Practices for the Student Body at Hope High School in Arkansas - Case Study Example

RUNNING HEAD: Search and Seizures Search and Seizures: Ethics versus the Letter of the Law BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE Dr. Karen Curtner DATE HERE Student Search and Seizure: Ethics versus the Letter of the Law Introduction Students in the contemporary educational environment face a variety of challenges in terms of securing their rights as minors and those protected by the Constitution of the United States. There are significant differences between search and seizure policies and law constructs associated with adults suspected of criminal behavior and those pertaining to the juvenile youth. Ethical behavior from school officials is significantly different than that of legal practices pertaining to school administration, however both must be respected in order to secure the rights of students and also promote a quality educational environment. This paper describes the existing policies related to search and seizure practices for the student body at Hope High School in Arkansas with discussion regarding proper ethical behavior and the letter of the law for such practices. Reflecting on Search and Seizure Juveniles are afforded many protections that differ from adults under the Constitution and state-level legal systems. During adolescence, youths are subject to adult-based authoritarian hierarchies in which they are reliant on ethical and moral adult leadership to ensure their rights are protected. Even though youths in high school are protected under many varieties of law, they are also utilizing school property such as lockers, desks, or the use of the school parking lot. Therefore, they are subject to established school policies regarding the appropriate use of these systems or storage devices. This might, to the casual civilian, look to be a sort of conflict of interest regarding how best to secure the rights of the school as well as the individual student. First, it is important to understand the moral constructs that should be governing the rights of students. Alan Gewirth, a renowned philosopher, identified three specific types of rights that should be applicable to all humans. The first of these rights is the right to physical integrity and mental health (ethics.tamu.edu, 2006). In most high school environments, there is some level of counseling service provided to ensure that students have a valid resource to discuss their psychological misgivings or other concerns related to mental health. By all measures, their physical safety is ensured by adequate adult leadership and existing non-violence policies. In every measure, then, it should be said that high school officials absolutely secure the most fundamental right afford to students. The second right is that of being afforded the opportunity to achieve purpose in life (ethics.tamu.edu). This, too, is afforded simply by the constructs of ethical teaching systems that provide opportunities for growth and knowledge. The third and most complicated of Gewirth’s fundamental rights hierarchy is that of the right to property, non-discrimination and self-respect (ethics.tamu.edu). This is a much more complex dynamic of student rights, as their properties within the school maintain the potential to become scrutinized by the school system and its administration in the event there is concern about student protection or securing the letter of the law. In the event of a warranted search and seizure, questions arise about self-respect issues and whether students are receiving some form of discriminatory judgment from adult supervision at the school. This is why there should be some form of rights statement attached with any existing policy about student search and seizure practices to ensure that society recognizes some form of ethical and moral system drives administrative decision-making in these matters. One educator from the University of Arizona offers that in order to clarify a rights statement, there must be mention of “moral importance” as to why an individual deserves rights protections as well as identifying the interests of all parties involved (Buchanan, 2006, p.1). These should be spelled out clearly prior to establishing a search and seizure policy so that students recognize their ethical protections, thus building a sense of self-respect while attending the school. Abraham Maslow, a well-respected psychologist, identified his theoretical Hierarchy of Needs that includes all of the basic, fundamental needs required of all human beings in order to achieve the pinnacle of their capabilities. Two of these needs tiers include establishment of security as well as a sense of belonging in order to develop higher functioning skills such as self-esteem development (Weiten & Lloyd, 2005). It is the role of educators to ensure that students are able to function well within society, equipped with the psychological and academic-based skills needed to contribute to the adult workforce. Because of these needs and the long-term complications that can arise from preventing their development, rights statements related to students should be included in the school handbook or other appropriate literature. The ability of educators, through a simple rights statement, satisfies their ethical and moral obligations and also builds both security and belonging. These minor efforts to reinforce the importance of student rights, in comparison