Human Rights in Education

  • Tinker v. Des Moise

    In December of 1965, a group of students from Des Moines met at a fellow students house to plan a public protest in support of a truce in the Vietnam War. They decided on wearing black armbands in protest. Their principles then implemented a policy which stated that if any student wears an armband and refuses to take it off, they will be suspended. Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and John Tinker were removed from school because of wearing their armbands, they sued the school.
  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

    Before 1975, only 1 out of 5 disabled children were educated in the US. There were even laws excluding children with physical, emotional, and mental challenges in certain states. When IDEA was established, federal funding was put into the education of handicapped children. Since then, 7.5 million children with disabilities are given the education they deserve every year, and given post-secondary education out of high school.
  • Regents of the University of California vs. Baake

    In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a university's use of racial quotas in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a school's use of "affirmative action" to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some situations. Essentially, the school chose its applicants based on race, rather than on a basis of quantitative data as all universities do. The admissions quota was created by a special school committee which created tension.
  • Period: to

    Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeir

    Students in a Journalism II class wrote an article in the school newspaper which was removed by the principal. The students took it to court arguing the removal of the article was a violation of their first amendment right. The court argued 5-3 in favor of the school/principal saying that because the paper was sponsored by the school the school has the right to delete articles and control the paper. More specifically the court ruled against the students because the paper was not used for public.