Justice Abe Fortas, writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), stated, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Supreme Court has ruled that some constitutional rights of students in public schools are the same as those of other people in the United States. Other constitutional rights, however, are not the same for children and adults. For example, people younger than 18 years old are not eligible to vote in public elections. Further, state governments may constitutionally deny to children certain privileges available to adults, such as licenses to drive automobiles or to marry.
The Supreme Court has also held that certain constitutional rights of adults or students outside of school are not necessarily the same for students in a public school. During the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided cases about such constitutional rights of students as freedom of speech and press, religious freedom, freedom of assembly and association, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and due process of law.
Free speech and press
In 1969, the Supreme Court upheld student rights to free speech in a landmark decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Court ruled that students who wore black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War had a constitutional right to such freedom of expression. In this case and others, however, the Court has affirmed the authority of school officials to regulate freedom of expression with regard to the time, place, and manner of the spoken or written messages. School officials may therefore limit student speech in order to prevent serious disruption of the teaching and learning processes of the school.
For example, in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), the Court upheld the restriction of a student's speech by school officials because the speech was obscene and therefore disrupted the educational process. Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the Court, declared, “The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society's countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.”
In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
(1988) the Court upheld restrictions by school officials on the content of articles printed in a school newspaper. The students' writing for this publication was viewed by the Court as part of the school curriculum and therefore subject to regulation by school authorities. Justice Byron White, writing for the Court, argued, “A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” The Court in this case emphasized that the constitutional rights of students in public schools are not necessarily and always the same as the rights of individuals in other places. The Court also stressed that the rights of students in extracurricular activities of the school are broader than their rights in activities of the school's formal program of studies. Thus, Justice White concluded, “It is only when the decision to censor a school sponsored publication … has no valid educational purpose [or is not part of the school curriculum] that the First Amendment [can be used] to protect students' constitutional rights.”
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
The Court has ruled (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985) that the 4th Amendment rights of public school students are not exactly the same as the rights of adults in nonschool settings. In the T.L.O. case, the Court permitted school officials to conduct a search of a student's purse without a warrant, on the grounds that this action was reasonable under the circumstances. There was reason to suspect that the search would turn up evidence of violation of either the law or school rules, so the warrantless search was upheld even though a similar search outside of school would have been ruled unconstitutional.
In line with the T.L.O.. decision, federal courts have upheld warrantless searches of student lockers when there is a reasonable suspicion of uncovering evidence of actions violating laws or school rules. School authorities may suspend or expel students from school for possession of illegal drugs, alcohol, or weapons uncovered by warrantless searches of lockers or purses. In the 1995 case of Vernonia School District v. Acton, the Supreme Court sanctioned school-based drug testing of student athletes.
Due process rights
The 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution guarantee due process of law—certain legal procedural rights—to individuals charged with breaking the law and to those facing deprivation of life, liberty, or property by the government. In Goss v. Lopez (1975) the Supreme Court considered the due process rights of students suspended from school for violating school rules. The Court held that public school officials must follow minimal due process procedures when suspending a student from school for 10 days or less. Students facing such suspension, ruled the Court, must at least receive oral or written notice of charges against them and an opportunity for a hearing to present their side regarding the charges. However, the Court said that due process rights for short-term suspensions do not require that the students charged with wrongdoing have the rights to assistance of legal counsel, to question witnesses against them, and to call their own witnesses to refute the charges against them, which are due process rights specified in the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. Further, the Court said that notice of charges and a hearing should be provided before suspension, unless a student's presence in school threatens the safety, property, or educational opportunities of others.
In its Goss ruling, the Court emphasized that it was responding only to an issue about suspensions of 10 days or less. It advised school officials that “longer suspensions or expulsion for the remainder of the school term, or permanently, may require more formal procedures.”
In Honig v. Doe
(1988) the Supreme Court ruled on the due process rights of disabled students. Before school officials expel a disabled student from school, they must determine whether the offending behavior was caused by the student's disability. If so, the student cannot be expelled from school. However, the disabled student may be suspended from school, for no more than 10 days, even if the offending behavior stemmed from the disability. If the offending behavior was not caused by the student's disability, the student may be expelled, following careful observance of due process rights, just like a student without a disability. However, a disabled student expelled from school may not be totally deprived of educational services by the public school system.
The Supreme Court in Ingraham v. Wright (1977) decided that school officials may carry out corporal (physical) punishment as a means of disciplining students without providing due process rights to the student. Lower federal courts have, however, spelled out minimal due process procedures for corporal punishment, which involve prior notice to students about the kinds of misbehavior that could result in corporal punishment and administration of such punishment by one school official in the presence of another school official. Even though the Supreme Court has neither banned nor strictly limited corporal punishment in schools, many school districts and some state legislatures have regulated or eliminated this kind of punishment.
Student rights to religious liberty
The Supreme Court has upheld the right of students in public schools to free exercise of religious belief. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Court overturned a state flag-salute law. The Court held that the state law forced some students (Jehovah's Witnesses) to salute the flag even though this action violated their religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court has consistently opposed state and local laws that require public school students to pray or otherwise engage in religious activities during the school day or during school-sponsored extracurricular activities. This restriction has been maintained even when the religious content of the prayers or other activities has been nondenominational, nonpreferential, and voluntary, as long as the government has sanctioned the activity. The Court has held (in Engel v. Vitale, 1962; Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963; and Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985) that these kinds of public school-sanctioned religious activities violate the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
Further, in Stone v. Graham (1980) the Court ruled unconstitutional a state law that required copies of the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms because it violated the 1st Amendment's establishment clause. And in 1992 (Lee v. Weisman) the Court prohibited prayers as part of an official public school graduation ceremony. However, students are free to organize, on their own and without school support, voluntary religious programs associated with graduation. In 1993, the Court let stand a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Jones v. Clear Creek Independent School District) that ruled that a Texas school district's policy allowing students to voluntarily lead prayers at public school graduation ceremonies does not violate the 1st Amendment's establishment clause.
The Supreme Court rulings on prayer and religious programs in public schools do not prohibit individuals from quietly praying, on their own, during the school day or during school-sponsored extracurricular activities. And students may participate voluntarily in religious events before or after class on school grounds, such as “see you at the flag pole” prayer programs. School officials may neither promote nor prevent such activities. Further, the Court's rulings do not prohibit teaching and learning about religious beliefs in history or literature courses, as long as teachers refrain from the indoctrination of particular religions.
The Court has supported student rights to free speech and free exercise of religion by upholding the federal Equal Access Act in Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990). This federal law states that it is unlawful for “any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within the limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.” The Court has ruled that the federal Equal Access Act does not violate the establishment clause and does provide opportunity for students to voluntarily form a religious club and hold meetings of their organization on school premises after school hours.
In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993) the Supreme Court held that a New York public school district violated the freedom of expression and free exercise of religion rights of a church-supported group by not letting it use school facilities to hold a meeting after completion of the formal school day. The public school officials opened school buildings to other community groups for meetings. Thus, it was unlawful, said the Court, for them to deny access to a church group because the group wanted to exhibit and discuss films about their religious beliefs.
Issues on the religious rights of students in public schools have persisted. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), for example, the Supreme Court ruled that organized, student-led prayer at a public high school athletic event, such as a football game, is a violation of the 1st Amendment's prohibition against an establishment of religion.
See also Abington School District v. Schempp; Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser; Engel v. Vitale; Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier; New Jersey v. T.L.O.; Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District; West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette; Wallace v. Jaffree
Sources
- J. Devereux Weeks, Student Rights under the Constitution (Athens: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia, 1992)
