West Coast Publishing Probable Cause in Schools Public Forum Sept-Oct 2016 Starter File Page 3
West Coast PublishingProbable Cause in Schools
Public Forum Sept-Oct 2016
Thanks for using our Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp Materials.
Please don’t share this material with anyone outside of your school
including via print, email, dropbox, google drive, the web, etc.
We’re a small non-profit; please help us continue to provide our products.
Contact us at
www.wcdebate.com
WEST COAST DEBATE
Public Forum Sept-Oct 2016
Probable Cause in Schools
Finding Arguments in this File
Use the table of contents on the next pages to find the evidence you need or the navigation bar on the left. We have tried to make the table of contents as easy to use as possible.
Using the arguments in this File
We encourage you to be familiar with the evidence you use. Highlight (underline) the key lines you will use in the evidence. Cut evidence from our files, incorporate your and others’ research and make new files. File the evidence so that you can easily retrieve it when you need it in debate rounds. Practice reading the evidence out-loud; Practice applying the arguments to your opponents’ positions; Practice defending your evidence in rebuttal speeches.
Use West Coast Evidence as a Beginning
We hope you enjoy our evidence files and find them useful. In saying this, we want to make a strong statement that we make when we coach and that we believe is vitally important to your success: DO NOT USE THIS EVIDENCE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Instead, let it serve as a beginning. Let it inform you of important arguments, of how to tag and organize your arguments, and to offer citations for further research. Don’t stagnate in these files--build upon them by doing your own research for updates, new strategies, and arguments that specifically apply to your opponents. In doing so, you’ll use our evidence to become a better debater.
Copying West Coast Evidence
Our policy gives you the freedom to use our evidence for educational purposes without violating our hard work.
· You may print and copy this evidence for those on your team.
· You may not electronically share nor distribute this evidence with anyone other than those on your team unless you very substantially change each page of material that you share.
For unusual situations, you can e-mail us at and seek our consent.
Ordering West Coast Materials
1. Visit the West Coast Web Page at www.wcdebate.com
2. E-mail us at
3. Fax us at 877-781-5058
Copyright 2016. West Coast Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Visit our web page!
www.wcdebate.com
WEST COAST DEBATE 2
PRO CASE 4
SAFE SCHOOLS AND STUDENT CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE IN CONFLICT 6
SCHOOLS ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO MAKE THEIR CLASSROOMS SAFE 7
THE NEED FOR SAFE SCHOOLS JUSTIFIES RESTRICTIONS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES 8
STUDENT FREE SPEECH UNDERMINES SCHOOL SAFETY 9
SCHOOL DISCIPLINE JUSTIFIES RESTRICTION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS 10
HARASSMENT, SEXUAL OR OTHERWISE, IS AN OBSTACLE TO EDUCATION 11
PEER SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS EXTREMELY DAMAGING TO THE VICTIMS 12
SCHOOLS ARE OBLIGATED TO END HARASSMENT 13
A SAFE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT IS MORE VALUABLE THAN HARASSING SPEECH 14
STUDENT PRIVACY RIGHTS UNDERMINE THE SAFETY OF SCHOOLS 16
PROTECTION OF SCHOOL SAFETY JUSTIFIES INVASIONS OF PRIVACY 17
DRUG TESTING IS CRITICAL TO PRESERVE SCHOOL ORDER AND DISCIPLINE 18
DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS IS CONSTITUTIONAL 19
CON CASE 20
CRITERIA 23
STATISTICS PROVE SCHOOL VIOLENCE IS DECLINING 24
THERE IS NO REASON TO REDUCE STUDENT LIBERTIES–SCHOOLS ARE SAFE 25
COLUMBINE NOTWITHSTANDING, SCHOOL VIOLENCE IS MARKEDLY DECLINING 26
THE AFFIRMATIVE TEACHES STUDENTS TOTALITARIAN VALUES 27
ABRIDGING STUDENTS’ RIGHTS MAKES HYPOCRITES OUT OF SCHOOLS 28
VIOLATING STUDENTS’ RIGHTS TEACHES THEM DISRESPECT FOR LAW 29
RESPECTING RIGHTS IS VITAL FOR THE SOCIALIZING MISSION OF SCHOOLS 30
THE AFFIRMATIVE’S PRINCIPLE EXPANDS TO LIMIT EVERYONE’S RIGHTS 31
COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE PROVES STUDENT RIGHTS MUST BE MAXIMIZED 32
THE AFFIRMATIVE APPROACH IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE 33
THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES WITH FULL FORCE TO STUDENTS 34
THE AFFIRMATIVE PRINCIPLE WILL BE ABUSED 35
LESS RESTRICTIVE MEANS CAN PROTECT STUDENT SAFETY 36
PRO CASE
THESIS: This case argues that schools have to functions. 1) to educate students to the best of their ability and 2) to prepare students as citizens for life after high school. These two goals are unachievable if the school environment is made unsafe through harassment (sexual or otherwise), violence, or drug use. Therefore schools are morally and ethically required to take steps to combat these problems and make schools safe, even if these solutions intrude upon students’ civil liberties.
