Michael Parent Education Law Final Exam Seton Hall University

QUESTION #1

Dear Superintendent Sam,

I have reviewed the facts surrounding the disciplinary case of Stew Starr (Starr).  There

are several legal issues that you must carefully consider prior to your decision to impose

Principal Patty’s requested disciplinary measures.

First, before any disciplinary action can be taken, Starr is entitled to his due process

rights.  Referencing Goss v Lopes and the New Jersey administrative code, if a student it is to be

suspended for more than ten (10) days, they are entitled to an expulsion hearing.  The Board of

Education will serve as the jury.  Failure to grant Starr his 14th amendment right to hear and

respond to all allegations levied against him will result in a violation of his civil rights.   With

that premise stated, I do find cause for disciplinary actions. 

Because Starr designed a website (as an independent study school project for an approved

Board of Education course) and made use of the school’s name in order to promote and expose

his own drug use and subsequent encouragement for other students to do the same, according to

Bethel v. Fraser, Starr forfeited his first amendment right to free speech.  Furthermore, because

Starr threatened violence upon another student (through his website) and then carried out that act

of violence during school hours, you are justified in levying reasonable discipline against Starr. 

Although Starr may rebut, using Layshock v Hermitage, claiming that you are violating his first

amendment right of free speech, remind Starr that his first amendment right to free speech does

apply to cyber space and that his website [a] included a threat, [b] caused a disruption, and [c]

was theoretically done on school time since it was an independent project for a class grade. 

Additionally, to discipline Starr for his promotion of illegal drug use is not a violation of

his first amendment rights.  You will want to reference Justice Thomas’ argument in Morse et al.

Michael Parent Education Law Final Exam Seton Hall University

v. Frederick - when speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use, a principal may

legally restrict that speech based on existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other

Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school’s interest in deterring drug use by

students.

In New Jersey v T.L.O., the courts found that schools need only reasonable suspicion in

order to search students’ personal and school property.  Since Starr’s website was accessed

during school hours and because of the content of his website, Principal Patty was right in

conducting a narcotics investigation by searching his locker, having him empty his pockets, and

searching his vehicle which was parked on school property.  Should Starr argue this search based

solely on his website, remind him that Justice White in New Jersey v T.L.O. wrote “The school

setting… requires some modification of the level of suspicion of illicit activity needed to justify

a search.” In short, the rights of students must be balanced against the needs of the school

setting.

Although no drugs turned up in Principal Patty’s search of Starr’s locker, car, or person,

she did find a stolen AP exam in Starr’s locker.  For this, Starr may also be disciplined.  I suggest

you use Herring v United States as your justification; although no drugs turned up in her search,

something else that is a clear violation of school and district policy did - therefore, Starr is

subject to discipline for that offense.

Utilizing these cited defenses and cases, I find no reason for concern about disciplining

Starr. I would, however, urge you to reconsider Principal Patty’s request for a twenty-day

suspension. Should you decide to move forward with disciplinary action, I remind you to first

schedule a Board of Education hearing so that Starr’s constitutional rights are met and not

violated. At that hearing, the Board of Education will make a recommendation for discipline.