Student Rights Forum
Past Posts, Volume 3
WARNING!! This forum promotes freedom of speech.
Some of the posts may contain harsh language and profanity.
All young children
and anyone else who might be easily offended
must STOP now and leave this site by clicking HERE!
Thank you.
The Student Rights Forum is receiving many posts each week, especially during the school year. We must occasionally remove very old posts to speed downloading and posting times.
Scroll down to read many interesting posts which have been
saved below on this page.
Also, for additional past posts, please see
And, please visit the page of interesting posts on the Santa Barbara California school dress code protest.
Please untalgle me from this Webb...
From: Madlin
Date: 09 Nov 1999
Time: 22:28:37
Remote Name: pool-3-29.russ.ipa.net
Comments
Our son age 6, first grade has developed a hatred for school. Last year he would cry when school was out for vacatioin, this
year he cries every morning because he has to go to school. We seem to have a problem with his teacher, and he stays in
trouble all the time, nothing major, just silly little things that all kids do. The problem that I have is she cannot usually give a
"good" reason for putting his name on the board. All year he has gotten this name on the board for- acting "silly", talking,
standing next to his sear instead of being seated and turning the water off in the restroom underneath the sink. Once he had his
name put on the board for turning another child's hand back, which was okay, but the other child had called him "chicken pox
boy", and the other child received no punishment because, "she didn't think of it." I feel as if she simply picks on him. At five
weeks her conduct policy was each time your name went on the board you lost one pertentage point in conduct and my child's
grade was 81%. That's 19 times in 25 days, and he was absent onece!!! I think this is un-real that a 6 year old can get in
trouble that many times, but only in her class. He never gets in trouble anywhere else like this (computer class, music, library,
etc.) Tonight we went before the school board to request that he be changed to another 1st grade classroom. We went through
all the proper channels to get there-teacher-principal-superintendant-school board. They left the weight of the decisioin on the
building principal's shoulders who had already denied our request because it might "open a can of worms." Does anyone know
of any legal rights our child might have in regard to this situatioin outside of tranferring to another school?
Re: Please untalgle me from this Webb...
From: Visit the Doc
Date: 10 Nov 1999
Time: 06:24:17
Remote Name: pool-207-205-149-184.dlls.grid.net
Comments
They're not gonna listen. They don't hafta. School boards no longer look out for the needs of the individual student, and they
don't care if the child is 6 or 16! The school board's god is $$$. Take the only option they have left parents with--take your
son to a doctor who will document that because of your son's emotional stress caused by being placed in this teacher's class, it
is in the best interest of your child's emotional well being that he be moved to a class with another teacher. The trick here is to
find a doctor who will give such a note without requiring that your son be evaluated and counseled (time consuming and
expensive). School boards find it difficult to argue with doctor's notes. If they ignore them they not only look bad, but it may be
illegal for them to enforce a "policy" which causes "documented detriment" to the health of any specific student.
Re: FRISKING A STUDENT
From: Check Out This Link
Date: 17 Nov 1999
Remote Name: pool-209-138-163-219.dlls.grid.net
Comments
http://www.aclu.org/students/slprivacy.html
(Zero tolerance page)
From: zerotoleqzerojust@usa.net
Date: 04 Jul 1999
Comments
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/zerotol/zero-tol.html
Teacher Uniform
From: Teachers Who Prey on Children . . .
Date: 06 Dec 1999
Time: 06:11:47
Remote Name: pool-209-138-162-153.dlls.grid.net
Comments
It is the teachers who are responsible for the education and safety of our children--it's not the other way around. Therefore,
teachers should have to wear identification badges which clearly display an traceable certification number which proves that
they have passed certification in at least the state level AND that they have survived an extensive background search. It is just
as believeable that students are threatened by the presence of teachers as it is to believe that teachers are in danger because of
students. Please follow this link:
http://www.kcstar.com/standing/teachers/tburb.htm
Re: Immunity from Civil Prosecution
From: Curious
Date: 11 May 1999
Comments
I'm in Oklahoma. You know, the state where we all "pull together" in crisis. Do you know of any other state that grants
immunity from civil prosecution to school officials? My major concern with this outrageous move is that it will only prove to
heighten frustration between students/parents and school officials. This could never be good. I didn't know that ANYONE was
immune from civil prosecution. I guess I've been protected.
Re: Immunity from Civil Prosecution
From: renie
Date: 12 May 1999
Time: 09:05:12
Remote Name: cache-dh03.ucd.edu
Comments
Yes, many states have "immunity" laws for schools, but different states provide different levels of "immunity."
But even if your state has an "immunity" law, it may still be possible to sue in FEDERAL court.
42 U.S.C. section 1983 permits individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated to sue those who, acting under color
of state law, violated those rights.
