It seems apparent that the appropriate application of the First Amendment should be considered as a foundation for democracy in the United States. In particular, it is related to problems that may occur within religious and educational scopes. Thus, for tutors, a number of issues that might be regulated by the Amendment can arise. For instance, the following scenario seems hard to settle without appealing to legal cases.
I am a tutor, have a standard practice of displaying students’ work in my classroom, and have assigned to create an essay and submit a pictorial depiction of the person they perceive as a hero. One of these students provides writing on Jesus and a picture of the Last Supper. In this paper, legal issues related to grading and displaying the work of this student, applying US Supreme Court precedents regarding the First Amendment, will be discussed.
The first thing that may come to my mind in such a situation is whether expressing thoughts from the essay is appropriate. It may not align with the other students’ religious views and perceptions, which may cause a conflict in the class. Supreme Court stated, “educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech … so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns” (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988).
Thus, I am allowed to edit some expressions before displaying if it will be necessary to mitigate several extremes that may lead to serious contradictions between students.
The second point here is whether I can show class such a picture as, again, this may result in an exact extent of tension. Supreme Court claimed that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969). Hence, the First Amendment protects the student in his or her aspirations to express views. If I prohibit the presentation of the essay and picture, I will violate the fundamental rights of this student. However, as mentioned above, I will have to make a number of edits if necessary.
The third issue might be formulated as follows, grounding on the significant decision of the US Supreme Court. Displaying the mentioned work might be considered as a prescription of the religion to the students by their tutor. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that any official cannot act in such a manner as this violates the First Amendment. The precedent seems applicable to the case and, indeed, the provision’s essence implies equal protection for every US citizen (Haynes & Thomas, 2007; Anderson, 2016).
Thus, I have to take into account the interests and views of all my students. I will grade the work according to the given evaluation criteria without focusing or even mentioning a religious aspect. I also will display the essay and picture with necessary edits and with an emphasis on these criteria.
In conclusion, the above case that may take place in my classroom is a significant example to discuss in the framework of the First Amendment. Three US Supreme Court precedents were used to provide a coherent and consistent train of thought. It was suggested that the Amendment should be considered as a foundation for proper social relations in the country. Then, it was assumed that the legal issues that may arise within the scope of the described case are as follows.
First, it is the appropriacy of making edits in the essay. Second, it is whether I am allowed to show the work to the class due to the possible conflict. Third, it is that I have to appreciate the views of all my students without any discrimination.
References
Anderson, O. (2016). Why the First Amendment is ‘first in importance’. The Washington Times. Web.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
Haynes, C. & Thomas, O. (2007). Finding common ground: A First Amendment guide to religion and public schools. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 393 U.S. 503 (1969).