Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Goss v. Lopez, 1975
22
THE
END.
ANY
QUESTIONS?
Goss v. Lopez
1975
The End.
What happened and how will it effect us?
Goss and other school officials thought that the operation of public schools was an area of power reserved to the States in the Constitution. Their opinion was that Ohio chose to offer free public schools, but public education was not a "right." Since education was not a right guaranteed under the Constitution, according to the officials no "rights"—of due process, especially—were violated in the case of Lopez and other students. They also said that the 10-day suspensions were not very damaging. "Students suffered no serious "loss" of education because of the suspensions." They believed that school administrators, not judges, should be the ones who decide how to operate the schools, including the discipline.
- Information pulled from:http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/goss.html
http://www.historyguy.com/supremecourt/supremecourtimage.jpg
What does that mean for us
as educators?
What does this mean for us
as educators?
The History behind Goss v. Lopez
- How did it all start?
There was much student unrest in the 1960's all across the United States due primarily to the Vietnam war. As a result, many campuses became places of demonstration and protests. By the 1970's, protests started occurring in high schools across the nation.
- This case lets us know as educators that there is a proper process we are to follow for suspending students.
- This also reminds us that there are procedures that need to be followed for most things we do. We need to educate ourselves about student/parental rights and our own rights as teachers.
- This case also set the process for hearings and notices to inform the student of their suspension.
-We also need to realize that our students have rights, that if infringed upon, could result in legal ramifications for us as teachers and the schools in which we teach.
The Supreme Court ruled that based on the evidence provided, the students were denied the right to due process because they were “suspended without a hearing prior to suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter.”
-It was also ruled that any reference to the students suspensions were to be removed from the school records.
- They also said that the school's suspensions violated the student's rights under the 14th
amendment which was the called the Equal Protection Clause. This required laws to apply equally to all persons, and the Due Process Clause, which requires States to recognize the rights of all citizens facing legal action.
Justice Byron White wrote the majority opinion for the 5–4 decision, in which the Court struck down the Ohio law as a violation of students' limited rights to due process. White observed that "a student's right to liberty included reputation, honor, integrity and standing with teachers and other students," all of which could be damaged should the student be suspended.
As a result of the Supreme Court decision, students are now entitled to the following due process rights: (1) oral or written notice of the charges, (2) if a student denies the charges, an explanation of the evidence the school will use against him or her, and (3) an opportunity for the student to present his or her side of the story. The Court ruled that in an emergency situation, students could be sent home immediately and a hearing held at a later date. The Court did not rule, however, that students had a right to an attorney, to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses in their defense, or to a hearing before an impartial person.
http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/goss.html
Dwight Lopez and at least 75 other students were suspended for causing a disturbance and destroying school property in the cafeteria. Lopez denied being a part of the group that vandalized school property, however, he was not given a hearing or a description of the charges he was accused of.