Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
In America, School Corporation shave a Constitutional duty to uphold the law and apply it to ever student registered student in the public school system within the Free Appropriate Public Education Statute established by Public law. Statutes that are established based on public law are weighed in higher scrutiny and held to higher expectations to protect the rights of citizens. American Public Education is governing by Federal Constitution and the government is accountable to carry out all acts of the law that protects K12 Educational Statutes. Therefore, when things go bad, in one aspect, most of the court cases govern a statutory establishment. Many laws are on the dockets today and once heard, become the basis of public policy for management of public education. Especially in the 1950s and 1960s, the issue of Secretion, Establishment of what constituted Freedom of Speech in the Amendments of the United States of America in public places, as well as funding concerns of schools with minorities raised several highly volatile cases throughout the United States. The cases went to the Supreme Courts and became known as landmark cases that would impact the creation of public policies, procedures, and management of people within the public school system. These cases set the established standards for decades to come about the lines drawn in the Constitutional Amendment how far the law would go to protect certain freedoms and limit others. The decisions by high ranking Chief Justice Supreme Court Judges created policy applications. In most cases when Serration and Racism were factored in the public, there was no equity and the statues promoted the creation of the definitions and enforced the in doctrinarian of these statues in the public arena. As a result, multiple laws were created to govern Public Education (Alexander, 2012).
Relevant Court Cases
There are several cases that are statutory cases establishing the clearly defined areas of law that promoted direction for what should happen in K12 Public Education Schools. For example, San Antonio Independent School District versus Rodriquez in the US Supermen Court within 1973, that public education is a Fundamental life right in the United States. In other cases, the issues went from racial problems to funding problems. Then, the arguments shifted as to who owns the responsibility to protect schools and fund their existence. However, as presidential as these cases may be, three well mean known cases in history to impact American Education. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 US 503 (1969), Case Scenario: Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 US 563 (1968), and Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954). These cases established many of the actions school corporations take today to either avoid serious consequences impede social justice in many cases (Justia, 2019). This case review will evaluate he consequences of the law when there are no laws governing certain actions and within those statutes how they were found to be guidance for the next generation of students, parents, and community.
- Tinker v. DesMoines Independent Community School District, 393 US 503 (1969)
Tinker v. Desmoins (1973) was a case regarding high school students that decided to violate the dress code of a rule made to stop students from wearing war symbols supporting their belief system. While the rule has not been written by the school until after they saw the students wearing the black armbands, the principals created a new school value that was not present nor recorded in any statutes of the school. The students complained that their rights were violated. The parents of the students sued the school district after on December 16, 1965, students were sent home stating they violated the policy. The court case was heard in local courts and elevated as a worth issue of constitutionality to the higher courts. The judges in the cases held that the school district had a right to create such a policy without notice and enforce upon the students to abide by the policy or be suspended. When they appealed the decisions, another courts judges also stated that the school district could determined their worth without rational. As a result, it stood that students could not wear any warlike clothing in school that promoted speech where it influenced the act of war. While the students and their parents argued that this was a Freedom of Speech Issue and a Violation of their Constitutional Rights to wear their speech. The Courts Stated there was no issue of Speech involved. Their Speech if any also was supporting involved in way. There was no educational value nor rational connection to any aspect of school corporations policy to educate every student that promoting the wearing of the arm bands. They were encouraged to wear it after school and not during school. This angered the students and instead of abiding by the school policy, they increased their protests of the school policy until they were sent home. From the Schools perspective, these were students acting against the best interest of the school and safely being students. The Court’s ruling was appropriate and there was no connection to their inability to say what they felt. In fact, their protest and telling other students and parents led to the court case. Therefore, their ability to form and inform others was not violated. It is also the perspective of this observation that no such constitutional rights were infringed upon during this period. The students broke school policy and the school acted appropriate to stop the festering of other students copy catting very dangerous symbolisms of acts of war (Justia, 2019)
- Case Scenario: Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 US 563 (1968) Pickering v. Board of Education of Township
An Administrator of the local High School in Pickering Township from High School District 205 became upset about the way he felt the School Board of Directors were conduct business of funding the school. Instead of writing the school board, he wrote a letter that was published to a newsletter about the Board of Directors inside dealings in their financial budgeting for the District. The letter was public ally published while the Principal was still serving the school about his opinion of the matter. When they found out, the Board Terminated his employment. H filed to have his job reinstated and claimed that his Freedom of Speech was violated by denying his ability to First Amendment rights. The School Board sued Pickering and denied all allegations he made about their budget and tax actions. When the local court heard the case, they ruled in favor of the School Board. The High Courts in Illinois tried the case and upheld the decision. However, not satisfied with the decision, The Administrator continued to appeal until the Case reached the United States Supreme Court to be heard. In an 8 to 1 Major ruling written by Chief Thurgood Marshall, the courts found that the Board of Directors did violate his rights. They deemed that the letter written contained information (Justia, 2019).
Within such a case, two major issues came about and impacted the way Administrators with opposing views can serve Board of Directors as they sit actively in Administration. The Principal was under contract and agreed to serve the school district in align as a team member serving the district. The second issue was he opposed the Board openly and took private information shared in their forums of decision and sent it to the news media. These two issues raised symbolize a defiance and deficiency of disagreement that promotes public agenda to destroy the school boards ability to rule their citizens. At the heart of the matter is the act of rebellion against them while he still received his paycheck from the district. Within another case, the same scenario happened, Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 385 U. S. 605-606 (1967) (OYEZ, 2019). They fired the person because their statement made did not agree with the type of person they wanted in their district. Their human resources decisions was made based on his speech alone and not because of his work ethics (Justia, 2019).