You can find more info on the Federal law and student's constitutional rights in this court case:
http://www.sdbar.org/opinions/1998dsd027.htm
Take a look at this part:
The United States Supreme Court first afforded school officials qualified immunity from damages in Wood v. Strickland, 420
US 308, 95 SCt 992, 43 LEd 2d 214 (1975). The Supreme Court held that "in the specific context of school discipline ... a
school
[official] is not immune from liability for damages under § 1983 if he knew or reasonably should have known that the action he
took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the student affected, or if he took the
action
with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the student." Id, 420 US at 322, 95
SCt
at 1001. In a later case, the Supreme Court announced an objective test: defendants are entitled to qualified immunity "from
liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 818, 102 SCt 2727, 2738, 73 LEd 2d 396
(1982). "The
right must be clearly established in a particularized sense: 'The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable
official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.'" Prosser v. Ross, 70 F3d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir. 1995),
(quoting
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 US 635, 639, 107 SCt 3034, 3039, 97 LEd 2d 523 (1987)). "If the law was clearly established,
the
immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his
conduct."
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US at 818-819, 102 SCt at 2738. "Where an official could be expected to know that certain
conduct
would violate statutory or constitutional rights, he should be made to hesitate; and a person who suffers injury caused by such
conduct may have a cause of action." Id. at 819, 102 SCt at 2739.
Dress codes
From: Crimson_Ghost
Date: 30 Apr 1999
Comments
I recently did an EXTENSIVE study of dresscodes and came up with some stuff you guys might want to know. I live nowhere
near Cali. but my school has a uniform policy. So here we go. If you want to protest, the best way is to get as many students as
possible to wear unacceptable clothing on the same day. They can't suspend/give detention to 200 students that easily. Second
of all, here are some interesting facts on dresscodes
-dresscodes were unpopular until the Long Beach California area claimed it's dresscode reduced overall school crime 36%,
fights 51%, sex offenses 74%, vandalism 18%, etc.
-the Long Beach code was only used in Middle and Elementary Schools, so I'm wondering, "HOW MANY SEX OFFENSES
DOES AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HAVE???" But they only print percents, no real numbers so I think they may be
making the problem look bigger that it is, like they had 6 fights a year but it was reduced to 3
-they instituted several other disciplinary policies that year, so it's not even like dresscode is the only explanation for the
decrease in school crime.
I have LOTS more info. If anybody wants it, they can contact me at fiend735@yahoo.com
.
Re: required school uniforms
From: Robert
Date: 18 Apr 1999
Comments
I am a parent in Polk County, FL, and we are in our third year of fighting our school uniform policy.
We have a brand new web page to help with the fight, and you will find some useful links that should help with your report. This
is the most comprehensive uniform site on the web that I have found so far.
<a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/Uniform.html">The Polk County School Uniforms Page</a>
If anyone has informationto help us fight this policy, please let me know. Thanks,
Free Speech in High Schools
From: Matt
Date: 13 Dec 1998
Time: 14:31:41
Remote Name: ts001d37.lap-ca.concentric.net
Comments
Here is an excellent article from freedomforum.org describing recent attacks on the First Amendment in high schools:
"Tough times at 'Free Speech High: School.' Administrators teaching dismal First Amendment lessons.
By Paul McMasters First Amendment Ombudsman freedomforum.org
12.7.98
For just a taste of the dismal state of free expression for the nation's young people, consider last week's story of the Phoenix
high school student who tried to publish his own newspaper and wound up in the headlines himself.
When junior Ben Powers tried to distribute his independent newspaper at Central High School, school officials confiscated the
copies. What's worse, the school's attorney warned the 17-year-old in a letter that he could face legal action.
Only after the story started getting prominent mention in the Phoenix media did school administrators start rethinking their
actions. Eventually they decided that they would allow Ben Powers' newspaper on campus.
"Far from condemning this student, we should be impressed," Superintendent Rene X. Diaz said. "After all, he did what I hope
we are teaching all of our students, and that is to use critical thinking and creative skills to constructively address issues of
concern to them."
Superintendent Diaz is to be commended for those words, but it would have been a lot better if he and his subordinates had
developed that insight a little earlier. An ideal time would have been before they confiscated Powers' newspapers the first time,
back in October.
The suppression of student free-press rights should be an anomaly, but it is not. In fact, it is all too common. Here are just a few
examples of what is going on in the nation's high schools:
In Tampa, Fla., a high school teacher was barred from discussing the Starr report in her class of 17 seniors and one junior,
despite having gotten written permission from all of their parents.
In Denver, South High Principal Shawn Batterberry supported local police after they accosted two student journalists taking
pictures of the aftermath of an altercation at the school, took their film away from them and exposed it.
In Blue Springs, Mo., students have filed a lawsuit against South High School claiming officials fired their adviser for refusing to
censor stories that the officials didn't like.
At Mosely High School in Florida, a teacher who had advised the award-winning newspaper for eight years was fired because
of the "negative" content of the paper.
