Civil Liberties Test

The rights granted to the citizens of America are heavily cherished because once a case is brought to court those rights become very vital in the overall outcome. This stands true in the case of Gideon v. Wainright. Gideon was charged with a felony for breaking and entering. He was unable to afford lawyer to defend him in his case and when he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused. Gideon defended himself in the trial and was convicted by a jury, sentenced to five years in a state prison. In this specific case Gideon’s 6th amendment right was violated. The 6th amendment states that one has the right to a fair trial which includes being represented by an attorney. In any situation, if the defendant is unable to afford his own attorney then the court is to provide him with one. If he had an attorney that could rightfully defend him then the results of his case could have been much different. Average people do not have the skills it takes to defend themselves against a well trained attorney, which is why a trial is not fair unless both sides are represented. Seeing that Gideon was not granted his rights the Supreme Court jury overruled the previous punishment because of his violated rights and Gideon was able to have a retrial. While adults are protected under the rights listed in the Constitution, so are school students. But when it comes to school cases, there are other factors. While in school, students are under the supervision of the authority figures; this is referred to as “in loco parentis”. Therefore, it is their responsibility to look out for the students as if they were their own children. They have to look out for what is best for everyone and make sure everyone feels safe and respected. In the case of Veronia School District v. Acton an official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use would increase the risk of sports-related injury. This lead the school to adopt the Student Athlete Drug Policy which allows student athletes to be randomly drug tested. James Acton was denied participation in his school's football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing. In a case like this one, the school had every right to enforce a drug testing policy because it protects the well being of the students while they are participating in a school event. Not only are drugs dangerous, but they are also illegal making it okay that the school gives consequences for the behavior. Acton thought that his right to illegal search and seizure was being infringed upon, but in reality the school had every right to test him because he was involved in a school activity. Like I stated before, while students are under the supervision of the school they are to be kept safe; and so, the fourth amendment was not violated in the Veronia School District v. Acton case. Another issue dealing with rights in the school was the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case. In this case students participating in a school newspaper felt their 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech and press were being violated when to of the articles were denied publishing. While in a school setting, it is the school’s responsibility to make sure everyone is treated fairly and feels safe. If something is published in the school newspaper that could possibly offend or embarrass another student in the school, then it is the school’s job to protect that student. Also in school, students are just learning to ins and outs of publishing so there are still limits to what they are able to do. In an out of school setting, journalists are able to publish more freely because it is not their concern to look out for the feelings of the millions of people that come in contact with their articles. There is no way to please everyone in a non-school related publishing. Kuhlmeier may have felt that her right to free speech and press were being taken from her, but given the circumstances she was not able to publish the articles due to how it could affect others. If she were to start an underground paper it would be a different story because it is in now way connected to the school; therefore, the school can not decide what is being published. Because she was writing for a school newspaper, the jury ruled against her when she brought the case to court. Similar to the previous case, the case of Bethel v. Fraser dealt with a student’s right to freedom of speech. During an assembly, Fraser delivered a highly inappropriate speech to a crowd of 600 students. Fraser’s sexually explicit speech made the underclass students and parents of the underclassmen very uncomfortable because they felt their kids were to young to be subjected to such language. Seeing that it caused such an uproar, the school had to act. Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures”. They had every right to enforce this rule because once again, since the students were in a school setting it was the administration job to look out for them. Fraser’s right to free speech was not being taken away, he was just being punished for his innapropriate behavior in an academic atmosphere.