They were asked to take off the armbands, and they refused resulting in suspension ("Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist"). Then the parents of those complained that the first amendment rights of those students were violated. This case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that students still have their rights of freedom of speech and expression in school in a 7-2 vote in favor of Tinker (“TINKER v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT”). Furthermore, the opinion of the Supreme Court reveled that students can express their opinions anywhere even when the principal clearly made a rule banning armbands so problems would not be created.
“The only way to have a drug free school is to follow the successful program of the military and workplace”. This is stated by Rep. John E. Peterson in 2005. In today’s volatile times, drug use is becoming more casual in high schools around the country. Many schools are having to face this struggle against drug use. Thus, I affirm that Resolved: Drug testing of high school extracurricular activity participants is justified.To aid clarification in this round, I now present the following definitions asdefined by the Webster Dictionary in 2005:Extracurricular activity: not following or related to the curriculum, outside of one’s duties.
This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises. Fraser's father brought action against the school board in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. He alleged the suspension and punishment were a violation of his son's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The father sought injunctive and monetary damages under 42 U.S.C.
The school board said that no one has the absolute right to freedom of expression, where the Tinkers said that only banning armbands and not other political symbols was unconstitutional. The school board said that the armbands were disruptive to the learning environment, where the Tinkers said they were not. Finally, the school board said that order in the classroom, where political controversy should be discussed, is entitled to constitutional protection. The Tinkers believed that the armbands were worn as the students views, and therefore should be constitutionally protected and respected by the school. These were all important arguments in the case.
With the many stories of athletes being arrested for alcohol and drug abuse, I feel this information may be helpful in setting up a drug prevention program at the high school or middle school level. Carr et al. (1990) looked at the frequency of alcohol use, intoxication, and attitudes concerning adolescent alcohol abuse. They found that male high school athletes both use and abuse alcohol more frequently than do non-athletes. Also male non-athletes tend to abstain from alcohol use more than the athletes do.
John and Mary Beth Tinker were students in Des Moines, Iowa, who, in December of 1965, wore black armbands to publicize their opposition of American involvement in the Vietnam war. After hearing of the students plan, the school adopted a policy prohibiting armbands. The policy stated if a student was wearing an armband, he or she would be asked to remove it. Any student who refused to remove the armband would be suspended from school until he or she agreed to return without the armband. Two days later, aware of the policy, the Tinkers and a friend wore their armbands to school.
Consequently, when random drug testing first occurred in schools, drug testing caused a ruckus. Some parents and students contested the law, but they had no luck. The law enforces ethical standards that live and stand behind the law. O'Connor argues that “testing randomly chosen student athletes for drugs without a suspicion of wrongdoing violates their right to privacy” (O'Connor, Stevens and Souter 1). Ultimately in society, some people agree to new laws and some don’t.
Colorado voters do not realize how easy they have made it for children to obtain marijuana. When Amendment 64 was passed, an already troublesome condition escalated to a more dangerous level for our youth. School officials are “reporting an increase in marijuana-related incidents in middle and high schools” (Nancy Lofholm). Sadly, parents smoke openly, in front of their children. Now that they can legally obtain one ounce of marijuana, they do not see the need to keep the drugs out of sight.
It is apparent that the presidents aid to stop the use of illegal drugs did little to help. When Ronald Reagan was sworn into presidency he decided to expand the drug war in hopes that it could alleviate the statistics of people consuming smuggled illegal drugs (“A Brief History of the Drug War”). His efforts, however, only made the incarceration rates increase, “ The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offe... ... middle of paper ... ... we have to educate students and help them be successful so that they will never want to fall under the influence of drugs. Most importantly we have to recognize that this problem will not go away quickly, it will take a long time to stop these gangs that have infiltrated and terrorized people, but we have to keep on educating and providing resources so that people do not go under the influence of drugs. Works Cited “A Brief History of the Drug War.” Drug Policy Alliance.
Facts of the Case Statement of Facts: Defendant Yoder was convicted of violating Wisconsin's compulsory education law by refusing to send his children to school after completing the eighth grade. The Yoders refused to comply with state laws on the basis that additional years of compulsory high school education posits a threat to Amish religious beliefs and that its members would better benefit from home education to prosper in their society. Procedural History: Defendant Yoder was convicted of violating compulsory education laws through Trial and Circuit Court. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the decision, determining that the Yoder’s actions were just under their First Amendment rights. The state appealed the Court’s decision, which leads to the Supreme Court of the United States granting certiorari.