In Los Altos High School in California, school officials ordered the removal of a front-page photo in the student newspaper
because they thought it might provoke an adverse reaction from students at a rival school.
In Silver Springs, Nev., high school officials pulled a student literary magazine from store shelves and apologized for a poem
that townspeople thought was too critical of the community.
In New York City, Stuyvesant High School officials shut down an award-winning newspaper after it published articles critical
of teachers.
The list goes on and on. Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier a decade ago, many school officials have
felt free to censor the student press — in newspapers, magazines, yearbooks, radio or television broadcasts.
But these attacks on the independence and integrity of the student press is just part of a larger picture in which high school
students are only sort-of citizens when it comes to First Amendment rights. The suppression extends to all aspects of student
expressive activities.
At the high school in Bellevue, Ohio, the play "Ashes, Ashes, All Fall Down" was canceled only a few days before it was to go
on because two of the topics it touches on are death and suicide.
In Rhode Island, a Westerly High School student has decided to go to court after he was suspended twice for wearing a White
Zombie rock group T-shirt.
In Vernon, Conn., high school students presented a petition asking the town council to rescind a curfew law. Instead, the town
council voted to extend the law for another year.
In Van Buren, Mich., when students in advanced-placement biology and ecology classes opened their new textbooks this fall,
they found that all the pages headed "abortions and pregnancies" had been ripped out by school officials.
In St. Louis, school officials yanked the 1960s Jefferson Airplane hit "White Rabbit" from the marching band's half-time routine
because the song's lyrics referred to drugs, even though the song wasn't being sung.
Last spring, the valedictorian at Musselman High School in West Virginia was told by the principal that he could not make his
speech because he was saying that sports was more valued than academics.
In Fall Brook, Calif., a sophomore was punished for remaining seated during the Pledge of Allegiance, despite numerous court
rulings that it is the First Amendment right of a student not to be compelled to stand.
And in Marble Hill, Mo., a student was disciplined for insulting teachers and administrators on a personal Web site that he put
out on his home computer.
This list, too, could go on and on. As chilling as these examples are, they are just a glimpse of what goes on in the nation's high
schools day after day, year after year. Only some of these incidents are reported. Many times they go without notice or without
challenge by students too busy or too intimidated to stand up for their own or fellow students' rights.
Literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these incidents happen every school year. A student, a class, or even a whole school
is stripped of fundamental freedoms by a school official more concerned with asserting firm control than teaching good
citizenship. Schools should prepare students for citizenship and empower them with the rights that must precede responsibility.
Instead, school officials, by their actions, are teaching a cramped and distorted understanding of our First Amendment heritage.
Of course, we must appreciate the responsibility that teachers and administrators have for creating and maintaining a safe and
orderly learning environment in their schools, as well as understand the difficulties in achieving that goal. We also must insist that
it is possible — perhaps not easy, but possible — to create a good learning environment and still respect First Amendment
rights and values regarding students...
Every time such an incident occurs, it reverberates throughout the school, into the community, and into the future. When what
our young people see contradicts what their teachers and textbooks say, the civics lesson learned makes a mockery of the
fundamental freedoms that we as a nation celebrate."
For more details, see:
White Zombie T-shirt causes student's suspension:
http://www.freedomforum.org/religion/1998/11/17rischoolcode.asp
School officials pull student magazine from store shelves:
http://www.freedomforum.org/press/1998/5/21studentmag.asp
Principal shuts down school newspaper:
http://www.freedomforum.org/press/1998/4/20students.asp
Officials cancel high school play:
http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1998/11/17ohplay.asp
Alternative newspaper seized at high school:
http://www.freedomforum.org/press/1998/12/3phoenix.asp
http://www.freedomforum.org/press/1998/12/4azstudent.asp
School bans marching band's performance of song 'White Rabbit':
http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1998/10/26rabbit.asp
Teacher barred from classroom use of Clinton scandal sues schoolboard:
http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1998/12/3teacher.asp
Student who criticized school on Web page sues over suspension:
http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1998/8/28website.asp
Why does'nt everyone just shut the fuck up for awhile...
From: OVERDOG
Date: 26 Mar 1999
Time: 01:16:49
Remote Name: 206.8.121.130
Comments
I love this site. i have never more in my entire life wanted to stand up for "my rights" as a teen.
Very iformative makes me want to change the damn world...
But then when i look at it from a distance it's like why dont you silly kids shut the fuck up for awhile? I'm sick of hearing about
some dumb-ass kid doing something half-assed and getting away with it. Just fucking go to school, shut up, graduate, and turn
18 and never look back... "for the students" Am i the only who is sick of "kids rights"
-My two cents
Re: Why does'nt everyone just shut the fuck up for awhile...
