Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
lgbt community discrimination
lgbt community discrimination
lgbt community discrimination
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: lgbt community discrimination
A traditional prom setting is a dance attended by a couple of young teens: a male and female couple. But what would happen if an individual would like to take a prom date of the same sex? Fighting a battle of rejection or acceptant from family or the school board to approve that a lover or a causal date to the prom should not be determine by the same sex. Whether it is gay students, friends with gay parents, gay clubs in public schools has been a controversial issue for many years. Two teenagers, Constance McMillen and Derrick Martin are facing this battle as they try to bring their date to the senior prom. Constance McMillen, the Mississippi student who attended Itawamba County Agricultural High School, senior prom was cancelled because she wanted to escort her sophomore girlfriend to her senior prom. The school board didn’t agree to the same sex date and cancelled the prom. Not only could she not bring her girlfriend, but she was not allowed to wear a tuxedo. McMillen’s date was denied because the school district policy requires that dates be of the opposite sex (Associated Press, 2010). After the denying the rights to bring her prom date the court and lawyers got involved. The court believed the school was violating the first amendment right. The First Amendment states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. These delicate words provided the United States to its well development of people and protection of rights. The U.S. Constitution is here to protect people rights, so problems like this ca... ... middle of paper ... ...Know that there are plenty of local (within a short distance of his hometown) resources capable of helping Derrick and they are being made available. There are offers to help keep him safe (security) as well as other daily needs and for the prom. Derrick knows best what he will need and will accept accordingly” (Melloy, 2010). Therefore with all the criticism from others that disagrees with the whole situation that Martin with through he still have support and is safe. Martin will continue with his life and going to school as an honor student known that he fought for his right. Consequently, justice was severed in Constance McMillen of violating her first amendment, even though some people will still blame her for the prom being cancelled. Derrick Martin was kicked out his parents house and is well stable living with a friend support from around the world.
Matthew's father appealed the school district's actions on behalf of his son to the federal district court. He alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. The District Court held that the school's sanctions violated respondent's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that the school's disruptive-conduct rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the removal of respondent's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule makes no mention of such removal as a possible sanction.
This example of a Supreme Court case shows that the court is not above politics. Even though most Americans, including government officials, practiced some form of Christianity, the judges were not willing to compromise the information in the Constitution for the popular beliefs of individuals. I agree with the Supreme Court in its decision to ban the practice of prayer in public schools. Not only does it violate the Constitution, but it encroaches on our freedom of thought and action. Being excluded from a public classroom because of personal beliefs does not sound just.
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
Many Supreme Court cases in the United States have reassured its citizens’ rights. One of those cases was that of the 1965 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. This case was about five students who were suspended from school for wearing black armbands. Should the students have been suspended? The Tinker v. Des Moines case was a very controversial Supreme Court case in which the right to freedom of speech and expression for students in public schools was violated.
It was irrational for these students to be suspended from the school. The high school students named John F. Tinker, who was fifteen-years-old, John’s younger sister Mary Beth Tinker, who was thirteen-years-old, and their friend Christopher Eckhardt, who was sixteen years old, should not have been suspended. They were under the protection of the First Amendment. The parents of those students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expressions and sought an injunction to prevent the school from decupling the students. The Supreme Court of the United Sates stepped in and the question of law was if. They ruled in the favor of the Tinker’s because it was in a seven to two decision "Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District."
Which include danger to the school or any of the students and this should be the only way teachers and schools can restrict students’ rights. but schools tend to go too far restricting students’ rights “The principal had ordered the stories removed from the paper because he believed the story about teen pregnancy was inappropriate for some of the younger students at the school, based on its discussion of sexual activity and birth control”(What are the free expression rights of students in public schools under the First Amendment?) a student though that this was appropriate for the school to read and it was but the officials at the school did not think the same way. also another case Bazaar v. Fortune officials tried to stop publication of a book just because it had a few words in it that they did not like.(The First Amendment and Public Schools) this is taking there restrictions just too far. The government should be able to set guidelines of what the immediate danger is and what kind of expression goes way too far and have it sent out to all the schools in the United States. This might help schools from restricting our
The case also states “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District). Because the students didn 't necessarily disrupt the education process, their First Amendment freedom of speech should not have been violated by the school officials.
