Prying eyes.

FOCUS: School Fears About Drugs and Violence Prompt Crackdown on Teen Rights

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand how heightened concerns about school violence, drug abuse, and other disturbing behavior have created situations where students' rights have arguably been violated.

Discussion Questions:

* Do you believe that concern about illegal drug use and violence by students justify searching students, their lockers, and belongings?

* Should teachers and schools be held liable if a student who writes violent essays later acts violently?

* Suggest a way to investigate an apparently troubled student without violating his or her constitutionally protected rights to free speech and protection against unreasonable searches.

CLASSROOM STRATEGIES

Role-play: Break the class into two groups, prosecutors and defense attorneys, for each side in the three cases profiled in this article, in each case, prosecutors argue for the school, defense for the students. Have each side respond to the following questions or statements:

* Could the "hex" be seen as a threat, something that is a violation of the law?

* Might a student's writing that describes violence actually be a cry for help?

* Information in the article clearly shows that the "hex" was a sarcastic joke.

* Shaun Joye is making a mountain out of a molehill. He would have had no reason not to take the drug test if he had not used drugs.

Discussion: After students present their arguments, ask them to take off their "attorneys' hats" for a moment to register their reactions to this statement, by Robert Weiner of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy in the administration of President Bill Clinton:

"The majority of kids support drug testing because it gives them an excuse to say `no' to drugs."

* Next, have each side respond to this scenario: Suppose Matthew Parent was a 30year-old artist, whose stream-of-consciousness "free writing" had been published in a literary magazine. What action might authorities have taken? How would each side define the line between free speech and due process, and the need to take action to prevent a possible threat?

Web Watch: For current news and background on students' rights, log onto www.aclu.org/issues/student/hmes.html

In the effort to make schools safe and drug-free, are authorities trampling on students' rights?

Thirty-two years ago, in a famous opinion upholding the rights of students to protest the Vietnam War, United States Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas wrote that young people do not "shed their constitutional rights at the school-house gate."

That's still true.

But these days, depending on where you go to school, before you can enjoy those rights you may well have to make your way through a metal detector at the gate, encounter drug-sniffing German shepherds in the hallways, let school officials search your locker, smile for the security cameras, and be ready to urinate into a cup on demand to be tested for drugs. As to free speech, say what you want, but if you mention acts of violence you may be history.

In most schools, of course, the picture is not that grim. But according to civil liberties groups, the rights of students are under siege as never before. Across the country, many school districts have adopted harsh "zero tolerance" policies, in which even thinking about an infraction can be grounds for punishment. And in the process, civil libertarians say, basic constitutional rights sometimes get trampled.

School officials are in a tough spot. They are charged not only with educating their students but also with ensuring their safety and maintaining an atmosphere where learning can take place. Incidents like the 1999 Columbine shootings have reminded them all too well that the failure to act against that rare student who gives warning signs, and then actually does commit an act of serious violence, could be deadly.

When the rights of students collide with the will of school officials, as is the case with the students on the following pages, it's up to the courts to decide where to draw the line. Their decisions in these cases could help determine where the line is drawn in your school.

THE TULSA WITCH TRIAL

A student is suspended for allegedly casting a hex on a teacher

During the Salem witch trials of the 1600's, women accused of being witches were sometimes tied up and tossed into the water. If they were guilty, the thinking went, they could use their dark powers to help them float. And if they sank to the bottom, they were innocent. Dead, yes, but at least with their reputations restored.

When Brandi Blackbear was accused of casting a hex on a teacher who had fallen ill, and was consequently suspended from her Tulsa, Oklahoma, junior high school in 1999, she called not on the supernatural for help but on a more modern power: a lawyer.

Brandi, 16, is back in school, now in the 10th grade. The teacher turned out to have had a case of appendicitis. But more than a year after her suspension, Brandi remains in court, battling for a judge to declare the school's actions illegal and to have the suspension removed from her record.

The taunts from other students, at least, have disappeared. "I'd walk down the halls," she says, recalling the period after the suspension, "and they'd, like, point at me and say, `Here comes the witch,' and jump out of my way."