OBSERVATION ONE:
A. SCHOOLS HAVE A MORAL AND LEGAL DUTY TO PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT
Donald L. Beci, Associate Professor of Law, Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law, Campbell University, CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Summer 1992, p. 820.
School children are inflicting violent harms upon each other at an alarming rate. A large portion of this violent behavior is weapon-related. The community has an immediate responsibility to protect children from this escalation of violence. Indeed, school officials have both a moral duty and a legal duty to protect students from such violence. In a recent national survey of school crime conducted over a six month period, approximately one-half million American children reported experiencing one or more violent crimes while at school. Students numbering approximately three times that figure reported being the victims of property crimes. When asked about their experiences with all crimes, not just those that were violent or involved property, nearly two million children reported being victimized at least once at school during the six-month period. Twenty-two percent of all children feared an attack at school, and almost one-half million of them reported taking a weapon to school to protect themselves.
B. A SAFE SCHOOL CONDUCIVE TO LEARNING DEMANDS RESTRICTIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS
Darrel Jackson, J.D. Candidate, Arizona State University (1997), ARIZONA STATE LAW JOURNAL, Summer 1996, p. 674-675.
School officials are charged with educating this country's youth. Obviously, to achieve their mission they must maintain order and establish an environment that is conducive to learning. The Supreme Court accordingly grants school officials considerable deference in order to avoid interfering with the educational process. Through a number of decisions, the Court has relaxed, or abrogated, constitutional guarantees in the school setting, giving school officials the discretion that they need to further the educational process. The Supreme Court usually reasons that schools are special places with regard to the Constitution's guarantee of individual liberty because students are children placed in the temporary care of the state. Therefore, the Court finds that the state must be free to exercise greater control over students than the state could constitutionally exercise over free adults.
C. A SAFE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT IS A PREREQUISITE FOR LEARNING
Colleen Creamer Fielkow, Law Student, DEPAUL LAW REVIEW, Summer 1997, p. 1085.
New approaches to student discipline have been enacted in partial response to the rising public concern about safety in the schools and in partial response to the ineffectiveness of the old approaches to positively influencing student behavior. Educational scholars advocating fresh approaches stress the importance of student self-discipline, the development of a school-wide plan, the variety of in-class strategies, and the necessity of addressing the special needs of at-risk children. The various approaches to student discipline are numerous and yet there remains a difficulty for most educators to get a grip on school behavioral problems. The importance of classroom order to the proper functioning of educating children remains paramount. The Court captured the essential role of educators in its assertion of the educational function: "The primary duty of school officials and teachers ... is the education and training of young people. A state has a compelling interest in assuring that the schools meet this responsibility. Without first establishing discipline and maintaining order, teachers cannot begin to educate their students."
OBSERVATION TWO: SCHOOLS SHOULD CURTAIL FREE SPEECH TO MAINTAIN ORDER
SCHOOLS ARE JUSTIFIED IN BANNING OFFENSIVE SPEECH TO PRESERVE ORDER
Stanley Matthew Burgess, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, J.D. Candidate, 1998, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY LAW REVIEW, Spring 1998, p. 611.