From: ratso
Date: 26 Mar 1999
Time: 20:22:22
Remote Name: ts037d09.lap-ca.concentric.net
Comments
you call yourself a dog but you sound like a sheep.
curfews and school drug tests
From: ratso
Date: 22 Mar 1999
Comments
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on cases involving curfews for teenagers and mandatory school drug tests. Here is the story
from the Associated Press:
Supreme Court allows teen curfew, bars some high school drug tests
March 22, 1999
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Handling two disputes over the rights of teen-agers and parents, the Supreme Court on Monday
allowed a city to continue imposing a nighttime curfew but barred two high schools from requiring drug tests for all students
suspended for disciplinary reasons.
The justices left intact a Charlottesville, Virginia, curfew for children under 17 and rejected Indiana school officials' effort to
have their drug-testing policy reinstated.
The two actions were not decisions, set no precedents and did not preclude the possibility that the justices someday may
choose to study each issue more closely.
A nighttime curfew for minors, now employed by many American communities, has never been fully reviewed by the nation's
highest court. Monday's action may encourage other communities to consider adopting similar ordinances.
The court's denial of review in the Indiana case, meanwhile, is likely only to confuse the already murky legal status of student
drug-testing.
Lawyers for the Anderson Community School Corp. had sought to revive at two Anderson high schools a drug-testing policy
they called vital to "deterring drug and alcohol use among students."
A federal appeals court struck down the 1997 policy, ruling that suspended students cannot be required to take a urine test
before being reinstated unless they are individually suspected of using drugs or alcohol.
Test results had been disclosed only to parents and a designated school official, and had not been used for additional
punishment.
James R. Willis II was a freshman at Highland High School when he was suspended for five days in December 1997 for
fighting. The school official to whom Willis was taken right after his fight later testified that there was no indication he had been
using drugs or alcohol.
Willis refused to take the required drug test for readmission, and, with his father, sued the school district. Monday's action
sealed their legal victory.
The Supreme Court in 1995 ruled in an Oregon case that random drug tests for student athletes do not violate the
Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. That ruling emphasized the "role model" effect of
student athletes' drug use but also noted the importance of "deterring drug use by our nation's schoolchildren."
Last October, the justices rejected a challenge to a policy used by another Indiana school district, in rural Rush County, that
requires random drug testing for all students who participate in extracurricular activities.
But no court has ever condoned the random testing of all public school students.
In striking down the drug-testing policy in Anderson, a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals drew a
distinction between it and those involved in the Oregon and Rush County cases.
"A testing policy for students in athletics or other extracurricular activities applies only to students who have voluntarily chosen
to participate in an activity," the appeals court said. "Drug testing could be construed as part of the 'bargain' a student strikes in
exchange for the privilege of participating in favored activities."
The curfew controversy from Charlottesville stemmed from the city council's 1996 vote to impose curfew hours -- midnight to
5 a.m. weekdays and 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays -- for anyone under 17.
The curfew, which took effect in early 1997, contains exceptions for minors accompanied by a parent or on an errand for a
parent and in possession of an explanatory note, or attending various school, religious or civic activities.
Exceptions also exist for minors working or commuting to or from work during those hours, or for minors "exercising First
Amendment rights ... such as the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and the right of assembly."
A group of teen-agers and their parents sued, contending the curfew violated their rights. They said it "deprives parents of their
historically fundamental right to direct the rearing of their children" and unjustifiably "discriminates against minors in matters of
fundamental freedoms."
A federal appeals court ruled that the city "was constitutionally justified in believing that its curfew would materially assist its first
stated interest -- that of reducing juvenile violence and crime." It also said the curfew serves to protect children and supports
parental efforts to discipline their children.
Most curfews for minors have been upheld in state and federal courts, but there have been exceptions. Curfews in San Diego,
Allentown, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia are among those struck down when challenged.
Charlottesville officials told the justices that those curfews did not provide all the exceptions contained in their city ordinance.
Needing some help..
From: Ro
Comments
I'm doing a debate on whether or not schools have the right to punish students accused of illegal acts that occured off school
grounds and during non school hours. I'm say that the school doesn't have the right to do so. If you could give me any
information or links to go to I would really appreciate it. Thanks!
Re: Needing some help..
From: zoobie
Comments
Interesting debate. Maybe this will help.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that students have a right to a public school education and have constitutional rights to due
process.
I would argue that if a school punishes a student for something that has absolutely no connection with school, then the student's
rights are being violated. The school is going to have to show some connection between what the student did out of school and
some risk of disruption or safety in school. If the school is just punishing the student for unrelated, out of school activities, then
the school is trying to act like a court, not a school.
Check out the US Supreme Court case of GOSS v. LOPEZ, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)
Here's a summary of what it says.
"The Supreme Court held that students must be afforded some due process before their suspension from school, even for short
periods of time. The Court reasoned that even a short suspension took away the student’s property right to attend school and
the liberty right to maintain one’s good name. Therefore the Court sought to reduce the likelihood of faulty suspensions by
ensuring that the right party was expelled. The Supreme Court held that the principal or suspending officer shall provide the
student with written or oral notice of the charges, the basis or evidence for the charges, and a minimum of an opportunity to
deny them."