It is valued that the Supreme Court did not take away the right of someone working in an organization to be mistreated based on a difference of opinion with company. By supporting such policies, there would be inspired discriminatory practices through industries. This would cause a massive problem in the workforce. Daily there are many that write letters and promote their opinion against their company. If they are using their own finances on their own time to use their free speech rights, there is no violation (Justia, 2019).
- ase Scenario: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954)
The school-aged children of Topeka Kansas were African American Children living in one District and were told by the School District based on their Skin Color, the could not attend nearby school because it was for White Children. The nearby school allowed the children to suffer to get to school whereas, the colored school was further away. This created an unequal deprivation for the children and promoted the abuse of their ability to grow because of racial segregation. The parents reported this information to the NAACP and the NAACP accepted the case from across several areas. What occurred in 1951 was the result of another Statue set called Plessy versus Ferguson where the courts held that Separate was equal. They attempted to apply the same. As a result, all the children were denied access to schools near their community of resident in the school districts. They were not offered bussing instead had to walk to the further school (Justia, 2019).
During the trial the NAACP brought against the school district, the lower courts heled that they recognized the detrimental impact on the children. However, they still did not change and applied the Plessy Standard to the issue. Based on this instead of another appeal denied, The NAACP cast their appeal to the Statue itself, Plessy. The case made it to the Supreme court where the Judges wrote, not a Constitutional Judicial appeal, but created a decision based on Social Conscious. They found other cases under this umbrella in several states and combined the cases to send statutory law over the entire matter. The NAACP argued that this was a gross violation of rights of the Fourteenth Amendment (Justia, 2019).
This case was the consolidation of cases arising in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington D.C. relating to the segregation of public schools based on race. In each of the cases, African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were denied relief in the lower courts based on Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that racially segregated public facilities were legal so long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal. (This was known as the separate but equal doctrine.) (Justia, 2019, Supreme Court Ruling) Retrieved from Case Law Review ).
Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal. violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Rulings, Chief Justice Warren wrote the report that the childrens rights were violated and created then unequally to say that African American Children were unequal and inferior to being treated well by going to schools with the intent of color. As a result, Plessy versus Ferguson treatment as a Standard of law was defeated and removed from public Education. This case became the Statutory Standard and, it restored the right for students to go to school within their District near their residence (Alexander, 2012).
The Application of the Law and Policy
First, there is a scripture that states, the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. Psalm 19:7 … This Biblical Application to law when it is intended to not harm another person means its brig peaceful closure and causes the public to become even wiser. In all three cases, the struggle of one person over another to demonstrate that their view of the situation is the correct one. In the History of the modern world, since judges sat the judge between two parties, it has been based on who could present the most evidence against the other person. Second, in several cases beyond the three presented, the rule of law governs by opinion of men and women sought the disciple to make such judgments in high court seats, established precedential rulings that become the way the public governs itself and others in the United States. While on one hand, most of the laws remain and most public agencies recognize such laws, in an example of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), this law was made and used to cover all decisions. This was damaging application of law and nearly destroyed the moral fiber of education for school aged minors (Justia, 2019). Their parents were not asking for much but, an opportunity not to walk for twenty miles to school every morning and afternoon. If the parents had not braved the inquiry an NAACP can learn of all the violations in the many states, children would have continued to be violated and families living in humiliations. Finally, the application of law or the decision to use law can only happen if there are people brave enough to bring their concerns. Every case listed had a party willing to take risks. Thus, the real law makers are not the judges sitting on the bench. The law makers are those who see what the Spirit of God stated in Psalm 19:7 that people going to God to apply his statues of justice are the real power behind the affirmation of court proceeding. The application of a processed and passed law happens if only we have those with moral hearts to carry out the work without violations in themselves of breaking the law (Wrights Law, 2017).
Conclusion
The cases reviewed in the observational writing were each attached to issues in education that deal with the interruption of a process where parties disagree on the results of what they desire to see happen in their lives. While painful to watch, in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954), the Brown Family out of all those families suffering the same, stood up to fight the injustice and felt, they had enough strength to defeat the problems and processes in places to infringe upon their rights. The Principal in making a Statement was fired by his School Board, and the children decided to promote their ideology despite the schools policy. However, upon evaluation of the cases, it is noted that these cases were door way cases leading to the bigger issue of how rights of the people are upheld against statues. The real winners were the children that endured the grueling change to just attend a white school district near their home. Even if law is made, someone must still be willing to go through the process of application to make the law viable and established for it then, to reflect true change (Bible, 2018).
Works Cited
- Alexander, K. (2012). American Public School Law. Belmont: Wadesworth.
- Bible, H. (2018). Bible. Nashville: Holsman.
- Justia. (2019, 01 29). Supreme Court Ruling. Retrieved from Case Law Review: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/
- OYEZ. (2019, 01 29). Body Politics. Retrieved from Supreme Court: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483
- Twenty-One Methods of Biblical Faith-Learning Integration. (2013). The Journal of Biblica Integration in Business, Vol 16 No 3.
- Wrights Law. (2017, 02 04). Retrieved from Special Education Caselaw: http://www.wrightslaw.com/caselaw.htm
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.