Case Studies Analysis: The Violation of Students' Rights on a Common Basis

Believe it or not, student rights cases are more common than one may think. Does that mean Constitutional rights stop after you walk into school? Cases that involve issues like this usually occur when rights or policies are violated, whether it be from the school or the student. Such cases include New Jersey vs. T.L.O., Bethel vs. Fraser, and Tinker vs. Des Moines. These cases were reviewed by District Courts but were appealed by the Supreme Court in response to unsatisfactory results. Although the Constitution is meant to protect the rights of the American people, the school’s decision has the potential to be superior.

Examination of Case Studies: Frequent Infringement of Students' Rights

The Case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O.

The case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O. certainly demonstrates an example of the controversial violation of school and student rights. In 1985, a high school freshman girl, whose name is disclosed as T.L.O., was suspected of smoking in a school bathroom. As a precautionary measure, the principal had searched through her purse. What they found was cigarettes, marijuana, and evidence of marijuana dealing through an immense amount of dollar bills and a list referring to the dealings. The case was brought to Court, and the New Jersey Juvenile Court sided with the school, declaring the search as reasonable as they were suspicious of illegal dealings that went against the school policy. T.L.O. claimed this as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which refers to the prohibition of unjust searches and seizures. After being reviewed by the New Jersey Supreme Court, they found the school to be reasonable. By finding the Fourth Amendment applicable to public school students, but permitting searches based on far less than probable cause, the Court reconciled the tensions between students’ privacy rights and the alleged problems of violence and drugs in the nation’s public schools (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985). Thus, suspicion of something going against the school policy, such as selling marijuana, would declare a search through T.L.O.’s purse as justified. After taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was established that there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. Even though T.L.O. had believed that her case was in her favor, her rights didn’t defend her to the point where the safety of other students was disregarded and where she would be able to come between the goal of the school, which was to educate the students with no disruption.

The Case of Bethel vs. Fraser

In the 1986 Bethel vs. Fraser case, a supposed violation of disciplinary rule led to the suspension of Mathew Fraser. The soon-to-be graduate had formulated a nominating speech for his classmate that was meant to be used to run for student government office. Teachers declared it inappropriate due to the language and gestures in said speech. Fraser was warned of consequences should he follow through with his speech, but he refused to comply. A school disciplinary rule prohibited conduct that substantially interfered with the educational process, including the use of obscene language and gestures (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986). Fraser was then suspended for three days as punishment, as well as being taken off the list of potential graduation speakers. However, the case was taken to the U.S. District Court by his father in retaliation. From there, the case blossomed into something more questionable and controversial, which revealed the wrongdoing of the school as it violated Fraser’s First and Fourth Amendments. However, the case did not end there since the Supreme Court had gotten involved. According to the Court, the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech, and school officials can determine what speech is appropriate in the school setting (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986). In the view of the Supreme Court, the school had full authority on its limitations of what was accepted. Even though Fraser had believed that his rights were being taken from him, the way he saw his situation contrasted that of the Supreme Court. Depending on how one interprets the Constitution, their rights can only go so far to defend them.

The Case of Tinker vs. Des Moines

One of the most famous student rights cases is the Tinker vs. Des Moines case in 1969, where freedom of speech and expression was questioned towards students. In Des Moines, Iowa, John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt had been against the war that the United States had taken on against Vietnam. In response to all the horror and bloodshed, they had planned to wear black armbands with a purpose for displaying a need for a truce or peace with Vietnam, which reached the school board. Immediately, the board established suspension to any student who wore such armbands. Yet, the threat did not stop the three students and they continued with their protest, which led to their suspension. The father of the Tinkers contacted the District Court, seeking aid against the injustice that his children were given. In response, the Court ignored his complaints, saying that the school was valid in their reasoning to prevent any disruption in the school. However, the case was reconsidered when it reached another set of perspectives. The Supreme Court upheld the right of students to display buttons, armbands, flags, decals, or other badges of symbolic expression, where the manner of expression does not materially intrude upon the orderly process of the school or the rights of others (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969). The freedom of expression that the Tinkers had was disregarded by those who chose to defend the school. Yet, it was clear that their rights were being violated as they were being revoked of their entitlement to civil liberties, which would only be justified if violence was involved in any way. The Tinkers in no way disrupted their entitlement to speak their minds in the form of accessories. In this case, the Constitution overruled the school’s decision to wrongly give punishment.

Conclusion

Even though the Constitution is a highly respected set of principles, it doesn’t always overturn set policies of schools. The rights of students are limited due to in loco parentis, which is where the school can act as the parent if the student is in the custody of said school, and the goal of school, which is to educate and should an act of a student interfere with the educational process, the school may suppress the act. Nowadays, the New Jersey vs. T.L.O., Bethel vs. Fraser, and Tinker vs. Des Moines cases are set models for similar future cases. The creation of social media may result in a change of judgment towards cases involving student rights. These three cases and others may always be relevant even with the constant evolution of society.

References

• Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
• Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).