Here are some actual words of The Supremes in that case:
"Students were denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because they were "suspended without
hearing prior to suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter," and that the statute and implementing regulations were
unconstitutional, and granted the requested injunction. Held:
1. Students facing temporary suspension from a public school have property and liberty interests that qualify for protection
under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) Having chosen to extend the right to an education to people of appellees' class generally, Ohio may not withdraw that right
on grounds of misconduct, absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred, and must
recognize a student's legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest that is protected by the Due Process
Clause, and that may not be taken away for misconduct without observing minimum procedures required by that Clause.
(b) Since misconduct charges if sustained and recorded could seriously damage the students' reputation as well as interfere with
later educational and employment opportunities, the State's claimed right to determine unilaterally and without process whether
that misconduct has occurred immediately collides with the Due Process Clause's prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of
liberty.
(c) A 10-day suspension from school is not de minimis and may not be imposed in complete disregard of the Due Process [419
U.S. 565, 566] Clause. Neither the property interest in educational benefits temporarily denied nor the liberty interest in
reputation is so insubstantial that suspensions may constitutionally be imposed by any procedure the school chooses, no matter
how arbitrary.
2. Due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of
the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present
his version. Generally, notice and hearing should precede the student's removal from school, since the hearing may almost
immediately follow the misconduct, but if prior notice and hearing are not feasible, as where the student's presence endangers
persons or property or threatens disruption of the academic process, thus justifying immediate removal from school, the
necessary notice and hearing should follow as soon as practicable."
That’s tough language in favor of the rights of students. In the debate I would use the actual words of the Supreme Court.
That's the law of the land, even if school administrators don't know about it.
Argue that punishment of a student for activities that are not related to school deprives the student of "property and liberty
interests that qualify for protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" and, a school can't punish the
student for outside of school activities UNLESS the school can show that the "student's presence endangers persons or
property or threatens disruption of the academic process."
For more info go to
http://www.aclu-wi.org/youth/law-library.html#Expel
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=419&page=565
Re: mandatory school uniforms
From: zardaz
Date: 24 Oct 1998Remote Name: ts007d40.lap-ca.concentric.net
Comments
If a school is publicly funded, the "mandatory" school uniform policy must have an "opt out" provision.
http://www.aclu.org/congress/uniform.html
Re: Get an ACLU bust card.
From: zardaz
Date: 22 Oct 1998
Time: 19:56:31
Remote Name: ts022d18.lap-ca.concentric.net
Comments
Also, tell your kids to get an ACLU Bust Card so they will know their rights if they are questioned by police.
http://www.aclu.org/library/bustcard.html
Re: CURFEWS - Teens
From: zardaz
Date: 22 Oct 1998
Time: 19:49:02
Remote Name: ts022d18.lap-ca.concentric.net
Comments
Here are some excellent arguments against curfews.
http://www.aclu-wi.org/issues/rights-of-youth/juvenile-curfew.html
police interrogations in schools
From: pstub
Date: 17 Oct 1998
Time: 20:07:20
Remote Name: 1cust202.dl33.chi5.da.uu.net
Comments
Recently, my kids, 15 & 16 were interrogated at school by police, about an assault they had witnessed at a weekend keg, off
school grounds & non-school related. The school allowed the cops in, staff pulled them out of classes and escorted them to a
room near the office, where they were questioned alone. They were not advised of any rights they had to have a parent or other
adult with them, nor were parents informed at any time. The school eventually agreed to inform the other parents, but no
apology or acknowledgment that they would follow their own policy in the future. Anybody else have anything like this happen?
Re: police interrogations in schools
From: Sarah
Date: 18 Oct 1998
Time: 12:03:07
Remote Name: cache-da02.proxy.aol.com
Comments
This definitely seems like a violation of your kid's rights and your rights as their parent too. This was not an emergency situation,
like where a crime is being committed at the school. So the school administrators should definitely have called you and let you
be present when your kids were questioned by the police at the school. You should complain to the superintendent and the
school board. I think every school district should have a policy that the police can’t just come to a school and have kids pulled
out of class to be questioned without the school calling the parents first.
Re: police interrogations in schools
From: zardaz
Date: 18 Oct 1998
Time: 17:35:30
Remote Name: ts019d42.lap-ca.concentric.net
Comments
Hey, it is not the purpose of schools to give police a convenient place to question students.
What about the disruption this causes at the school? School boards and administrators say they are always trying to prevent
disruption of the educational process. They always use the claim of disruption to justify passing school dress codes, limiting
student speech, censoring student newspapers, etc., etc. It is very disruptive when police come to a school and have students
pulled out of class to be questioned. It is also not necessary. The students could be questioned at home.
Schools are not police interrogation cells. Unless it is a true emergency, the school policy should be that the police must
question students off campus.
