Essay On Should Students Have The Right To Be Protected Against Unreasonable Searches

In the Opinion Announcement of Morse v. Frederick, Justice Roberts said, "...students do not shed their First Amendments rights at the schoolhouse gate... The rights of students at {a} school are not the same as the rights of adults in the community at large" (Morse). The point he is getting across is that even though students still have their first amendment right at school it is more filtered as they are required to follow school policy (Morse). In the case of Morse v Frederick, his first amendment was not broken as he was promoting illegal drug use at a school event which is explicitly prohibited at school no matter if at school grounds or not (Morse). From this case, it is further understood that students still have some right to be free

Three laws that have shaped and resolved the rights and services available to the students with disabilities will be discussed in this section. Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Act( IDEA )and The Americans Disabilities Act( ADA). The IDEA is the major federal statute providing educational rights to students with disabilities. Even so, two other statutes, Section 504 of the rehabilitation Act and ADA which was modified recently (ADA,2006,2008), also have implication for the disciplinary process when it involves students with disabilities ( Russo & Osborne, 2009). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is the first federal civil rights law protecting the rights of persons with disabilities.

Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana. Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable.

The Verdict discussed how both cases were attempting to suppress evidence from their cell phones which now contain much more information than they once did. Cases like this continue to shape our rights. The fourth amendment is here to protect ourselves from being incriminated. In modern day the fourth amendment is in question due to new technology.

Gathercoal (2001) reminds school leaders that the Supreme Court has upheld schools may limit an individual’s right to an education if they violate one of four underlying responsibilities. Students right to an education can be limited if they willfully cause property loss or damage. They must follow rules which have a legitimate educational purpose. Students rights can also be limited if they pose a health and safety risk to themselves or others. Finally students may not cause a serious disruption to the educational process.

The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Primer for Social Workers, a study by Susan McCarter (2017), was written to give a summary of the School-to-prison pipeline in an attempt to break down the factors surrounding children being funneled into this path by their respective school systems around the country. The author explains the correlation between the School-to-prison pipeline and its disparate outcomes for students of color, students with disabilities, and students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (p. 54-55). McCarter presents implications for social workers and multiple specific strategies to reduce the detrimental effects of the School-to-prison pipeline. Susan McCarter, PhD, MSW, is an associate professor

The public school to prison pipeline was examined in the literature review through zero-tolerance policies and the effects it has played on graduation rates. Zero-tolerance policies have dramatically increased students being recommended to the court system according to the literature review. The literature review has shown a need for school districts to examine zero-tolerance policies and the negative effects that it has caused on students. Fran Silverman (2005) discusses students being punished under zero-tolerance and says, “The students were disciplined under their school’s zero tolerance policy and some advocates are saying these codes of conduct have become so strict that schools are turning into criminal justice systems, or worse, jailhouses” (pg. 54).

Teachers should not be armed in schools because the could not handle a real situation, and the liability is too much of a risk. To elaborate, it is widely agreed that a student’s well-being is a teacher’s concern. For six to eight hours every day for 5 days a week, the life of the student is in the teacher’s hands. However, a teacher has never been expected to arm themself to protect a student until now.

There has been many controversial issues about the “stop-and-frisk” law. One side believes that it is racially profiling the communities of minorities and the other side believes that it is helping communities rise away from violence. There is a lot of history and background on stop-and-frisk and how it originated in the United States, especially in different places around the world. This law has been very controversial even within the law itself, so controversial states are debating on getting rid of it completely. Many politicians speak on this tactic in both positive and negative ways and the statistical growths and decreases on this topic.

It is immediately implied that safety and behavior is an issue there since it is anticipated that students are or will be bringing weapons with them to school. In addition to outside onlookers getting some negative feedback, the actual students attending the school have given inputs of not agreeing with the idea of having metal detectors in schools. According to the Ny Daily News website, students feel unwelcomed and see metal detectors as barriers to their school. Knowing that a school is anticipating the entry of weapons does not change the fact that there are students or individuals expected to attack at

Again, all students claimed their rights to the due process clause of the 14th amendment were violated. The major purpose of the due process clause is for a person to be heard. It basically gives a person the chance to defend accusations that are being made against them. It clearly states that students must be given some type of prior notice, and they must be given some type of arena to hear and defend those accusations.

Firstly, the arming of students, faculty and staff should be prohibited because its unsafe. The debate on whether staff, faculty and students should carry firearms on campuses has been going for years now. Some colleges have debated that a law should be passed were staff and faculty should carry firearms on campus, but other colleges have dismissed this case because it is dangerous and unsafe. According to Jesus Villahermosa’s essay “Guns don’t belong in the Hands of Administrators, Professors, or Students” he states, “I agree that allowing guns on campuses will create problems, not solve them.” This statement is true because not everyone is capable to handle a gun or even use one.

He utilized ethnography in order to see how the rights of students, including those that are listed in the fourth and fifth amendment, are dealt with in twos public high schools that have full time SROs in them. The two high schools that were selected for the study were Central High School and City High School. Two ethnographers paid random visits to each one of the schools and looked at the way the students interacted with their SROs. They then took field notes of what they observed at the end of each school day. 26 in person interviews were also conducted on parents, staff members, and the SROs that worked at the schools.

In order to nurture a healthy learning environment at America’s schools and universities, it is critical that students as well as faculty feel safe on campus. Recent pandemonium of violent crimes on campus has many pro-gun activists suggesting that both the Students and Teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on

When one hears "school security" these days, the word that goes with it is "tighten." Indeed, given both external threats and unruly (sometimes violent) student behavior, it makes sense to think that the most sensible course of action is to err on the side of more stringent measures, harsher sanctions and less permissive administration. It largely comes down to liability - whenever an individual with a history of troubled or criminal behavior snaps or becomes involved in an incident severe enough to attract government or media attention, many of the questions asked in the aftermath are variations on "why was this person not in jail. " The same applies to schools, where administrators often end up having to justify themselves to parents and