Although the Supreme
Court does not protect students' First Amendment rights completely (e.g. Morse
v. Fredrick), it does protect them in cases of political and religious
expression. Tinker v. Des Moines, for example, ruled that students
should be allowed to express their political views if it's not too distracting.
West Virginia v. Barnette ruled that students shouldn't have to recite
the Pledge of Allegiance. Of course, I support these two rulings completely.
However, I sense some
hypocrisy here, as the Supreme Court seems to care very little about protecting
students from the aggression of others. Ingraham v. Wright ruled that
corporal punishment in public schools is not unconstitutional, and that the Eighth
Amendment does not apply to students who misbehave. This is wrong for a million
reasons. The most obvious reason is that corporal punishment violates the
non-aggression principle. But since the Supreme Court interprets the
Constitution, consider that these are public schools, and that the Supreme
Court protects students' First Amendment rights through the Fourteenth
Amendment. So why not the Eighth? The Supreme Court has a very loose
interpretation of the Eighth Amendment even for criminals, but in cases where
the criminal will not be put to death, they are treated better than students
who misbehave. And what exactly does a student have to do for corporal
punishment to be a consequence? I highly doubt that what they do is anywhere
near as bad as what violent criminals do.Also, since these are
public schools, parental “rights”
aren’t even an issue here, so the only case to be made for corporal punishment
in schools is “I’m living in the 1950’s and I have outdated views on
psychology.” Not that the 1950’s were all bad (I love the aesthetics and the
music associated with that decade), but in terms of how people were treated, it
was in the dark ages.
Eff the Supreme Court. Eff anyone who
thinks hitting children is acceptable.
No comments:
Post a Comment