To understand how a contemporary American teenager could face the kind of accusation that helped give the Puritans their lurid reputation, you have to know Brandi's history at the school. She has actually had two brushes with school officials, and both are the subject of her lawsuit.

HORROR STORIES SEIZED

The first occurred in April 1999, shortly after Columbine. Brandi is an aspiring writer whose stories often resemble those of one of her literary heroes: horror writer Stephen King. When school officials heard that one of her stories involved a violent event at school, her lawyers say school officials called her in, questioned her, and seized her writings.

One story did involve a shooting on a school bus. Believing that Brandi posed a threat to her fellow students, school administrators suspended her for 19 days. They also kept her writing.

Her problem did not end there, as she learned when she returned the next fall and began reading a book from the school library about Wicca, or modern witchcraft, "to give me ideas for writing, for stories," she says.

Because of her earlier suspension, Brandi says, she was already the subject of much mockery from other students, some of whom asked her whether they were on her "hit list." Now, word spread that she was studying witchcraft and even casting spells (which Wiccans do not do).

Brandi probably did not help matters when a teacher became sick and a student approached her to ask if she had cast a hex on him.

"I was being sarcastic," she recalls, "and I go, `Yeah, right.'"

By sixth period, the die had been cast. As Brandi sat in biology class, she says, she was summoned to an assistant principal's office over the school's public-address system. Under interrogation, she broke down and told the assistant principal what she thought he wanted to hear. "He asked me if I was Wiccan, over and over again," she says, "and finally I said yeah--to get him out of my face." Accused of casting a hex, she was once again suspended, this time for 15 days.

School officials have refused to comment on the case, beyond calling the lawsuit frivolous and arguing that it's driven by a desire for publicity.

According to civil liberties groups, the school's actions violated both the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process (since the suit claims Brandi was not given proper hearings before her suspensions) and the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion. That's the principle, although as it turns out, Brandi is not Wiccan. Her mother is Catholic and her father, a Cherokee, is Baptist.

But she says she did enjoy the Wicca book: "It's very interesting. It's really different than anything I've ever heard."

SAYING NO TO TESTING

A student loses his part in a school play for refusing to take a drug test

Shaun Joye is a pretty soft-spoken guy. A high-school junior in suburban Flemington, New Jersey, with an interest in computer animation, he is the first to say he doesn't go looking for trouble.

"I'm easygoing," Shaun says. "I don't pick fights or get into arguments if I can avoid it. But what the school was doing was getting on my nerves so much, I just had to do something about it."

What the Hunterdon Central Regional High School was doing was asking Shaun and many of his fellow students to go to the school nurse's office and urinate into a cup, so they could be tested for drug use.

What Shaun and two other students did was just say no. They sued, and last month, a judge issued an order temporarily barring random drug testing at the school, pending a final decision.

For three years, Shaun, 17, had been involved in the school's annual Children's Play, a production that tours local elementary schools. Last spring, he had gotten a part. Shaun has no special interest in acting. "It's just something to do," he says. "It's fun to hang out with my friends and perform."

TO TEST OR NOT TO TEST

But the school district was phasing in a new policy on testing students for illegal drugs. In the past, it had allowed police officers to patrol the high school with drug-sniffing dogs, and instituted numerous educational programs to discourage drug use. Three years ago, it began testing athletes for illegal drugs, after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar policy in another school district.

Last year, mirroring the actions of some other boards across the country, the school board expanded drug testing to other extracurricular activities.

Shaun was already involved in rehearsals when the play's director handed him the consent form to be tested. "I wasn't exactly sure what I was going to do," he says, "but I decided basically the right thing to do was just not to sign."

So Shaun was kicked off the play. Some days later, he heard that someone else had been given his part.

Kevin Kovacs, a lawyer who represents the school district, says that the new policy was designed to create "a drug-free extracurricular program," and to build more peer pressure from student leaders not to do drugs.

But some parents and students say the district went a step too far. They say it is particularly odd to single out students who take part in after-school activities, since they tend to be the stronger students. The judge agreed, calling the policy well-intentioned, but an invasion of privacy and a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches.

