Students Rights

In a well organized institution or culture you will always find rules and regulations which govern the practices performed by the regulators or the populace. In order to maintain or attain order these rules and regulations must be adhered to and executed. In the following reflection I will be commenting on the legal rights students enjoy and their responsibilities.

Issue: Students Records

The “Family Rights and Privacy Acts” also known as the “Buckley Amendment 1974” gives students over the age of eighteen, or the parents and guardians of younger pupils’ access to their educational records. Even though there are procedures in attaining these records such as attaining parental or pupil consent, students and parents have the legal right to attain them. There are other stipulations which are necessary for institutions and teachers to adhere to in order to fully comply with federal standards. These standards require that the school district and institution inform parents of their rights prior to having their children attend the school. Another right that students have according to “Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo 2002” is that students can also grade their peers’ academic work and announce the results in class. This right does not violate the privacy act established in the Buckley Amendment.

Issue: Distribution of Scholarships

The Federal Law “Title IX” prohibits that any organization or institution use sex as a criterion by which financial awards are granted. These awards are not limited to scholarships, grants or any other financial assistance. An objective criterion must be established for fair distribution of these awards.

Issue: Suspension and discipline

In “Goss v. Lopez” the Supreme Court ruled that teachers and administrators are required to follow certain procedures in order to guarantee the student’s “due process” rights granted by the Fourteenth Amendment. Academic authorities (teachers or principals) cannot suspend a student on false accusations, speculations, or assumptions. School officials can be held personally liable for damages if they violate a student’s constitutional rights (Wood v. Strickland). The process begins with the student being informed of the rule or inappropriate behavior which has been broken and or violated, and evidence must be provided. The student is then entitled to tell his or her side of the story in self defense. If suspension exceeds ten days, the school must initiate more formal procedures.

Issue: Freedom of Speech

The “Tinker Case” allowed the Supreme Court to make judgments on issues regarding freedom of speech. In cases where students do not disrupt the operation of the school or deny other students the opportunity to learn it was free for students to demonstrate, create or engage in forms of speech which protected their rights. These rights are not limited to sharing ideas, concept, or opinions in public or in the internet forum. Certain restrictions do apply when assessing the indecent and offensive use of language or remarks which other students or minors should not be exposed to. Obscene language or speech being induced into the internet forum or website regarding other individuals, institutions or party also violates the rights passed by the Supreme Court on the basses that it should not be exposed or involuntarily practiced in public.

Issue: School Prayer

The Supreme Court has ruled that “educators” must be completely neutral with regard to religion and may neither encourage nor discourage prayer. “Official” prayer is not permitted by any school personnel or performed at graduation ceremonies. Educators are also prohibited from compelling students to salute the flag or even recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This amendment does not necessarily apply to “students” practicing religious activities. Students actually have the right to engage in private prayer, religious discussions, and even form religious clubs on school property. But it is more directed toward the institution and educators in general.

Issue: Search and Seizure

In the case of drugs, alcohol and other harmful devices or paraphernalia school authorities have the right to conduct a search of student lockers, cars, or any other assets located on school property. Since the school is responsible for anything on school property, school authorities have the right to protect children and respond to reasonable concerns about safety and health. Even random drug testing is practiced on students participating in extra curriculum activities to adhere to school standards. Dogs may be allowed to sniff students who are reasonable suspects or potential threats. Strip searches are illegal.

Issue: Freedom of Press

In 1988 the Supreme Court ruled in the “Hazelwood Case” that as long as student newspapers were financed by the students, and not associated with an official school “course” those students would have the liberty of publishing their own articles or newspaper. Stipulations were made though on any forms of obscenities, psychological harm, and disruption of school activities due to the article or newspaper.In the other hand, if the newspaper or article written was part of a school journalism course then school authorities have the right to censor the article or newspaper and terminate the release and fabrication of that article or newspaper.

Issue: HIV infected students

In the “Bragdon v. Abbott 1998” the Supreme Court ruled that HIV infected students are protected under the Disabilities Education Act (PL945-142) and are eligible to receive equal treatment and education rights. Other stipulations have been applied to children infected with the HIV virus that may be found having biting behaviors, fighting, or open sores which puts the lives of other students in jeopardy, may be restricted from the school environment.

Issue: Sexual harassment

In the “Franklin v. Gwinnett 1992 Title IX” the Supreme Court ruled that a student can sue a school district for monetary damages in cases of sexual harassment. Even though this is possible, the “Gebser v. Lago Independent School District 1998” and “Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education 1999”cases included changes to the stipulation to show that a “deliberate indifference” was evident to complaints about the teacher and peer sexual harassment suit before forcing the district to pay damages. According to the Courts, “just notifying the principal about foul play was insufficient”. In the account that a school official was found guilty of such an act it could cost the school federal funding privileges (IX penalty), an extreme high penalty to the harasser, but the district could not be sue. These stipulations may apply to gay and lesbian harassment, hostility, or ridicule.