Discipline in the Education Section Research Paper

Introduction

What legal consequences are students likely to face, and what rights do they have concerning indiscipline cases? Discipline is one of the critical aspects of educational institutions as it enables a facility to run smoothly and effectively with fewer cases of conflict between the students and the teaching fraternity. It is a broad topic as it involves various activities that make educational institutions function efficiently. Educational facilities provide guidelines to maintain law and order. State and federal judges have ruled cases used to guide the judgment of similar incidences. The legal suits have been used as points of reference by other judges to provide solutions to similar cases if they develop. Educational institutions use such lawsuits to guide their contact when dealing with different incidences of indiscipline and their legal aspects.

Case 1

• Case title: New Jersey v. T.L.O.
• Citation: New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
• Facts of the case: The case entails T.L.O. and their friend who were caught smoking cigarettes in New Jersey high school’s girls’ restroom. The incident violated the school rules, and they were brought to the school administrator. T.L.O. denied the allegations while the other girl accepted. The administrator accused them of lying and demanded to see the other girl’s purse. He found a packet of cigarettes and a rolling paper mostly used to roll marijuana. When searching T.L.O.’s purse, he found some drugs considered paraphernalia, a pipe, and money. He informed the police of the issue as T.L.O. confessed she sold marijuana in school. She was subsequently charged in juvenile court. Before the trial, T.L.O. tried to subdue the evidence, but the attempt was refused by the court.
• Ruling: The supreme ruled that T.L.O. was guilty of being in possession of marijuana and was sentenced to probation for a period of one year.
• Analysis: The ruling reiterated that educational institutions have the right to undertake searches and seizures if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be executed or has been executed. The school was found to have met the absolute standard or reasonableness to conduct a search in the educational facility.
• Conclusion: School officials have the right to undertake seizures or searches if they have reasonable grounds. They can undertake random searches and seizures to ensure that students maintain a high level of discipline.

Case 2

• Title: Goss v. Lopez
• Citation: Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)
• Facts of the case: Ohio public high school learners (appellee) were granted suspension for ten days without due process. They developed a class action, arguing that the suspensions were unconstitutional and taking legal action against the officials. The case was taken to a district court where the three-judge bench ruled that appellees high school officials denied the students their rights to due process, violating the fourteenth amendment.
• Ruling: The judges held that students under interim suspension from a public educational facility have the rights and liberty to be protected under the due process clause in the fourteenth amendment.
• Analysis: The suspension was executed without a prior hearing, making the suspension unconstitutional, and the court issued an injunction. Students in public schools have the right to a hearing following the due process clause of the constitution-making it mandatory for students to undergo a hearing before they are suspended for discipline issues.
• Conclusion: The case provides additional legal conditions that need to be undertaken before an educational institution gives a student suspension. The case shows that discipline is a critical aspect in schools, and therefore, the management should consider the nature of the case and undertake a hearing before suspending the students.

Case 3

• Title: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)
• Citation: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503
• Facts of the case: The incident was experienced at Des Moines public school in Iowa, where students had planned to wear black armbands as a silent protest against the Vietnam War. When the principal learned about the plan, he warned them of the act’s consequences and told them that wearing the armbands would attract suspensions since the incident would distract the learning process. The students defied the order and executed the protest leading to their suspension. In response, their parents sued the school for violating their right to free speech, and the district court ruled against the parents claiming that the protest disrupted the learning process. Parents appealed the case and lost before taking the matter to Supreme Court.
• Ruling: In a 7-2 outcome, the Supreme Court ruled that neither the teachers nor the students shed their freedom of expression or speech at the institution’s gate.
• Analysis: The ruling fortified students’ rights to exercise speech in public schools hence institutions cannot censor free speech right unless there is a disruption to educational processes. In this case, the act of wearing an armband was not found to be disruptive to the learning or educational processes. Public school authorities cannot have absolute control over students which avoids the possibility of making such institutions to be enclaves of totalitarianism.
• Conclusion: The case provides a discipline-related incidence involving student protests as schools cannot exercise total authority over students while denying their rights.

Case 4

• Title: Ingraham v. Wright
• Citation: Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977)
• Facts of the case: This case was filed by parents and pupils of Dade county junior school in Florida to challenge the use of corporate punishment in school. The petitioners wanted to obtain injunctive compensation for damages and a declaration of relief from the school officials claiming that corporate punishment was against their constitutional rights. The teachers were to use a wooden paddle to recalcitrant the student’s buttocks.
• Ruling: The jury ruled that the eighth amendment does not inhibit the use of corporal punishment in public schools.
• Analysis: The jury ruled against the push by Dade county’s residents to alleviate corporal punishment as the constitution supported its application if it did not result in severe harm or embarrass the student. The parents’ push for the school to renounce the allegations failed as they could not indicate a reason why the punishment should be alleviated.
• Conclusion: This case indicates that corporal punishment is allowed and schools can use it if it does not pose degrading and unduly severe effects. Such mechanisms are effective and should be used in instilling discipline to students.

Case 5

• Title: Kent v. the United States.
• Citation: Kent v. the United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966)
• Facts of the case: The petitioner in the case was arrested and charged with housebreaking, rape, and robbery, which he executed at 16. The individual was subjected to exclusive jurisdiction in Columbia district the juvenile court, where his counsel filed a motion with the court to waive the jurisdiction and remit him from the trial. The council sought to access a social service file used to accumulate information about the petitioner during a previous trial. Still, the jury refused and requested a full investigation claiming that the waiver was invalid. In the process, the petitioner was tried.
• Ruling: The jury ruled out that the case lacked sufficient evidence that would allow for the waiver or jurisdiction.
• Analysis: After the full investigation, the juvenile was acquitted of the rape count charges he was facing and charged with six counts of robbery and housebreaking.
• Conclusion: The case shows that even juveniles can be charged in a court of law and get a prison sentence for the illegal activities that they undertake. Such a case, can be used to warn students on engaging in criminal activities as they can be charged of any case irrespective of their age.

