Decisions by the Supreme Court on Cases of Student Search and Privacy Violation - Case Study Example

Privacy Affiliation: I. Privacy and surveillance by their teachers is a controversial issue among people including the judiciary system. There are several laws including the fourth amendment that prohibits unreasonable searches but the students are deemed to be minors according to the law and their teachers taken as their guardians while in school and hence they have a right a protect the students from harm even if this includes subjecting them to searches (Clancy, 2008, pg. 130-245). The decisions by the Supreme Court on various cases of student search and privacy violation will be evaluated. This research is going to give some of the evidences for and against this privacy and surveillance issue and what the stakeholders think about this issue. II. Body A. Laws on privacy and surveillance 1. Fourth Amendment This is a law in the constitution of the United States but it is also supported by the Bill of Rights and it is against any unreasonable searches and especially without a warrant. According to this law therefore, teachers are condoned to search their student’s belongings without the permission of the student’s or their guardians or sometimes without any warrant at all. If this fourth amendment of the constitution is to be followed in schools, then teachers would be taken legal action for invading the privacy of their students by surveillance of their belongings without consent (Clancy, 2008). Contradiction however comes in where the teachers can argue that the students are minors and cannot therefore give consent and since teachers are recognized as guardians of students, they can consent the search in order to protect the students from bad habits and make them better future citizens. With this argument therefore, teachers have permission to breach the privacy and surveillance rights of their students in order to protect them. 2. Children’s rights According to the Bill of Rights, children have their own special rights which are meant for their special protection, care and wellbeing. The rights demand for children to be allowed to be autonomous but greatly discuss the issue of protecting them from any harm through various means. Teachers, parents and guardians are the custodians of these children’s rights and they are mandated to uphold them in whatever way possible (Pardeck, 2006). This argument therefore mandates teachers to protect the students in whichever way they seem necessary from harm. If a teacher suspects students are using drugs that are hidden in their lockers or bags and these drugs can harm them and others, they are warranted by the children’s rights to breach the privacy of the students and subject them to searches and surveillance as a way to protect them from the harm caused by use of drugs. 3. Family Education Rights and Privacy Acts (FERPA) This law totally supports the privacy of students and their information from surveillance or disclosure by the school staff without their consent. According to this federal law, students have a right to access their education information and records but any disclosure of such information to any other party other than the student requires student’s prior consent. Failure to obtain the consent is deemed as a breach of the law which is administered under the department of Education. The information to be taken as private includes school grades, other education records like the enrolment details, billing information and even behavior or disciplinary records (Turnage, 2007). B. Supreme Court ruling on teacher-student surveillance. 1. Case studies The case study below demonstrates that the Supreme Court supports the breach of privacy of students if it is for the protection of the students. In the case “New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985),” a 13 year-old student’s purse was searched by her principal based on allegations that she was smoking. The purse had cigarettes and Marijuana. Another case by Supreme Court about breaching the privacy of students through surveillance is the “Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002)” where the court upheld a decision that random drug tests of students in extracurricular activities was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment (American Bar Association, et al, 2008). 2. Rulings In the first case, the ruling by the Supreme Court was that the student’s privacy was not violated since the principal had good reasons for conducting the search. The ruling on the second case was that the random drug tests were not violation of the Fourth Amendment. 3. Ethics Even though the privacy and surveillance breach by teachers towards the students is against the ethics of society and especially of confidentiality and seeking informed consent among others, the aim is to have better individuals in society in future and also protect the students against any harm as dictated by the Bill of Rights (Pardeck, 2006) C. Stakeholders’ opinions. 1. Teachers Most teachers agree to violate the privacy of their students because they argue that their duty in the school other than teaching the students is to uphold their discipline and protect them from any harm. Teachers also view themselves and are viewed by the society as the second guardian to the students next to their parents or their real guardians and therefore act with the best interests of the students at heart. In order to do this, they have to at times violate the privacy of students and keep on a constant surveillance on them to enforce these roles and duties (Monahan and Torres, 2009). 2. Parents Parents agree to the privacy and surveillance debate because they are accorded the right to access the student’s records by Family Education Rights and Privacy Acts (FERPA) and hence many have a problem with others having access without consent of the same information about their children (Turnage, 2007). This is the reason most parents in conjunction with their children or with other parents take lawsuits against schools or school staffs for what they deem as a violation of the privacy rights of their children. 3. Students Students do not agree to violation of their privacy by teachers and other school staff and this is true according to the numerous cases in courts brought by students with assistance from their parents in situations where the school staff has violated their privacy rights. Many of the students are aware of their rights under the Fourth Amendment and hence do not like a breach of that right (Clancy, 2008). 4. Counselors Counselors mostly have controversial decisions about the matter because on the one hand they recognize the ethical breach when teachers violate the privacy and surveillance of their students and on the other hand, they have to understand the reasons for the breach from both the students’ and the teachers’ viewpoints. In most cases therefore, they remain neutral parties and opt for the decisions to come from those seeking counseling (Monahan and Torres, 2009). III. Conclusion In conclusion therefore, based on the controversy that this issue presents which range from the judiciary ruling, laws contradicting each other and even the differences in the opinion by the stakeholders of this matter, it is evident that no general conclusion can be made. The only logical thing to indicate about this matter is that despite the pros and cons of the issue of privacy and surveillance breach, the stakeholders like parents, teachers and the law have the protection and wellbeing of the students who are considered minors at hand. The only difference is the definition of how to keep them from harm and to protect them when in their school environment. References American Bar Association (et al). (2008). Preview of United States Supreme Court cases. Washington DC: Government Press. Clancy, T. K. (2008). The Fourth Amendment: its history and interpretation. North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press. Monahan, T. and Torres, R. D. (2009). Schools under Surveillance: Cultures of Control in Public Education. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Pardeck, J. T. (2006). Children’s Rights: Policy and Practice. New Jersey: Routledge. Turnage, C. C. (2007). School Officials Knowledge of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 at the University of Southern Mississippi. Mississippi: ProQuest. Read More