Shaun, whose father is a structural engineer and mother is a school psychologist, still seems a bit stunned. But he is not backing down--even if he is still not exactly raising his voice.

"My new phrase now is: I'm a rebel," he says. "It's funny, just because it contradicts my personality so much."

A POTENTIAL TIME BOMB?

A student is barred from school after handing in a "disturbing" journal

When Matthew Parent turned in a handwritten journal last semester as homework for his 11th-grade English class in Johnston, Rhode Island, he figured he would get a little extra credit, and that would be the end of it.

Hardly.

In the days that followed, as the 17-year-old honors student went about his daily life without an inkling that anything might be amiss, his journal--a morose work in which he described the feelings of an outcast feared by his peers--was making the rounds of officials at Johnston Senior High.

On October 27, school officials told his mother that her son posed a potential threat to others around him and that he was barred from school until the family had him evaluated psychiatrically. Matthew, they said, showed evidence of "suicidality, homicidality, mood concerns, nonbizarre delusions of grandeur, and narcissistic themes," according to a school memo.

These conclusions were drawn after a review of the homework assignment by the teacher, a school psychologist, a social worker, a guidance counselor, an assistant principal, and the principal. The only people the school neglected to speak with before deciding he posed a possible danger were Matthew and his mother.

Matthew insists that he never intended to be provocative. "It was a complete shock," he says.

For more than a month, until a federal judge stepped in, Matthew cooled his heels at home while his lawyers argued that the school had violated his First Amendment right to free speech and his right to due process--that is, to defend himself before the school acted against him.

And though the school finally relented and let him back in, Matthew's family, concerned about his getting into college, is still in court seeking to have the suspension removed from the record.

FEAR AND LOATHING 

What did Matthew do to bring all this trouble on himself? The assignment was to "free write"--to produce a stream-of-consciousness essay that could be fiction, nonfiction, or, as appears to be the case here, a blend of both. The nine-page essay reveals a bright teenager's struggle with feelings of social unease.

Among the passages that appear to have alarmed school officials is one in which Matthew writes: "They worry and are afraid. They mistake fear and hate for myself for fear and hate of them. They fear I'll kill them. They know I have no limits, no remorse, and nothing to lose. They fear what I'm capable of." Still, just two pages later, he writes: "I care greatly about others. I go to inconscionable [sic] lengths to help others. I would give my life for anyone."

"At worst," says Matthew's lawyer, John Dineen, "it's just slightly disturbing teenage musings about life." School officials greatly overreacted, he maintains.

School officials have avoided specific comment on the case. But they say they never intended to discipline Matthew, just to help him. The principal, Patricia Kells Pitocchi, defended the school's actions in a letter to a local paper, writing, "At all times, the central issue for Johnston Senior High School is to provide a safer learning environment for all students and staff. At all times, my professional staff has been attempting to meet Matthew Parent's needs in a safe setting."

Whatever lessons Matthew has learned from the experience, discretion does not seem to be one of them. He says that, if asked, he would not hesitate to turn in another essay written from the heart. "I never know when to quit," he says. "I never do. I do what I think is right."

RELATED ARTICLE: WHAT ARE YOUR RIGHTS?

FOCUS: A Survey of Students' Rights

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand how the law regards the rights of students.

Discussion Questions:

* How would you define speech or behavior that "materially and substantially disrupts" a school's activities?

* Should the drug testing of athletes be extended to participants in other extra-curricular activities? Is there a meaningful distinction between sports and other activities?

* What argument would you make about schools having a right to punish students for material they post on the Web while off school grounds? How would you rebut that argument?

CLASSROOM STRATEGIES

Critical Thinking/Discussion: Examine issues addressed in the article and have students explain why schools should or should not be concerned about each.

* Have students describe clothing that school officials might regard as signaling a threat. (gang colors, clothing displaying vulgar language) Note that many schools require student uniforms. Whatever students think of uniforms, they can discuss the claim that uniforms reduce school violence.

* Many students believe freedom of speech is absolute. Note Paul McMasters's recognition that speech can be disruptive. Next, you might refer to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous dictum that the First Amendment does not grant the right to falsely shout "fire" in a theater and cause panic. How does this 1919 maxim relate to teens and free speech in 2001?

