Recently my school principal banned the junior vice president from running for senior vice pres because of his critcism of the principals curriculum on state tests and focusing on making the points not whether or not the students fully understood the material. Was this legal?
2006-08-16 03:14:19 · 12 answers · asked by Sarah K 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
...The student is correct in being upset about the focus being on tests, but he is incorrect in placing the blame.
It is our education system that needs revamping. If the students do not pass the state tests the schools loose money and funding from the state. Without the ability to have proper resources, it makes it harder to teach what needs to be taught.
My father was an elementry school principal in a less then nice area (basically the kids didn't care at all about anything) and he got raked through the coals because the students didn't pass. What people don't realize is that if the kids don't care, they don't try and if they don't try, they don't pass, and if they don't pass the schools loose money which means that there are less resources and less teachers to teach and get the kids interested.
I believe the biggest problems in our education system lie in unintrested, uncaring, lazy parents and the state's ridiculous emphasis on standardized testing.
Rather then criticize the principal, the student should smile and nod, win the election, get to congress, and push through something that would fix our system.
Freedom of speech is a right as an American citizen, however, sometimes it is smarter to loose the battle but win the war.
2006-08-16 03:31:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither. The 1st Amendmnet is a limitation on government restrictions, directly against the federal government, and applied against state/local governments via the 14th Amendment.
The Amendment provides a structure under which the government cannot generally censor, regulate or compel private personal speech.
While there are lesser protections in some categories (commercial, expressive conduct) and some unprotected categories (threats, defamation, obscenity), the restriction is pretty much across the board.
As a side note, the "right" or "privilege" distinction has been eliminated by the Supreme Court when dealing with constitutional law issues.
2006-08-16 12:34:10 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fact is that students in public schools do not have the same free speech rights as adults. There have been a number of Supreme Court cases on the issues.
In the case of Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Washington state high school administrators to discipline a student for delivering a campaign speech at a school assembly that was loaded with sexual innuendo. The Court expressed the view that administrators ought to have the discretion to punish student speech that violates school rules and has the tendency to interfere with legitimate educational and disciplinary objectives.
In another case called Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court upheld the right of school administrators to censor materials in a student-edited school paper that concerned sensitive subjects such as student pregnancy, or that could be considered an invasion of privacy.
Student speech cases require a balancing of the legitimate educational objectives and need for school discipline of administrators against the First Amendment values served by extending speech rights of students.
Was what happened at your school illegal? It is hard for me to say without knowing more of the fact. Your best best is to consult a local attorney who specializes in First Amendment cases.
2006-08-16 10:30:45 · answer #3 · answered by Carl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Folks, we have NO rights as human beings. None.
We only have the "rights" that we, as people, agree that we should have. The human body needs food, shelter, and clothing to survive. Do we have a right to those? Only if we agree that we do. Should those items be provided to ALL people? What about people who can't work to provide them for themselves? What about people who COULD work, but they don't want to, so they don't?
Our Constitution was written to protect certain "rights." These were only considered "rights" by the people who wrote the Constitution, and agreed to by their constituents. These "rights" were not very popular with many of the other world governments at the time they were written. Some of these "rights" are still not considered "rights" in other parts of the world... for instance, the "right" to bear and to keep arms. And the people in those countries may like it that way. It should be the "right" of bodies of people to decide how they are governed.
People should not fear their governments. Governments should fear their people.
Now that's done, I'm off my soapbox. You don't become a citizen till you're 18, and assume the legal rights, privileges and responsiblities associated with that. So you probably don't have a leg to stand on unless your parents start agitating. You as minors could probably agitate as well, contacting the local press. But be sure your parents are into it, or you could get into trouble with them. As far as whether it's legal or not, you'd probably have to contact the Legal Aid Society in your local area. There's probably no direct statute against it, and unless you can prove that your constitutional rights have been violated (and that you have a right to those rights, even as a minor), then you might not want to play the legality card.
Good luck!
2006-08-16 11:43:52 · answer #4 · answered by kimberhands 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You might be confusing free speech which is a right with the principals authority to use his discretion to ban that student. It seems that the student DID exercise his right of free speech and can continue to do so....and the principal used his allowed discretion to make his decision.
2006-08-16 10:22:05 · answer #5 · answered by Brand X 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Free speech is a protected right under the bill of rights.
How has he "banned" the vp from running? or did he just voice is opposition?
I do not think he can legally ban him from running, but he can make it an ugly campaign.
2006-08-16 10:20:31 · answer #6 · answered by friskygimp 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Banning him from running is not stopping him from having the ability to express free speech. He still can say what he wants where he wants. He just can not run for that position. He obviously offended those truely in charge.
2006-08-16 10:39:37 · answer #7 · answered by Jay 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically yes, but it shouldn't be.
My grandfather died on a nameless beach in the Pacific Ocean so that everyone here could keep their RIGHT to free speech.
2006-08-16 10:22:17 · answer #8 · answered by Self-Sufficient 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Free speech is the right of every American. Stand up for your rights and get support.
2006-08-16 10:20:56 · answer #9 · answered by shirley_corsini 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Free speech is reserved for adults.
2006-08-16 10:18:51 · answer #10 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