Academic Freedom Update
From: sandy
Date: 18 Oct 1998
Time: 19:28:13
Remote Name: ww-dh16.proxy.aol.com
Comments
Here is an update to my post about the high school teacher who put on a school play that won many awards, and then she was
denounced by some prudes for staging "dirty plays" and was punished by being transferred to a middle school.
She was fighting to get her job back and for freedom of speech and academic freedom in high schools. She was hoping the
U.S. Supreme Court would take her case and force the school board to give back her job. Now the Supreme Court has
decided they will not even take her case. It is a very sad day for teachers and students who appreciate academic freedom.
For anybody who didn't see my post, here is the newspaper article that tells the story.
"Los Angeles Times Wednesday, May 13, 1998
Final Legal Exam Sought for Idea of Academic Freedom
Law: Teacher who staged controversial play and lost her position is appealing to U.S. Supreme Court
By DAVID G. SAVAGE, Times Staff Writer
Teacher, Peggy Boring had compiled a winning record at the regional and state competitions that would have made her a local
legend had football or basketball been her field.
In the 1992 regional competition, for example, she and her cast of four young actresses swept up 17 of 21 possible awards for
their performance of playwright Lee Blessing's "Independence." And they placed second in the state finals.
But none of this protected her when the Asheville community discovered that "Independence" is about a single mother's effort
to hold on to her three grown but troubled daughters, one of whom is a lesbian. Denounced for staging "dirty plays," Boring
was transferred to a middle school.
Now her fight to get back her job may answer a fundamental issue of law: Do teachers, while they are in the classroom, have
constitutional rights of free speech and academic freedom?
In February, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out her lawsuit on a 7-6 vote and characterized "academic
freedom" in high schools as something of a dangerous constitutional myth left over from the 1960s. In public schools, the court
stressed, elected school boards control the curriculum--and that involves everything in learning, including the school newspaper,
library books and dramatic presentations.
But if there is no academic freedom, Boring and her legal allies warn, teachers will be vulnerable to retaliation by community
activists who are upset by reports of classroom conduct that they deem objectionable. "I decided to see this through because
embattled teachers deserve some protection," said Boring, 55.
Group of Prominent Ministers Complains
She plans to appeal her case to the Supreme Court today, although the justices will probably not decide until the fall whether to
hear it.
Ironically, "Independence," the play that cost Boring her high school job, was produced for interscholastic competition. It was
not intended to be performed at her school, the Charles D. Owen High School in Asheville.
But a portion of "Independence" was staged during a special English class. A student described the scene to her parents, who
protested to the principal. Boring's notoriety spread, and before long a group of prominent ministers complained that she had
brought foul language as well as "blasphemy, premarital sex, homosexuality and promiscuity" into the high school.
Frank Yeager, the county schools superintendent, ordered her transferred to the middle school. "The people I heard from were
upset with me for not firing her," said Yeager, who since has retired.
"There was a pretty strong feeling [that] this sort of thing should not happen in public school."
Believing she had been pushed out of her job unfairly, Boring was convinced that her drama deserved a second act--with a
happier ending. She filed suit contending that the school board had violated her 1st Amendment right to free speech and
academic freedom by punishing her over the controversial content of an advanced theater production.
Principal Reportedly Told in Advance
Teachers should not be punished, her lawyers argued, just because of the ideas or behavior of the characters in students'
assigned reading. Boring pointed out that she had told the principal of the play, given him a copy of the script and invited him to
attend a performance. He paid no heed until the parents protested.
Act II also had a bad ending for Boring, however, and it carried a far wider message. The influential and conservative U.S. 4th
Circuit
Court of Appeals said that teachers have no rights to free speech and academic freedom. Judge H. Emory Widener Jr., writing
for the court, called her case "nothing more than an ordinary employment dispute. That being so, the plaintiff has no 1st
Amendment rights derived from her selection of the play." In the public schools, Widener held, elected school boards control
the curriculum.
"We agree with Plato and [English philosopher Edmund] Burke and
Justice [Felix] Frankfurter that the school, not the teacher, has the right to fix the curriculum," the judge wrote. Teachers who
overstep these bounds--even when the boundaries are not made clear in advance--cannot turn to the courts for legal
protection, the appellate majority added.
The outcome starkly illustrates a trend that troubles teachers, their lawyers and some 1st Amendment advocates.
On the one hand, community activists on the right and left are becoming quicker to protest developments in the classroom that
offend them. For Christian conservatives, the offense often involves matters of foul language, sex or homosexuality. Protests
from the left are triggered by incidents involving alleged racism or sexism.
Often, individual teachers are targeted. And at the same time, the more conservative courts have made clear that they will not
protect a teacher who comes under fire.
"This is a potentially dangerous decision in this climate," Elliot
Mincberg, legal director of People for the American Way, said of the North Carolina case. "We are seeing more incidents
where teachers are targeted, and this decision puts them at significant risk.
