Bethel School District V Fraser Case Brief
1. In the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser a lot happened. In my understanding there was a school event in which students gave speeches. The one student gave a speech with language unaccepted in the school, and got suspended, and was not allowed to be voted in for the election. The Father got angry and believed that his sons amendment rights were being violated. He felt like his sons first amendment right of freedom of speech was being withheld from him, along with his fourteenth amendment right. The case first went to a general court and it could not be agreed upon, so in tern it went to the Supreme Court because it could not be agreed upon in the lower court system and was to controversial. The court case was taken extremely seriously because it could change school rights, as they were known.
…show more content…
The Supreme Court listened to the arguments of both sides.
The Supreme Court decided that the school was right. That the child should not have used the language and that they have a right to punish and suspend him. His rights were not taken away because schools have the right to make rules and they do not have to be extremely specific. The general rule is to not use slander language and or offensive language, which the child did use. The language affected other children in the school, and was highly inappropriate. There are rules and regulations in schools and they must be followed. There are certain places in which certain things cannot be said. The first amendment was not meant for children to use slanderous language within the school walls where the children are to be educated. The fourteenth amendment was not violated either because of the fact that it was in alliance with his speech and part of the punishment. In the end the school won the
case.
2. I take the side of the Supreme Court Justice. This is not opinionated it is just what is right. The child did something that he should not have done within a school building. The school had general regulations against using slanderous language or inappropriate language. The second reason I agree with the Supreme Court Justice is because teachers within the school previewed the speech and told the student that he should not say what he had written. There was a previous mention of him not being allowed to say what he had written; however, he did it anyhow. The supreme court explained clearly that it was not affecting the child’s amendment rights, because schools are allowed to have rules in place that prevent certain things from occurring to keep young children safe, and unoffended from others. This protects students from decimation and inappropriate language. The school should be a safe house for all students. The fourteenth amendment was not in offence either, for the reason that the child was punished due to the previously mentioned reason and when he returned the election it would have been over. Plus and his speech was inappropriate. Therefore, what was said eliminated him from the election. The father was just angered and did not have enough evidence, nor understood the schools policy in enough detail. The father was just angered that his son did not get to say what he wanted. The father had a lack of good enough evidence that his son did not break any rules within the school walls. The school had the only legitimate argument. The Supreme Court Justices ruled in the right way, and I am pro Supreme Court Justice for the reason that they looked at the court case from all directions and went with the side with the most factual reasoning.
3. The Supreme Court case of Bethel School District v. Fraser, has a major influence on my profession as an educator. This court case has everything to deal with schools, and the laws that protect schools to have rights separate from the amendments. In this case I learned more about school regulations and rulebooks. I learned that they do not have to be extremely specific but have a generalized rule that should be explained to the parents, and students. I learned that the school is responsible for teaching proper language and adequacy to students within their school district. Which will more than likely end up falling on the teacher not the school board or principles. I learned from this case that there should be no inappropriate language from within a public school districts walls. I learned that a school is a safe place for all students, and that should be applied in the classroom I will be teaching in the future. I learned that the first amendment law does not always apply to children or teachers within the walls of an education building when school laws prevent certain things from being acted upon within the building. I learned children must approach what they want to say, their feelings and speeches in an appropriate manner and schools have the right to punish a student if they speak inappropriately. This is important to know because I need to know that I am allowed to punish a student within context, if they do something wrong or breaks school policies even if they have the right to speak freely as a citizen in the United States. This court case was extremely relevant to my discipline.
The Supreme Court listened to the arguments of both sides.
The Supreme Court decided that the school was right. That the child should not have used the language and that they have a right to punish and suspend him. His rights were not taken away because schools have the right to make rules and they do not have to be extremely specific. The general rule is to not use slander language and or offensive language, which the child did use. The language affected other children in the school, and was highly inappropriate. There are rules and regulations in schools and they must be followed. There are certain places in which certain things cannot be said. The first amendment was not meant for children to use slanderous language within the school walls where the children are to be educated. The fourteenth amendment was not violated either because of the fact that it was in alliance with his speech and part of the punishment. In the end the school won the
case.
2. I take the side of the Supreme Court Justice. This is not opinionated it is just what is right. The child did something that he should not have done within a school building. The school had general regulations against using slanderous language or inappropriate language. The second reason I agree with the Supreme Court Justice is because teachers within the school previewed the speech and told the student that he should not say what he had written. There was a previous mention of him not being allowed to say what he had written; however, he did it anyhow. The supreme court explained clearly that it was not affecting the child’s amendment rights, because schools are allowed to have rules in place that prevent certain things from occurring to keep young children safe, and unoffended from others. This protects students from decimation and inappropriate language. The school should be a safe house for all students. The fourteenth amendment was not in offence either, for the reason that the child was punished due to the previously mentioned reason and when he returned the election it would have been over. Plus and his speech was inappropriate. Therefore, what was said eliminated him from the election. The father was just angered and did not have enough evidence, nor understood the schools policy in enough detail. The father was just angered that his son did not get to say what he wanted. The father had a lack of good enough evidence that his son did not break any rules within the school walls. The school had the only legitimate argument. The Supreme Court Justices ruled in the right way, and I am pro Supreme Court Justice for the reason that they looked at the court case from all directions and went with the side with the most factual reasoning.
3. The Supreme Court case of Bethel School District v. Fraser, has a major influence on my profession as an educator. This court case has everything to deal with schools, and the laws that protect schools to have rights separate from the amendments. In this case I learned more about school regulations and rulebooks. I learned that they do not have to be extremely specific but have a generalized rule that should be explained to the parents, and students. I learned that the school is responsible for teaching proper language and adequacy to students within their school district. Which will more than likely end up falling on the teacher not the school board or principles. I learned from this case that there should be no inappropriate language from within a public school districts walls. I learned that a school is a safe place for all students, and that should be applied in the classroom I will be teaching in the future. I learned that the first amendment law does not always apply to children or teachers within the walls of an education building when school laws prevent certain things from being acted upon within the building. I learned children must approach what they want to say, their feelings and speeches in an appropriate manner and schools have the right to punish a student if they speak inappropriately. This is important to know because I need to know that I am allowed to punish a student within context, if they do something wrong or breaks school policies even if they have the right to speak freely as a citizen in the United States. This court case was extremely relevant to my discipline.