2. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Censorship, Student Press Rights
OVERVIEW
In May 1983, Principal Robert Reynolds of Hazelwood East High
School, decided to have certain pages of the school’s student-
written newspaper pulled because of sensitive content. Two of the
articles submitted for publication in the final edition of the
paper contained stories on divorce and teenage pregnancy.
Principal Reynolds reviewed the paper before publication. He
tried to remove them quickly before the paper’s publication
deadline. Students felt that this violated their First Amendment
rights- freedom of speech and press. However, The Supreme Court
made a landmark decision that Principal Reynolds was right in
what he did. They decided this because public school student
newspapers that have not been established as forums for student
expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment
protection, rather than independent student expression or
newspapers established as forums for student expression.
3. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Censorship, Student Press Rights
DEFENSES ARGUMENTS
The school district and school officials, claiming that defendants'
First Amendment rights were violated by the removal of a certain issue
of the paper. These two deleted pages included an article telling
school students' experiences with pregnancy and another article
discussing the impact of divorce on students at the school. The
newspaper was written and edited by a journalism class, as part of the
school's curriculum. The teacher in charge of the paper submitted page
proofs to the school's principal, who objected to the pregnancy story
because the pregnant students might be identified from the text
whether they were named or not. He also believed that the article's
references to sexual activity and birth control were inappropriate for
some of the younger students. The principal opposed the divorce
article because the page proofs he was provided identified a student
who complained of her father's ways, and the principal believed that
the student's parents should have been given an opportunity to respond
to the remarks or to approve to their publication. Being that there
was no time to make necessary changes in the articles if the paper was
to be issued before the end of the school year, the principal directed
that the pages on which they appeared be withheld from publication
even though other, inoffensive articles were included on such pages.
Students claimed that this violated their First Amendment rights.
4. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Censorship, Student Press Rights
COURTS DECISION
The Supreme Court decided that the principal had not violated the
students’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. The paper
was sponsored by the school and subject to editing by the school.
It was not meant for sharing views, but it was a requirement for
the students in the class. The topic of the stories were students
in the school whose identities could have easily been exposed.
The father of the student who created the accusing divorce
article was not even informed or given a chance to respond to it.
It was in the best interest of the students and the school to
remove the articles
5. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
Student Search & Seizure
OVERVIEW
In 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in New Jersey found
two girls smoking in a restroom. Smoking in the restrooms was a
violation of school rules; smoking was allowed only in the
designated smoking area. As a result, an assistant principal
felt the need to search her purse for cigarettes. The vice
principal found marijuana and other items that connected the
student in dealing marijuana. The student tried to have the
evidence from her purse suppressed, contending that small
possession of cigarettes was not a violation of school rules; so
a desire for proof of smoking in the bathroom did not justify the
search. The Supreme Court decided that the search did not violate
the Constitution and provided more lenient standards for
reasonableness in school searches.
6. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
Student Search & Seizure
DEFENSES ARGUMENTS
T.L.O. tried to have the evidence from her purse suppressed,
opposing that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. She also
claimed that her admission should be suppressed on the grounds
that it was tainted by the unlawful search. The juvenile court
denied her Fourth Amendment arguments, although it acknowledged
that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches by school
officials. But, it said that a school official can search a
student if the official has a "rational feeling that a crime has
been or is in the process of being committed, or sensible reason
to believe that the search is needed to maintain school
discipline or carry out school rules." This is a lower standard
than the "probable cause" standard, which is required when police
conduct a search. Public school officials are employees of the
State, not representatives of parents. They do not have the right
to act as parents. Because school officials are employees of the
State, they are obligated to respect every student's rights,
including his or her right to privacy. The search of T.L.O.'s
purse and the seizure of its contents were unreasonable acts,
which led to her confession; therefore, the exclusionary rule
applies
7. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
Student Search & Seizure
COURTS DECISION
In 1985, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 margin, ruled that
New Jersey and the school had met a "reasonableness"
standard for piloting such searches at school. Students in
public schools have a constitutional right to privacy
under the 4th Amendment and that school officials are
bound by constitutional restrictions. But the opinion also
stated that the rights of children and adolescents are not
the same as those of adults and that school officials have
a responsibility to maintain the discipline necessary for
education. The high court said school administrators don't
need to have a search warrant or probable cause before
conducting a search because students have a reduced
expectation of privacy when in school. a search could be
reasonable under the 4th Amendment without probable cause,
so long as it was supported by reasonable suspicion or
reasonable cause. The assistant vice-principal's search
was considered reasonable under this definition.
8. Plessy v. Ferguson(1896)
"Separate but Equal," Equal Protection
OVERVIEW
Plessy v. Ferguson was an 1896 decision by the US Supreme Court that
confirmed the principle of "Separate but Equal" and minority
segregation. The case began in Louisiana in 1892. Homer Plessy agreed
to be arrested to test the 1890 law establishing "whites only" train
cars. Although he himself was one-eighth black and seven-eighths
white, he was still legally required to sit in the "colored" car of
the train. The judge at the trial was John Howard Ferguson, a lawyer
from Massachusetts who had previously declared the Separate Car Act
"unconstitutional on trains that traveled through several states." In
Plessy's case, however, he decided that the state could choose to
regulate railroad companies that operated only within Louisiana. He
found Plessy guilty of refusing to leave the white car. Plessy
appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which upheld Ferguson's
decision. In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States heard
Plessy's case and found the law constitutional. Plessy paid the fine
for the offense, but the case renewed black opposition to such laws.
The Plessy decision set the precedent that "separate" facilities for
blacks and whites were constitutional as long as they were "equal"
(which was seldom the case). The "separate but equal" doctrine had
already been extended to cover many areas of public life, such as
restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and public schools. Not until 1954,
in the equally important Brown v. Board of Education decision, would
the "separate but equal" doctrine be struck down.
9. Plessy v. Ferguson(1896)
"Separate but Equal," Equal Protection
DEFENSES ARGUMENTS
Plessy argued that segregated facilities violate the
Equal Protection Clause. As a fully participating
citizen, Plessy should not have been denied any
rights of citizenship. He should not have been
required to give up any public right or access. The
Louisiana law violated the Equal Protection Clause
and was, therefore, unconstitutional.
10. Plessy v. Ferguson(1896)
"Separate but Equal," Equal Protection
COURTS DECISION
Justice Henry B. Brown of Michigan delivered the 7-1 decision
of the Court that upheld the Louisiana law requiring
segregation. Brown noted that the law did not violate either
the 13th or 14th Amendments. He stated that the 13th
Amendment applied only to slavery, and the 14th amendment was
not intended to give African Americans social equality but
only political and civil equality with white people. The
justices based their decision on the separate-but-equal
doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites
satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were
equal. (The phrase, "separate but equal" was not part of the
opinion.) Justice Brown conceded that the 14th amendment
intended to establish absolute equality for the races before
the law. But Brown noted that "in the nature of things it
could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based
upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from
political equality, or a commingling of the two races
unsatisfactory to either." In short, segregation does not in
itself constitute unlawful discrimination.