to school rights, fulfills very important needs within the student and such activities reinforce to parents and the general community that administration takes their ethical role quite seriously. This could also reinforce relationships with parents who are also considered about the security and rights protections of their youths while on the school property and away from the home. The Law and Search and Seizure Assuming that some justified rights statement has been promoted by school administration, which at the personal level has so many advantages, it would be appropriate to identify an actual search and seizure policy at Hope High School. Directly from the handbook: “The Superintendent, principals, and their designees have the right to inspect and search school property and equipment. They may also search students and their personal property in which the student has a reasonable expectation of privacy, when there is reasonable suspicion to believe such student or property contains illegal items…” (Hope High School, 2011). What is clearly spelled out is that the school maintains the right to such inspections only when there is just cause as spelled out by the letter of the law as it pertains to the federal government or those abiding in state level for Arkansas. Prior to this establishment of policy is a justified rights statement offered by Hope High School about its role in protecting the rights of students and their safety. The language used in the handbook is taken directly from Constitutional law which states there must be reasonable suspicion that a specific school policy has been breached in order for such seizures to take place (law.freeadvice.com, 2007). This shows civic and ethical responsibility on behalf of the writers of this policy language that should reinforce to the student, the legal system, and community stakeholders that the school understands its obligations under the law and intends to follow them distinctly. The handbook further identifies the specific areas utilized by students that can and will be searched in the event of suspicious use of school property that includes desks, cars, and student lockers. Further adding credibility to the language used in the handbook, the school informs that the use of law enforcement professionals to conduct the searches or supervise their legal integrity might be involved in such instances. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution clearly identifies similar language regarding reasonable suspicion and search and seizure practices, again reinforcing the integrity and knowledge of the law as it pertains to the school administration. In every way, the language is clear and directly related to the laws that bind officials from irrational search practices. However, there are consequences associated with breaching reasonable suspicion under the law which is something that Hope High School seems to recognize within its language in the handbook. The exclusionary rule of the Constitution identifies that any evidence located in a search and seizure activity will not be used as evidence in the court system when unreasonable searches have been proven (nolo.com, 2011). The U.S. Supreme Court established this exclusionary rule in 1961 to ensure that rights are protected against unethical searches or those that cannot be backed by reasonable factors. From the handbook: “Evidence found which appears to be in violation of the law shall be reported to the appropriate authority” (Hope High School, 2011). This indicates that the school recognizes its responsibility to report evidence as a means to satisfy both ethical requirements and those demanded by Constitutional or state-level case law. This language is concise and identifies that the school officials involved in such searches will take appropriate actions when evidence of policy or legal breaches have occurred. This satisfies student rights and also the potential criminal liabilities that might occur with school administration if students or their parents protest such searches. Precedents on Search and Seizure In 1985, New Jersey v. T.L.O. upheld that a school principal maintained the right to search a student’s purse without having to attain a warrant to do so (Hill & Hill, 2005). Again, this followed the notion that such searches had reasonable suspicion. It should be identified, however, that this is where more complex ethical dynamics come into play considering that purses or similar property maintain very personal and sometimes discreet contents that could potentially jeopardize a student’s self-respect. As Alan Gewirth identified, one of the most fundamental ethical rights a person has is to self-respect and non-discriminatory treatment in society. In the workplace, adults have absolute discretion and privacy guaranteed as it is related to their health and wellness that is supported by all human resources systems. For example, a diabetic that must inject daily insulin does not have to make this information public to the entire workforce and thus maintains significant legal protections from disclosure of these factors. A student with a similar diabetic condition might have their health problems disclosed in the event of such searches of a personal purse and would therefore not be afforded the same protections as an adult in the contemporary workforce environment. This is a significant factor to consider when deciding to allow a search and seizure process of