In her article “Beyond the Wall of Separation: Church-State in Public Schools”, Martha McCarthy, a Chancellor Professor and chair of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, makes it clear that her aim is to inform educators of the legal history and constitutional precedents of the Establishment clause and Free speech Clause of the First Amendment with an attached understanding of how educators should implement these findings. She summarizes and analyzes key Supreme Court rulings over the course of the 20th century as they pertain to religious expression in public schools. She clarifies the usage of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Speech Clause, including recent changes in trends that have been noted in the Supreme Court during the last decade. From the late 1940’s to the 1990’s most Supreme court rulings focused on the Establishment Clause to the increasing exclusion of the Free Speech Clause such that students were increasingly limited in the ways they were allowed to express themselves in school even in a private manner. In recent years, however, it has been noted that forcing students to suppress their religious expression is itself a religious statement and one that denies the role of religion in people’s lives. McCarthy notes that the public schools must take a neutral stand in relation to religion such that they do not defend or deny its role in people’s lives, either directly or indirectly.
A high school in Chattanooga, Tennessee suspended a student for wearing a jacket that depicted a Confederate flag. The school had already banded the flag prior to the student’s suspension, for fear of racial backlash. In a slim one-vote margin, the court upheld the school’s decision, solely for the possibility that racial retaliation could ensue. The student’s parents did appeal the decision, but the court deemed that this was not a violation of the student’s freedom of speech or expression.
Jahn, Karon L. “School Dress Codes v. The First Amendment: Ganging up on Student Attire.”
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
There have been many cases where exceptions have been made over the first amendment, such as in the Tinker vs. Des Moines Community School District Case. Teenagers by the name of Christopher Eckhardt and Mary Beth Tinker had planned to wear black armbands to their school to show their support for a truce in the Vietnam War. When word reached the principle, of Christopher and Mary Beth’s plan to arrive with the black armbands, the principal created a policy stating that, “any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension.” (The Oyez Project). After being kicked out of school, Tinker’s parents sued them but their case was dismissed due to the fact that the first amendment does not grant one the right to express their opinion at any place nor at any time. Another official claimed that the first amendment is not fully guaranteed to children. While the first amendment may be a boon to the United States, it is not always just. There are limitations, and conditions surrounding the first amendment and our freedom of speech. In Tinker’s case, her armband was seen as disruptive, and distracting to other students, justifying the school’s actions against the student of suspending and eventually expelling
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
As an individual’s lawfulness decreases, so does their right to privacy, which is a point of contest in our country. When it comes to issues such a LGBTQA rights, one’s personal and private right to believe that same sex relations are “wrong”, does not protect them from disobeying discrimination laws. The protection of privacy rights doesn’t allow an individual to interfere with another’s own privacy rights. Once a person’s actions do interfere, they should be considered unconstitutional and the courts should pursue their own course of action in order to protect the Bill of Rights and the constituents it’s meant to
Dress codes and uniforms have been deemed legal by the United States Supreme Court. As long as the dress code or uniform regulations pass a four-pronged test. Opposition for school uniforms holds fast to preserving the sanctity of freedom of speech. The supreme court ultimately has decided that dress codes and uniforms do not violate the freedom of speech. In Harold W. Mitchell and John C. Knechtle’s study of the first amendment rights and dress code, they note that in 1968 in Ginsberg v. New York the supreme court ruled that “[t]he state has power to control the conduct of children that reaches beyond its scope of authority over adults (491).” Mitchell and Knechtle go further into explaining the 4 pronged rule the supreme court uses to judge if a rule is against the freedom of