In 1986, the Court decided Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, which held a student responsible for his speech during a school assembly. The Court determined that "[n]othing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanction." Further, the court resolved that public schools play a fundamental role in developing citizens that have the ability to communicate without "vulgar or offensive terms." "The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized order." Consequently, the Court concluded that "it was perfectly appropriate for the school to disassociate itself to make the point to the pupils that vulgar speech and lewd conduct is wholly inconsistent with the 'fundamental values' of public school education." The Court refused to "surrender control of the American public school system to public school students" by refusing to allow the First Amendment to extend protection to every form of speech within the educational setting. Fraser shelters school administrators' decisions to prohibit aggravating speech used to incite violence at school. Consequently, Missouri school districts may apply the Act to restrict violent student communications without violating the students' protected rights.
OBSERVATION THREE: INFRINGING UPON PRIVACY IN DRUG TESTS IS JUSTIFIED
RANDOM DRUG TESTS ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE NEED FOR SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
Stanley Matthew Burgess, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, J.D. Candidate, 1998, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY LAW REVIEW, Spring 1998, p. 611-612.
In 1995, the Court decided Vernonia School District v. Action, which upheld a school district policy that required students to submit to drug testing as a prerequisite for participation in school sponsored athletics. If a student refused to sign the drug testing consent form they were not allowed to participate in interscholastic athletics. The Court utilized the Fourth Amendment balancing test weighing the encroachment on the pupil's privacy expectations against the "promotion of legitimate governmental interest." "The Fourth Amendment does not protect all subjective expectations of privacy, but only those that society recognizes as 'legitimate'." "[A] proper educational environment requires close supervision of schoolchildren, as well as the enforcement of rules against conduct that would be perfectly permissible if undertaken by an adult." The rights a student will possess upon graduation are distinctive from the privacy expectations they tolerate while receiving their public education. Accordingly, a school district may establish discipline policies that restrict protections secured under the Constitution as long as the constraint has a legitimate objective.
OBSERVATION FOUR: INCREASING VIOLENCE DEMANDS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
STUDENT PRIVACY RIGHTS PREVENT THE SEARCHES NECESSARY TO STOP VIOLENCE
Laura Beresh-Taylor, Law Student, AKRON LAW REVIEW, 2000, p. 328-330.
The ability of school officials to prevent crime in schools depends on their ability to search students. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution proclaims that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." When law enforcement officers conduct school searches, they are constrained by standards that govern all police searches. However, the Supreme Court has established less rigorous standards for searches conducted by school officials. In New Jersey v. T.L.O., the United States Supreme Court addressed whether the Fourth Amendment's restriction on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to school officials. The Court asserted that the Fourth Amendment is applicable, and held that the legality of a student search hinges "on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search." First, a student search is permissible if the school officials have a reasonable suspicion that the student has violated, or is violating, a school rule. Second, the measures utilized by the school officials must be reasonably related to the goals of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the nature of the offense and the student's age and sex.
SAFE SCHOOLS AND STUDENT CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE IN CONFLICT
1. SAFE SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE FUNDAMENTALLY AT ODDS
Stanley Matthew Burgess, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, J.D. Candidate, 1998, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY LAW REVIEW, Spring 1998, p. 604.
The Act was instituted to ensure that Missouri's public schools are a safe place for students to learn and achieve. However, the Act potentially jeopardizes the privacy expectations of many students by unlawfully disclosing the contents of the pupil's discipline files to individuals who do not need the information to secure a safe educational environment. Missouri's legislature anticipated that it could prevent future violent student actions by releasing the contents of a pupil's discipline file. However, this action substantially compromises every student's privacy expectations while at school. Therefore, while the Act seeks to protect innocent students, like Christine Smetzer from the violent behavior of other children, it potentially violates the pupil's fundamental rights through the disclosure of permanent discipline files to individuals who do not need the information to maintain safety within a school.
2. THE PREVALENCE OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE PITS SAFETY AND LIBERTY AGAINST EACH OTHER
Donald L. Beci, Associate Professor of Law, Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law, Campbell University, CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Summer 1992, p. 818.
Presently, school violence is reaching such extreme degrees that government officials may feel compelled to sacrifice constitutional principles in order to protect children. Although school boards and legislatures will undoubtedly consider several methods of protection that are constitutionally acceptable under the Fourth Amendment search and seizure doctrine, this laudable effort to improve the safety of children while at school will include other methods that are patently unconstitutional. Of greater significance is the plethora of approaches which will fall within the questionable gray area where their constitutional permissibility under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is uncertain. In society's zeal to protect school children, the methods that are ultimately pursued, and which the Supreme Court Justices allow, will have significant constitutional implications.