It says school boards have absolute carte blanche to discipline them over curriculum decisions which someone later disagrees
with."
The ruling also perturbed lawyers at the National Education Assn., the huge teachers' union.
"This was not about the curriculum or even about whether this play was appropriate or inappropriate," said Michael Simpson,
the NEA's assistant general counsel. "This was about a school board covering its behind because [it was] getting pressure from
Christian conservatives."
6 Judges Call Teacher 'Scapegoat'
The six dissenting judges on the appeals court agreed, saying that school officials in Asheville had made Boring "a scapegoat"
and used her to shield them.
"This is a case about a dedicated teacher who in no way violated any aspect of the approved curriculum, who followed every
previously required standard set forth for the selection and approval of school productions and who, when requested to do so,
redacted certain portions of the production," wrote Judge Clyde Hamilton.
The teacher, "nevertheless, lost her position as a result of the production, all for the sole purpose of shielding the principal and
board from the wrath of the public outcry." Boring said she was surprised that the appeals court regarded her case as one
involving control of the curriculum. "I wasn't trying to wrest the curriculum from anyone," she said. "I was trying to provide an
educational experience for an advanced theater group."
Her appeal to the Supreme Court--the case is called Boring vs. Buncombe County Board of Education (a name Charles
Dickens might have invented)--focuses instead on teachers' rights of free speech and academic freedom in the classroom.
Courts Divided Over Free Speech in School
Teachers have the same free-speech rights as other citizens to speak out on matters of public concern, or even to write letters
to local newspapers criticizing their school boards. But the lower courts are divided over whether these general rights extend
into school.
On a rhetorical level, "academic freedom" lives on through some glowing passages in the Supreme Court opinions of the 1960s.
Boring's lawsuit quotes all of them.
"Academic freedom [is] a transcendent value to all of us [and] a special concern of the 1st Amendment, which does not tolerate
laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom," wrote Justice William J. Brennan in 1967. "The vigilant protection of
constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools."
The high court's decision in that case upheld the free-speech right of Harry Keyishian, an English professor at a state college in
Buffalo, N.Y., who had challenged the state law that required teachers to sign loyalty oaths and disavow a belief in communism.
Two years later, during the Vietnam War, the high court sided with high school students who wore black armbands to class as
a protest. "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
expression at the schoolhouse gate," wrote Justice Abe Fortas in the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School
District.
By the 1980s, however, the Supreme Court had backed away from those broad pronouncements without ever specifically
overruling the earlier decisions.
In 1986, for example, the court upheld a high school principal's decision to discipline a student leader for including a sexual
innuendo in a speech to an assembly. The student's speech must bow to the demands of preserving order and civility at school,
the court said in Bethel School District vs. Fraser.
Two years later, the justices said that the student editors of a school newspaper do not have a free-speech right to choose the
articles.
The decision, in Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, said that the school paper was part of the curriculum and it upheld a
principal's last-minute move to excise two articles on teen pregnancy.
In the decade since, that decision has been applied regularly against teachers. The Richmond appeals court relied on it directly
in the ruling against Boring.
School Officials' Authority Upheld
The Supreme Court's opinion confirmed "educators' authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions and
other expressive activities . . . that may be characterized as part of the curriculum," Judge Widener wrote for the appeals court.
School officials, not teachers, have the exclusive power to decide the curriculum, he concluded.
Gwendolyn Gregory, a veteran attorney for the National School Boards Assn., said that the appeals court was right, even if its
decision seems unfair in Boring's case.
"I envy those kids. I was a theater student in high school and would have loved to have this teacher," she said. "But you can't
run a school if the teachers have a right to go to court and second-guess decisions about the curriculum. We say it is an
absolute right of the school board and the administrators to make those decisions.
"This issue has been popping all around the country," she added, although teachers' claims have rarely been as attractive as
Boring's.
Among those asserting their free-speech rights have been teachers who have made racist comments, used gutter language or
made remarks characterized as sexually harassing.
"The term 'academic freedom' still gets thrown around a lot but I don't think there is any such right in a legal sense," Gregory
said.
Teachers are not claiming a right to control the curriculum, countered Jeremiah Collins, a lawyer working on Boring's appeal.
Had the principal said that the teacher could not use the play for her drama class, she would have no right to disagree, he said.
"But this case goes much further. This says anything you say or do in the classroom can be grounds for firing you or disciplining
you," Collins said.
Elizabeth Carpenter, the student actress who played the key role in the original drama, said that she is still taken aback by the
controversy that engulfed her teacher.
"There was a lesbian character on stage. That was all. That might seem like a minor thing but, in a small mountain community,
that was enough to throw up a red flag," said Carpenter, who now works at the Seattle Repertory Theater.
She praised Boring as "a great teacher who changed my life. My parents didn't have a lot of money and she got me on the track
to get a scholarship and an apprenticeship in the theater."
