регистрация / вход

Destruction Of 1St Amendment Rights In Our

Schools Essay, Research Paper Destruction of 1st Amendment Rights In Our SchoolsIn 1787 our forefathers ratified the constitution of the UnitedStates of America, which contains the most important document toany American citizen, the Bill of Rights. The first amendment of theBill of Rights states:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the establishment thereof; orabridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or the right ofthe people peaceably to assemble, and to petition thegovernment for a redress of grievances. these freedoms (commonly called the freedom of expression) are ofthe most important rights in a truly democratic society.

Schools Essay, Research Paper

Destruction of 1st Amendment Rights In Our SchoolsIn 1787 our forefathers ratified the constitution of the UnitedStates of America, which contains the most important document toany American citizen, the Bill of Rights. The first amendment of theBill of Rights states:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the establishment thereof; orabridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or the right ofthe people peaceably to assemble, and to petition thegovernment for a redress of grievances. these freedoms (commonly called the freedom of expression) are ofthe most important rights in a truly democratic society. Withoutthem there would be no new ideas; we would all conform undertotalitarian rule for fear of punishment. However, when I, a commonstudent at West Rowan High School try to express my feelings on “thestate of the Bill of Rights in schools today” by making a computerpresentation in multimedia class, my work is declared “bad” and myteacher and assistant principal do one of the most un-American thingsimaginable: they censored it. I had to re-make the presentation andlighten the harsh tone, and also erase the anarchy symbol from it. Theteacher said that she was worried about me for reasons such as myfeelings on the freedom of religion were almost satanic, because I saidteachers should not be able to publicly practice religion in schoolsbecause it will encourage students to become a part of that religion.The presentation was neither slanderous nor obscene, but it didcriticize teachers and administrators calling them “fascist dictators”.At first I was angry at the school because I could wear clothing thatwas obscene or contained liquor advertisements, now they havecompletely taken away my freedom of speech. This of course provedmy argument that teachers and administrators are totalitarians. Asone journalist put it, “If Freedom of expression becomes merely anempty slogan in the minds of enough children, it will be dead by thetime we are adults.” I soon began reading more and more about thefreedom of speech in schools and every time a subject as such came upthe Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student declaring the actionunconstitutional under the first amendment. As I was reading NatHentoff’s book The First Freedom I came across a story in which astudent wrote a newspaper article criticizing the school administration,soon after he ran for student government and was taken off the ballotfor his critique. Unfortunately he did not fight it in court. The principal sharply taught the student, “The constitution of this school takes precedence over the United States Constitution. The freedom of expression in school is marred bysociety but not completely dissolved by the administration. The 1969 supreme court ruling Tinker v. Des Moins CommunitySchools defined a student’s freedom of speech best. John and MaryBeth Tinker wore black armbands to school as a protest of theVietnam war. It was a silent protest; the Tinker’s never caused oneproblem, although some students did make threats at them. Theschool’s administrators made them take them off. Their case made itall the way to the US Supreme Court, where it won a 7-2 ruling. (Pascoe, 96) Justice Abe Fortas gave an excellent interpretation of a

students freedom of speech when he said:”It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shedtheir rights at the schoolhouse gate… In our system, state-operated schools may not be the enclaves of totalitarianism.School officials do not possess absolute authority over theirstudents. Students in school as well as out of school are’persons’ under our constitution. …Students may not be regardedas closed circuit recipients of only that which the State wishes tocommunicate. They may not be confined to the expression of thosesentiments that are officially approved”. In essence Fortas stated that a student could say whatever they wanted, no matter what it was. However, The Court acknowledged that there would be times when expression should be limited; such as if a student disrupted classwork,”created substantial disorder,” or infringed on the rights of others. The fact that the administration thought it might cause a disturbance was not enough. The court said:” Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class in the lunchroom, or on the campus maystart an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk.”(Pascoe, 98)Tinker ’s opinion stood as a rule until 1983 when Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier changed academic history again. Students in Hazelwood wrote articles on teen pregnancy and divorce in their student newspaperThe Spectrum, and their principal deleted them because they were “inappropriate”. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school because they said the school shouldn’t be required to endorse ideas it considered unsuitable. This decisiongave administrators the right to censor newspapers, plays and many other activities. Everything the students printed was fact and they should be able to say whatever they want as long as it isn’t libelous. Later in 1986, Bethel School District v. Matthew Fraser further defined the extent of a student’s rights. Fraser made a speech nominating a friend for student-government and used a few lightly disguised sexual innuendoes.He was subsequently suspended for it. The Court upheld his speech was obscene because of the strong sexual metaphor that follows:”I know a man who is firm. He is firm in his pants he is firm in hisshirt, his character is firm– but most…of all his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary he will take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn’t attack things in spurts- he drives hard, pushing and pushinguntil finally- he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end- even the climax for each and every one of you. So vote for Jeff for A.S.B. vice-president- he’ll never come between you and the best our high school can be.”This decision further defined a student’s freedom of speech by stating that a student may not say anything obscene. The first amendment is the most important one because, without it there would be no new ideas. It is a shame our country’s students must live under the dictatorship commonly called the “School Board.” It is thought thatfreedom of speech would cause anarchy, but in most instances it is perfectly acceptable. Our government needs to revise and outline a students rights to avoid confusion, and give pupils the rights they deserve.

ОТКРЫТЬ САМ ДОКУМЕНТ В НОВОМ ОКНЕ

ДОБАВИТЬ КОММЕНТАРИЙ [можно без регистрации]

Ваше имя:

Комментарий