Basic Due Process for Students in Public Schools Term Paper by Nicky

An in-depth exploration of the due process rights of students in the public school environment.
# 151465 | 3,720 words | 11 sources | APA | 2012 | US
Published on Jun 11, 2012 in Law (General) , Education (General)


$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now

Description:

The paper examines the due process considerations found in school law cases, including "Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist.", "Goss v. Lopez", "Ingraham v. Wright", "Barnard v. Inhabitants of Shelburne", "Board of Curators of the University of Missouri et al. v. Horowitz". The paper highlights how public school students have substantial, but incomplete due process rights; they do not have a right to due process before receiving corporal punishment, yet they do have a due process right before being suspended, expelled, or sent to an alternative school. The paper also points out that schools have the right to expel students for academic reasons without affording those students due process.

Outline:
Introduction
Legal Precedents
Discussion
Conclusion

From the Paper:

"In Ingraham, petitioner students filed an action pursuant to 42 USCS 1981-1988, seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief against respondent school officials, alleging that petitioners had been subjected to corporal punishment in violation of their constitutional rights. At the time, a Florida statute authorized corporal punishment after a teacher consulted with a principal or other supervisor, as long as the corporal punishment was not degrading or unduly severe. Furthermore, the School Board had a regulation governing the application of corporal punishment, limiting it to swats with a wooden paddle, applied to a student's buttocks. The evidence revealed that the petitioners received exceptionally harsh corporal punishment. The petitioners alleged that this corporal punishment violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.
"The Court disagreed with the petitioners' assertions. The Court found that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was directed at people convicted of crimes and did not apply to students in public schools. Moreover, the Court refused to strip the Eighth Amendment of its historical context and extend it to public school disciplinary practices."

Sample of Sources Used:

  • Barnard v. Inhabitants of Shelburne, 216 Mass. 19 (1913).
  • Board of Curators of the University of Missouri et al. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978).
  • Cole v. Newton Special Municipal Separate School District, 676 F. Supp. 749 (S.D. Miss 1987).
  • Gorman v. University of Rhode Island, 837 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1988).
  • Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).

Cite this Term Paper:

APA Format

Basic Due Process for Students in Public Schools (2012, June 11) Retrieved November 29, 2020, from https://www.academon.com/term-paper/basic-due-process-for-students-in-public-schools-151465/

MLA Format

"Basic Due Process for Students in Public Schools" 11 June 2012. Web. 29 November. 2020. <https://www.academon.com/term-paper/basic-due-process-for-students-in-public-schools-151465/>

Comments