|  survive
legal challenges so long as the student receives the necessary
due process protections. Such policies are not a violation
of state compulsory education laws. Schools may ban weapons
and impose suspension or expulsion for possessing a weapon
but should exercise discretion based on the circumstances
as allowed by the federal statute. This is particularly true
in the rare case where a student’s religious practices
may be violated, such as the possession of a knife for ceremonial
or symbolic reasons.
Discipline
for off-campus activity
A student generally may be disciplined for off-campus conduct
if school authorities can show that the student’s actions
have a direct and immediate effect on either school discipline
or the safety and welfare of students and staff.
Due
Process - Suspension & Expulsion
It is clear that certain procedural requirements must be followed
if a student is to be suspended for a substantial period of
time or expelled from a school. The Supreme Court noted in
a famous line from the case of Tinker v. Des Moines School
District that students do not “shed their constitutional
rights... at the school- house gate.” The Supreme Court
held in a later case, Goss v. Lopez, that a “student’s
legitimate entitlement to a public education [is] a property
interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause and...
may not be taken away for misconduct without adherence to
the minimum procedure required by that clause.”
Suspensions
In cases involving suspensions of 10 days or less, a student
must be provided with the following due process:
-
Oral or written notice of the charges against him or her,
-
An explanation of the reasons for the charges i.e., the
evidence and
-
An opportunity to present his or her side of the story.
The
requirement of a hearing does not mean it must be as formal
as a trial: an |
Case
at a glance:
Colvin v. Lowndes County
In
February 1999, Jonathan Colvin, a sixth grade student at New
Hope Middle School in New Hope, Mississippi, was found to
be in possession, on school premises, of a weapon, specifically,
a miniature Swiss Army type knife (The “weapon”
in question is a miniature Swiss Army knife/key chain approximately
two inches in length containing a fingernail file, small pair
of scissors, and closed-end cuticle knife). When confronted,
Jonathan admitted having the knife, stated that he was not
aware that he had brought it to school, said that it apparently
had fallen into his book bag by accident, and handed the knife
over to his teacher without incident. Jonathan made no threatening
gestures with the knife and fully cooperated with his teacher
and the school officials after its discovery.
School officials suspended Jonathan for one day, and subsequently,
the school board overruled a hearing officer’s recommendation
and approved Jonathan’s expulsion for one year. The
case was returned to the school board by the court with directions
to reconsider the penalty with proper regard for due process.
The court stated:
“Formalistic acceptance or ratification . . . of the
scope of punishment, without independent Board consideration
of what, under all the circumstances, the penalty should be,
is less than full due process. . . . Employing a blanket policy
of expulsion . . . precludes the use of independent consideration
of relevant facts and circumstances. Certainly, an offense
may warrant expulsion, but such punishment should only be
handed down upon the Board’s independent determination
that the facts and circumstances meet the requirements for
instituting such judgment. . . . The school board may choose
not to exercise its power of leniency. In doing so, however,
it may not hide behind the notion that the law prohibits leniency
for there is no such law.”
continued on page seven
|