriate for the recognition of First Amendment rights of students.”