a more personalized piece of student property. Even though there might be reasonable suspicion, if the administrative group does not maintain discretion about what was discovered, the student’s most fundamental right (at the ethical level) will have been breached. There should be, however, the assumption that most school officials understand their role in absolute discretion. There is, however, the possibility that juveniles are not afforded the same rights in such an instance as their adult contemporaries when personal items are searched that could disclose contents that border on self-respect issues. It might then be offered that adults actually do have more rights protections than youths that are reinforced by modern labor laws that apply in the workforce dynamic. The Ethical Dilemmas Stader (2007, p.4) identifies two different types of actions as they pertain to ethical behaviors. The first is strategic action in which goal-attainment is influenced through “overt or subtle threats or offers of potential reward”. In many ways, the Hope High School handbook does indeed act as a strategic action that uses a mild form of subtle threat to achieve the goal of compliance to existing school and legally-based policies. Negating the actual law for a moment, is this unethical? It is likely dependent on individual interpretation. However, it is a strategic attempt by school officials to ensure conformity that does serve as a form of warning to students that they are expected to behave according to the systems that guide rational student behavior. Stader’s secondary type of action is communicative action where a win-win philosophy guides compliance issues where such actions are “designed to rationally motivate and reach an understanding on a solution that is generally considered suitable” (Stader, p.4). The handbook does not allow language that describes a more mutually consenting opportunity for resolution in the event of suspected illegal or policy-breaching content within school property as maintained by the student. Is this a failure on behalf of Hope High School? Again, this is open for individualized interpretation. The language within the handbook offers that when reasonable suspicion is present, the school will immediately resort to search and seizure efforts rather than attempting to resolve the conflict or situation between open lines of communication between school officials and the student. Reflective Conclusion The language utilized within the Hope High School handbook definitely satisfies the letter of the law at the state and Constitutional levels and should therefore be considered more than adequate to avoid school liabilities in the event of student protests against such searches. The handbook even identifies issues of sex-based protectionism to ensure that searches with females are conducted by female staff members; and vice versa for males. As it pertains to the legal systems that bind administration activities, the handbook is concise and does not require improvement. However, at the ethical and moral level, there might be opportunities for administration to insert new language that describes a secondary attempt at resolving suspicious situations by allowing the student to divulge their activities prior to a search and seizure process. More communicative action that searches for consensual solutions may satisfy some of the security and belonging requirements of students at the emotional and psychological level to reinforce issues of self-respect as they pertain to the youths. However, it should be said, after careful examination of the law and ethical policy, that Hope High School excels in its understanding of its role in appropriate behavior in the face of search and seizure scenarios and has developed a very clear language that should satisfy all stakeholders in the school and community abroad. References Buchanan, Allen. (2005). “An Ethical Framework for Biological Samples Policy: Commissioned Paper”, University of Arizona. Retrieved June 18, 2011 from http://temp.onlineethics.org/reseth/nbac/buchanan.html Ethics.tamu.edu. (2006). “Moral Concepts and Theories”, Texas A&M University, p.5. Retrieved June 18, 2011 from http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/essays/moral.htm Hill, Gerald N. & Hill, Kathleen T. (2005), West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd ed. The Gale Group Inc. Retrieved June 17, 2011 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Seizure+(law) Law.freeadvice.com. (2007). “Education Law: Can a School Official Search a Student’s Locker?”. Retrieved June 17, 2011 from http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/education_law/student_locker_search.htm Nolo.com. (2011). “Understanding Search and Seizure Law: When the Government can Invade your Privacy to Hunt for Evidence of a Crime”, p.3. Retrieved June 18, 2011 from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-seizure-criminal-law 30183.html;jsessionid=F4E5D874026E096C740F375B6D3D9E1B Stader, David L. (2007), “Integrating Ethics into the Study of School Law”, University of Texas at Arlington. Retrieved June 18, 2011 from http://educationlaw.org/2007%20Conference/Papers/C2Stader.pdf Weiten, W. & Lloyd, M. (2005), Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century, 7th ed. Thomson Wadsworth. Appendix A Stader, D. (2007). Law and ethics in educational leadership (p. 40). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Read More