Case 6

• Title: Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton
• Citation: Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton (94-590), 515 U.S. 646 (1995)
• Facts of the case: The petitioner was a student in Vernonia, Oregon, where drugs had not been a critical aspect. Still, the teachers had experienced a rise in drug use in the small town. An official investigation of student athletes discovered they participated in illegal drug use, forcing the school to adopt a random urinalysis drug test for all its student-athletes. A lawsuit was filed when a student named James Acton was denied participation in the school football program after his parents refused to undertake a drug test for him to be considered for the sport. Acton’s parents claimed that the mandatory drug test violated the fourth and the fourteenth amendments.
• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruling argued that such tests did not violate the fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable seizure or searches.
• Analysis: The case shows that school rules and regulations should be adhered to as long as they do not violate the rights of the students. Drug tests are critical as doping and use of energy stimulation drugs are illegal.
• Conclusion: The use of a drug test is a form of ensuring that the students are normal and do not use any energy stimulation drugs when engaging in school-sponsored activities.

Case 7

• Title: United States v. Lopez
• Citation: United States v. Lopez (93-1260), 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
• Facts of the case: The case involved a 12^th-grade student in Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, who went to school carrying a handgun. The school authorities arrested the student, who admitted to carrying the weapon. He was later charged under the law of Texas for possessing a weapon within school premises. The charges were dismissed as federal agents charged him with violating the gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The case developed a serious debate on the power of Congress in legislating control over public schools.
• Ruling: A federal jury of nine members ruled that Congress had overstepped its boundaries in regulating interstate commerce, making it unconstitutional.
• Analysis: The case plays a critical role in showing the consequences that students are likely to experience if they carry with them guns to school.
• Conclusion: The case ensures that firearms are not taken in places considered school zones. Carrying firearms in school zones is illegal and the offence is an act of indiscipline.

Case 8

• Title: Morse v. Frederick
• Citation: Morse v. Frederick (No. 06-278) 439 F. 3d 1114
• Facts of the case: A group of students was found unfurling a banner with the inscriptions BONG HITS 4 JESUS, which was perceived to promote illegal drug use in school. The high school principal commanded the boys to take down the burner, but one named Frederick refused and was suspended for violating the institution’s policy. Frederick filed a lawsuit claiming the school violated his freedom of speech. The petitioner claimed that his suspension was against the First Amendment, which protects an individual’s freedom of speech.
• Ruling: The jury in the case indicated that the First Amendment does not prohibit educators from suppressing at or across the street of a school-based event a speech reasonably perceived to promote drug use.
• Analysis: It was held that schools could take steps to safeguard the parents’ trust they have placed in them to protect their children from harmful aspects like speeches promoting drug abuse.
• Conclusion: The student’s action of placing a banner promoting illegal drugs disrupted the learning activities while refusing to remove the banner violated the school policy and was a discipline issue.

Case 9

• Title: Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L., A Minor.
• Citation: Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. ___ (2021).
• Facts of the case: B.L, a student at Mahanoy Area High School, failed to make the school’s cheerleading squad and posted on his social media platform, Snapchat, temporary pictures showing his frustration where one was vulgar, leading to his suspension from the cheering squad. His parents sought legal advice from the federal court, claiming the punishment violated his first amendment freedom of speech. An injunction was granted as the posts did not cause any disruption to the learning activities.
• Ruling: The jury ruled that the student conducted these activities away from the school. While this decision protected its interests, the school was overreaching its mandate by trying to regulate off-campus speech
• Analysis: The ruling indicated that the school only could regulate speeches that materially disrupted classwork or caused the disorder.
• Conclusion: the case enhances the understanding of the student’s rights towards free speech and provides a limitation through which they can exercise the right at school.

Case 10

• Title: Norton v. Discipline Committee of East Tennessee State University,
• Citation: Norton v. Discipline Committee of East Tennessee State University, 399 U.S. 906 (1970).
• Facts of the case: The case petitioner was suspended from Tennessee State University for distributing leaflets criticizing the university administration. The students filed the case in the federal district court seeking to be reinstated and the record of their suspension removed since they argued it violated their freedom of speech and due process. After the hearing, the district court and the court of appeal denied the students the relief but granted certiorari after hearing about the evidence.
• Ruling: The court of appeal held that the pamphlets were published out of anger and the information about the backwardness of the university administration provoked disruption in other universities.
• Analysis: The ruling indicated that students did not endanger the institution’s ability to function hence they were practicing their freedom of speech.
• Conclusion: the case shows how some actions that students use to express their grievances towards the management can lead to indiscipline and provides legal guidance on the best ways students can express themselves without violating the law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, discipline in the education section is a critical aspect that needs to be addressed keenly due to the moral and ethical issues involved. It can be classified into safety, corporate punishment, and personal rights, mainly addressed in the cases discussed. Discipline involve aspects of freedom of speech addressed in the First Amendment of the constitution of America, which provides individuals with the freedom of expression and speech. The judgment should be legally and ethically binding to ensure that it upholds the law and does not cause any harm to other individuals.

References

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).

Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977).

Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966).

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. 141 (2021).

Morse v. Frederick (06-278) 439 F. 3d 1114 (2007).

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).

Norton v. Discipline Committee of East Tennessee State University, 399 U.S. 906 (1970).

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton (94-590), 515 U.S. 646 (1995).