* Discuss the difference between the "probable cause" police need to search and the "reasonable grounds" school officials need. Why do school officials have wider latitude? Write "In Loco Parentis" on the board. Explain that this Latin term means "in place of the parents," and refers to schools' legal standing in place of parents while minors are in school. What is the logic of establishing the principle of in loco parentis?

* Use the-due process issue to summarize the article. First, ask why the Framers put due process into the Constitution. Why must government (police) power be checked? Then have students cite evidence from the article that due process is not always followed when students are the accused.

Does a high school student have rights? You may wonder in these days of "zero tolerance" policies in many school districts.

In fact, you do have rights. But school officials are sometimes unaware of them, have differing views about how to interpret them, and, at times, choose to simply disregard them.

Students who believe their school crossed the line have often sued--and won. But the courts balance the rights of students against the need of school administrators to maintain order and ensure safety. Consequently, student rights have limits. Here are some of the rights you do have, and some you don't.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Thanks to the First Amendment, students are generally free to say and write what they want. But if school officials believe that the manner or content of your speech "materially and substantially disrupts" school activities, or is "vulgar or indecent," they can take action.

Since the Columbine shootings, schools have moved aggressively against students who say or wear anything that suggests that they might pose a threat. They have also taken action against students for things they have written for class assignments, or even in their own notebooks.

"There are points at which free expression does get in the way of the learning environment and the safety of students, but school officials today are reaching that line a lot before it needs to be reached," says Paul McMasters, First Amendment ombudsman for the Freedom Forum, a civil liberties advocacy group.

And while the officials' power is supposed to stop at the schoolhouse door, a growing number of students have gotten in trouble for material they have posted on the Web (including parodies of school life). Do schools have the right to punish students for such things? Some lawyers think that is one of the next big legal issues waiting to be resolved.

As for more traditional forms of communication: When it comes to writing for the school newspaper, the Supreme Court ruled in 1988, in a case called Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, that the school has the final say on what may see light of day.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE 

Police officers, as a rule, cannot approach you on the street and demand that you empty your pockets unless they have probable cause to believe that you have committed a crime.

For school administrators, it is a lot easier. In the 1985 case New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Supreme Court ruled that if school officials want to search your locker, purse, or backpack, they need only have "reasonable grounds" to believe that a crime or rules violation has occurred, and that you were responsible. But who is to say what reasonable grounds are? While a police officer may be called upon to justify his or her search in court, school officials are rarely held to such account.

So violations of the law are reported to be frequent. It is not unheard of for students to be strip-searched when thefts have occurred, even if there is no reason to believe that the specific student did anything wrong.

Schools' efforts to curb drug use are also becoming increasingly aggressive. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in Vernonia v. Acton that schools have the power to require athletes to submit to random drug tests. Now, some schools are trying to extend drug testing to all extracurricular activities. This expansion of drug testing is another big issue waiting for legal resolution by the courts.

In their eagerness to curb the drug problem and minimize potential threats to safety, civil rights advocates say, some schools have lost perspective, banning anything that can be defined as a drug or used as a weapon. "Everything is treated the same," says Raymond Vasvari, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. "You bring a Midol to school, you get suspended. You bring a joint to school, you get suspended."

DUE PROCESS

This is one of the most important rights in the Constitution. Found in the Fifth and 14th Amendments, it is intended to serve as a check on the powers of government when government acts to deprive citizens of their liberty or property. (Public schools count as government.) As a practical matter, it means that before this happens, there needs to be a standard procedure in which the accused parties can defend themselves.

But due process is a remote concept to the high school student sitting in the assistant principal's office and accused--rightly or wrongly--of having done something wrong. Lawsuits filed against schools on behalf of students who have been suspended often cite cases where school officials, eager to resolve a problem quickly, pressure teenagers to admit wrongdoing and then suspend them on the spot. By the time the family becomes involved, it is often too late to do much about it.

In fact, under the law, students who are going to be suspended for over three days are entitled to a hearing at which they can present evidence in their own behalf.

--E.N.

ERIC NAGOURNEY is a staff editor for The New York Times.