'Why Do They Hate You, Grandma?'
Regardless of the outcome in the Supreme Court, the case already has had something of a happy ending for Boring.
She decided last year to leave the Asheville area and put the controversy behind her.
"I think the final straw," she said, "was having my grandchild come home from first grade and ask me: 'Why do they hate you,
Grandma?' "
Soon after, she was offered a position as the drama teacher at a new arts magnet school in Charlotte. "
high school student suspended for practicing witchcraft
From: jojo
Date: 22 Oct 1998
Time: 07:59:09
Remote Name: host1.sbhsam.sysci.org
Comments
Here is a really weird story of a student who was suspended because she was accused of casting a witchcraft spell on another
student! This sounds like a modern version of the Salem witch trials. Mass suggestion, hysteria, persecution, etc. Somebody
should do an update of Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible and make the setting a modern suburban high school. But it would
probably end up being only another cheesy hollywood fright movie.
The Baltimore Sun, October 21, 1998
Student suspended for `hex.'
Witchcraft: Southwestern High School disciplines a 15-year-old girl accused of casting a spell on another student.
By John Rivera Sun Staff
Southwestern High School was thrown into turmoil yesterday when a ninth- grader accused her classmate, an admitted
practicing witch who is the daughter of a witch, of putting a hex on her.
In an incident seemingly more appropriate for a Halloween tale than for a public school, Jamie Schoonover, a 15-year-old
freshman, was sent home yesterday with an official city schools discipline form, which cited the reason for the referral as
"casting a spell on a student."
Earl L. Lee, principal of the Alpha Academy that comprises the school's ninth grade, has summoned the parents of both girls to
his office today to sort everything out.
"This is the first case I've ever had like this in 29 years," Lee said. "This is totally new to me."
Schoonover said it's all a misunderstanding. She would never cast a spell because the principles of Wicca, a form of
neo-paganism that she and her mother practice, dictate that whatever you do, good or evil, returns to you threefold.
"If she was to go ahead and cast some evil spell, she would look at it coming back to her three times over," said her mother,
Colleen Harper. "I don't think that she'd want to do that."
Harper says she believes her daughter has become a target because of her religious beliefs, which are not respected by school
officials. "I'm highly upset because this is a faith we practice as devoutly as a Christian would practice Christianity," she said.
But school officials say the disciplinary action taken against Schoonover is not about religion.
"The student was suspended for allegedly threatening other students, which is a violationof the student discipline code, which
was established by the Baltimore City school board," said Vanessa Pyatt, a city schools spokeswoman. "The nature of the
threat -- casting a spell or whatever -- that doesn't enter into it right now."
Lee said the incident began yesterday morning before school. A group of five or six students ran up to him, consoling a girl who
was in tears, he said.
"The other child was crying so hard I couldn't get anything out of her," he said. "I've never seen a child so upset about anything.
I thought she had been in a fight or something, the way she was hysterical and out of control.
"They said this new girl at school, who was a witch, who practices Satanism, had cast a spell on her," Lee said.
When Lee got back to his office, Schoonover was waiting for him. "I began to question her. I said, `What is this about, you
casting a spell on a child?' She said, `I know how to do it, but I would never cast a spell on a child.'
"I asked her, Do you practice witchcraft?' And she said, `Yes, I practice witchcraft,' " he said. "It's just so new to us that a
child openly admits she practices witchcraft. It's very bizarre to us. So, we wanted to get the parents involved, to see if they
had any knowledge of it."
Not only does Harper know about it, she practices witchcraft with the girl. Harper, a transsexual who was Schoonover's father
but now calls herself her mother, has been a practitioner of Wicca for a year, after dabbling in it for five or so years.
"We're not Satanists, simply because Satan is a Christian concept and we don't have anything to do with Christianity," Harper
said. "Unfortunately, there are too many superstitions that have been encouraged by Hollywood's depiction of witchcraft."
Wicca is a benign religious practice closely associated with nature and nature's cycles, she said.
That confusion is at the root of the problem, Schoonover said. According to her version of events, she and friends were sitting
around a tree when they noticed other girls had written their own names on rocks there. One of her friends wanted to cross out
the names, so Schoonover lent the friend a white-out pen.
After crossing out the names, the friend wrote, "Life is a virtue of death."
"The girls came over and they thought I had put a spell on them," Schoonover said. "I said, `No, I didn't put a spell on
anybody.' "
One of the girls began to cry.
"That girl was scared stiff," Schoonover said. "She was crying and crying. She would just get scared of me looking over at her."
Lee said he was troubled by Schoonover's admission that she practices witchcraft and by the effect that knowledge is having on
some students.
"Because of the information the child was giving us, we felt it was necessary to send a letter home and to talk with her parents
about how it is affecting other children in the school," he said. "The child said she practiced witchcraft, so we want additional
information about this witchcraft, whether it's a true religion or not. I have to do some further research."