Yasmin Gonzalez

EDU210

Portfolio Artifact #2

Curry v. Saginaw School District

In this case law the parents of Joel Curry sue the school district of Saginaw,
Michigan and Irene Hensinger the principal. Happened on June 16, 2004
The argument going on in this case law was that the student made
christmas tree ornaments with pipe cleaners that included a religious
message but in which the first show he had not included the religious card.
The part of where this item came in was because his class was participating
in an activity with other students of creating a product and selling it in the
“Classroom City”. There were certain rules he had to follow and one of
them included to make the product stand out from the rest. Even though he
had not violated the rules of the “Classroom City” by having the “religious”
card attached to the ornament it still had to get approved by the principal.
The teacher Sweebe talked to Joel and told him that she had to get this item
approved before he could sell his item including the religious card, and so
the student continued to sell them without the card for the rest of the days.
Later that day he got home and told his mom of what had happened earlier
and how he wished he could sell the item with the card so people could
learn about Jesus. The principal believed that it was not appropriate for
him to use such card because it was religious there fore it could offend
other students. Since there was no constitutional violation the parents of
Joel curry lost this case law.
In response to this case law as in the pro side, since Joel Curry did not violate any
of the rules and the first amendment which covers the freedom of speech there was no
reason for his parents to lose this court case. Yes, he was promoting Jesus but never did
he promoted a certain religion or invited the students to form part of a certain church it
was a simple message for students to learn from what was the meaning to him. The
principal tried to avoid any problem between students since they could get offended
because their beliefs could be different. As described in this quote “Families entrust
public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the
understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views
that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family.” (ALAN E.
NORRIS, Circuit Judge) The principal only wanted to do what was better and as
provided in the case they gave him the option of selling his items outside of school in the
parking lot but the student did not attempt to do so. It is understandable he wanted to
share his message inside this project but he could have done so outside of school as well
but did not try to.

Lee & United States v. Macon

In this case the argument forms around 1954 were black students
were segregated from whites peoples school in which they could not attend
to and did their rights were not respected inside schools making the white
people privileged. In the high schools of Tuskegee, Birmingham and Mobile
the governor provided national guard troops to stand outside the schools
and not let any black students go into the school. It was a crisis that was
going on in education but when Pres. John F. Kennedy federalized the
Guard who he made them return to their armories those same three high
schools had to start accepting black students. As the judges that were in
charge of this case have gave Wallace an order to follow he still decided to
work around it and not let the black students continue their education with
the whites. So Wallace than provided a Macon Academy HS in which only
whites could attend and they would get help to pay the tuition from the
government, while this happened Tuskegee ended up being an all black
student school in which not many were able to get education. That made the
Tuskegee HS drop to only 12 students in which the school board of
education decided to close following directions from the government. The
three judge district than demanded for those students to transfer to the
Macon Academy in which they would receive transportation but not help to
pay tuition since that money would be going to be used to compensate the
white families. Wallace still continued to keep doing desegregation and in
this Gray proved that the state controlled education not the individual
school boards. After 43 years that Fred Gray had filed the case they finally
gave in to saying that the Macon Academy was forming part of the
desegregation order. Since “January 2013, the Lee v. Macon County case
remained open for 21 Alabama school districts, and another 26 continued
to be under permanent injunction.” (C. J. Schexnayder, Dallas, Texas)
In response to this case law I am in the pro side of the argument. Not only did
this proved something about who really manages the school boards to everyone but also
exposed the reality of what happens behind such school boards. The black students
should have alway had the ability to attend to any high school, there was no need for
desegregation, they have the same rights just as any other human being, not only
because of their race leaving that aside this should be something that is respected for
every one and not only because of “privilege” of the skin color. "No person in the United
States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance."
--Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972

Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987)

In this court case a student from Bethel High School delivered a speech that included some
vocabulary describing one of his peers in a very sexual way in which he was nominating his
peer for an elective office . This speech was given at a voluntary assembly in which about
600 students attended. The majority there were around 14 years old and Fraser began his
speech with such vocabulary the students began to respond to what he was saying with
some sexual responses as well and mimicking. The student got called into the principal's
office by the assistant the day after the speech was given and he admitted to have used that
type of vocabulary. The assistant of the principal also brought in the teachers and
requested them to bring a report of the conduct of the student. The student than got
suspended for 3 days in which he only covered two, he was also removed from the list of
candidate speakers for the graduation ceremony. This is when the parent of the student
suits the school for not respecting the first amendment of freedom of speech, and since the
student was not warned he would receive a disciplinary sanction for using such vocabulary
it was also another point for the student.
In response to this case law I would be steping on the con side of the school
district, since there was not a list of rules to be followed when the student gave the
speech it is hard to expect a student at this age to not use inappropriate language this
could have also been avoided by letting the student know in advance of the possible
consequences. The student is being disrespectful to the school but also in that moment
the school should have taken action in the same day not letting another day go by and
talking to the student right away, suspending him would have been enough but
removing him from the list of speakers in the ceremony of graduation went more to the
extreme that not only this speech was given at a voluntary assembly in which he could
be free to decide if he wants to talk and what he wants to say.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Podcast

In this case law the In the Hazelwood East High School located in St. Louis there was a
journalism club in which students got to participate and produce it at the school. Such
newspaper was called the “Spectrum” in which they published certain topics such as teen
pregnancy, divorce and other society problems. Since the principal thought that such topics
were very sensitive and not appropriate he decided to cut off two pages off from the
newspaper without letting any of the students know. Due to this decision the students felt
that their first amendment freedom of speech had been abused so they decided to sue the
school principal for doing such thing. Since the school board and the supreme court did not
agree with them they lost this case and said that every school has the right to limit the
speech.
In response to this case law I will be stepping on the con side of the Supreme
Court. It is understandable that they have to protect what might cause certain topics but
this journalism club belonged as much to the school equally to the students. The
principal not only deleted the pages without asking the students but also deleted the
content that they had been working on. They were providing information to their age
group and letting them know about what is happening around them, from there
audience of the students get to decide if they want to pick up that newspaper and read it
or how they want to view it. It is up to people’s point of view the supreme court should
be careful when giving such right to the school because many of the opportunities for
students on giving their freedom of speech also gets taken advantage of.

Citations:

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Podcast. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2018, from

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-
landmarks/hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier-podcast

Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2018, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/478/675

Lee v. Macon County Board of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2018, from
http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-3407

FindLaw's United States Sixth Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2018,
from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1432289.html