Kaitlyn Gibson

Wood v. Strickland, et al.

Supreme Court of the United States, 1975
Citation Number 420 U.S. 308

Action Sought: The main action sought in this case was to prove that the students’ right to Due
Process under the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated
Facts of the Case: Virginia Crain and Peggy Strickland were sophomores at Mena Public High
School in Mena, Arkansas. The girls heard about an upcoming meeting where both students and
parents would be present. The girls decided to pull a prank and spike the punch. Mrs. Curtis
Powell, a teacher at the high school, found out about the girls’ prank ten days later. The principal
ended up hearing about the situation and suspended them for two weeks pending a decision by
the school board. Votes were cast by the school board and the girls were suspended for the
remainder of the semester. The school board was asked to reconsider their decision; however, the
request was denied. Both Virginia Crain and Peggy Strickland sued the members of the school
board, administrators, and the school district of Mena, Arkansas for damages. The girls claimed
that their right to due process was violated.
Petitioner: Peggy Strickland
Respondent: John P. Wood
Questions answered by the court: Is the school board immune from liability of violating due
process even if they acted in good faith?
Answers given by the court: The ruling came down to a 5-4 majority. The Court stated that to
impose a penalty of liability, it would need to be proven that the school board members acted in
bad faith.
Reasons for those answers: This answer was given because there was no proof that the school
board members knew that their actions would violate the constitutional rights of students. With
the information that the school board had at the time of the incident, the Court decided that the
school board in fact acted in good faith because there was simply no proof of any malicious
intent.
Extended Discussion: In this case, I agree with the Supreme Court on their decision. While I do
think that it is crucial for students to have their right to due process, I do not think there was
enough evidence to convict the school board of denying these students of this. In my opinion, I
think the principal and school board were merely attempting to maintain the integrity of the
school. If two students spiked the punch in a school meeting, then I agree with the fact that they
should have been punished for their actions. Was suspending them for the remainder of the
semester a little over the top? Maybe. However, I do think these students needed to learn that
certain actions have consequences. When I was in high school, there was a student who got
 Kaitlyn Gibson

caught with alcohol on the premises. This student was not allowed to walk in our high school
graduation that year. I truly feel that in this case it was just two students who got caught and
were upset that they got caught. Please do not get me wrong, I do think students’ right to Due
Process is important, as stated before. However, in this case it seems like a bit different. To me,
it doesn’t seem like the school board was trying to intentionally do anything to these students.
They had the facts in front of them that was given to them by the principal and they acted on
those facts. Should they have heard from the girls a little more? Maybe, BUT these girls spiked
punch at a meeting with parents and students in attendance. I think they deserved to be punished
for their actions and the school boards actions were justifiable.