In Minersville Pennsylvania, Lillian Gobitis a 12 year old and her brother William a 10 year old were expelled from school for refusing to salute the national flag. They are Jehovah’s Witness and believed that saluting the flag is a form of idol worship, and a direct violation of the second commandment in the Bible. The local board of education required both teachers and pupils to participate in the ceremony. William wrote a letter to the school board saying “I do not salute the flag because I have promised to do the will of God.” The school board did not change their mind and left them expelled.
The Gobitis family was physically attacked and their family grocery store was boycotted. This caused great financial strain as the family faced the cost of sending the two children to private school. Their father sued on behalf of the children, saying the district’s policy violated his children’s religious freedom. In 1940, the Supreme Court ruled on William’s case, Minersville School District v. Gobitis. They ruled that public schools could compel students to salute the American flag and recite the pledge of allegiance despite the students religious objections to these practices.This decision led to increased persecution of witnesses in the U.S.
A teacher’s most important duty is to protect the students they are in charge of. This duty includes both reasonably protecting students from harm and, when a student is harmed, reporting it to the proper authorities (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, pp. 103-109). There have been many court cases that reiterate this duty of school staff. One such case is Frugis v. Bracigliano (2003) where many staff at a school failed in their duty to protect students and allowed abuse to continue for years.
The third legal issue I chose was Mills vs The Board of Education of The District of Columbia. In 1972 this case was brought to the courts representing seven children, as well as nearly 18,000 other students in the District of Columbia area. These children were classified as having behavioral, intellectual, and emotional disabilities, as well as hyperactivity. All of these children were denied an educational services and public education by being excluded, suspended, expelled, reassigned, and transferred. They were denied based solely on their disability, and without due process. This case was the other of the two that laid the ground work for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to be passed.
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
They stated that the Parents of New York United's concern was based solely on a complaint about the books going against the group's subjective values, and not the objective value of providing quality education to the students of the Island Tree School District. The student's objection to the school board's ruling to remove the “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy” books garnered attention from free speech organizations and concerned libraries. When the case made it to the Supreme Court, the Justices that presided over the ruling were Justices Powell, Blackmun, Brennan, Stevens, Marshall, White, O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Chief Justice Burger.... ... middle of paper ...
Therefore, the respondents took the case to court (Island Trees…). The holding, the court’s decision, by a 5-4 vote, was “The First Amendment limits the power of local or school boards to remove library books from junior high schools and high schools” (Island Trees…). The court also said that the Board of Education “should not intervene in ‘the daily operations of school systems’ unless ‘basic constitutional values’ were ‘sharply implicate[d]”(qtd. in Board of Education, Island). The dissent consisted of Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, and O’Connor; the concurrence consisted of Blackmun and White (Island Trees…).
with my co-counsel Chad Miller and Eric Page , we represent Mr. Chris Moss in
Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) is a more recent case that still fights against one of history?s most common topics; equal rights. This will always stand as one of the greatest problem factors the world will face until eternity. These issues date back for years and years. This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2004 for a well-known topic of sexual discrimination. It helped to define the importance of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
Mary Beth Tinker was only thirteen years old in December of 1964 when she and four other students were suspended from school because they wore black armbands. The black armbands were a sign of protest against the Vietnam War. The school suspended the students and told them that they could not return to school until they agreed to take off the armbands. The students did not return to school until after the school’s Christmas break, and they wore black the rest of the year, as a sign of protest. The Tinker family, along with other supporters, did not think that the suspension was constitutional and sued the Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Supreme Court’s majority decision was a 7-2 vote that the suspension was unconstitutional (Tinker V. Des Moines).
One of the legal implications in the case of Wartenberg v. Capistrano Unified School District (1995) was that the Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) federal law was being violated (west Law, 1995). Since the court found the district in violation of FAPE, it also meant that the services being provided in the IEP were not appropriate. Jeremy continued to struggle in school, and despite initial modifications being made, the last addendum to the IEP stated fewer services and no supplemental hours, in a structured educational setting. Furthermore, according to educational code §56341.1 (b) (1) a Behavioral Intervention plan (BIP) must be in place if the student’s behaviors are impeding his IEP goals, his learning or the learning of others (Kemerer and
In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to include instruction of intelligent design in biology classes violates the United States Constitution by promoting an excessive religious presence in public schools.
Mr. Schempp took the case to court in to 1958, claiming that required reading for the Bible and recitation of the Lord’s Pray prohibited free exercise of religion for his children, and was therefore unconstitutional, under the First Amendment. Mr. Schempp son, Ellory, stated under oath, that he didn’t not believe in Jesus Christ, or the Christian beliefs. He testified that ideas opposing to his were presented to him while he was at school in Abington High. He received punishment because he refused to stand at attention during the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and when requested to leave during the exercise, his demands were denied.
Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994)
The background information is extremely important in this case. West Virginia required students and teachers to take part in the saluting of the flag during the beginning of each school day as part of the educational process. A specific part of the day would be dedicated to saluting the flag and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. If they did not, their guardians could be fined and/or jailed and could be prosecuted for generating delinquency. Children of Jehovah's Witnesses had been expelled from school because of their refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Officials threatened to send them to Juvenile Detention Centers (findlaw). The “stiff arm” was a requirement that was meant they had to keep the right hand
When the morning announcements come on and say, “Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance,” people normally don’t think anything of it, but to stand up and recite a few lines to something they learned in kindergarden. However, some people may feel it is wrong to say the Pledge based upon a religion that they practice. Requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance does violate the First Amendment due to the fact that they are protected under the Freedom of Speech clause. This is seen through The Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case, The West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette case, and The Massachusetts Supreme Court case. In the following cases, it is discussed whether or not it is fair to force students to stand up and recite the Pledge of Allegiance while in school.
Throughout its history, the United States of America has been faced with the question of just versus unjust concerning its laws and Supreme Court decisions, as they reflect the legal standards by which people are governed. Unjust decisions can result in an injustice by prohibiting conduct that should be permitted and encroach upon the citizen’s rights. The Supreme Court of the United States is considered to be the law of the land and the decisions it makes must be obeyed. However, the Supreme Court decisions, despite being the law of the land, can be unjust as they reflect on the common sense ideologies of the time and include the final say of the majority. The ruling made in Minersville School District v. Gobitis in 1940 was unjust because it was in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and because it reflected ideologies of the majority and neglected the opinions of the minority. This decision can be negated by making the flag salute a choice that does not encroach upon an individual’s First Amendment rights.