The term in loco parentis , Latin for "in place of parent" refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of the parent. Originally derived from English common law, it was applied in two separate jurisdictions.
First, it enables institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of students as they see fit, although it does not allow what is considered a violation of students' civil liberties.
The in the loco parentis doctrine is different from the doctrine of parens patriae, the doctrine of the psychological parents, and the adoption.
Video In loco parentis
Primary and secondary education
Cheadle Hulme School, founded in Manchester, England, in 1855; adopted in loco parentis as his motto, long before the world's first public education act, the Basic Education Act 1870. School was established to educate and care for orphans and children of afflicted parents.
In loco parentis has only a legal precedent meaning for the court ward. The establishment of Cheadle Hulme School, otherwise known as Manchester Warehousemen and Clerks Orphans Schools, became the first time that phrase was used with a legal position in education.
The first major limitation to this comes in the case of the US Supreme Court The Board of Education of the State of West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), in which the court ruled that students could not be forced to salute the American flag. More prominent changes occurred in the 1960s and 1970s in cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines, District of Independent Community Schools (1969), when the Supreme Court ruled that "the behavior of students, in class or outside of it, for whatever reason - whether it comes from time, place, or type of behavior - materially interfere with class work or involve substantial interference or the invasion of the rights of others, of course, not immunized by constitutional guarantees of free speech. "Adult speech is also limited by the limitation of" time, place and manner "and therefore such limits not dependent on schools acting in loco parentis.
In Tinker v. Des Moines, District of Independent Community Schools (1969), the Supreme Court declared that for school officials to justify the censorship speech, they "should be able to show that their actions are caused by something more than a desire to avoid the inconvenience and discomfort. always accompanies an unpopular point of view, "allowing schools to prohibit behaviors that would" materially and substantially interfere with appropriate disciplinary requirements in school operations. "The court found that Tinkers' action in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and stated that their activities represented the speech symbolically protected by the Constitution.
In New Jersey v. TLO (1985) Justice White writes: "In conducting search and other disciplinary functions in accordance with the policy, school officials act as State representatives, not just as parents substitutes, and they can not claim parental immunity of the Fourth Amendment stricture. "This case reinforces the search for a bag while on a public school property based on reasonable suspicion, indicating a balance between the legitimate expectations of student privacy and public school interests in maintaining order and discipline, but at Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1987), the Supreme Court ruled that "First Amendment rights of students in public schools do not automatically coincide with adult rights in other settings, and should be applied in light of the specific characteristics of the school environment" and schools may censor school-sponsored publications such as school newspaper) if the content "... is inconsistent with its basic education mission. "Other student issues such as school dress codes along with lockers, cell phones, and personal laptop computer searches by public school officials have not been tested in the Supreme Court.
Private institutions are given far greater authority over their students than are common, and are generally permitted to arbitrarily dictate rules. In the case of Kentucky State Supreme Court Gott v. Berea College (1913), emphasized that "a college or university may prescribe the requirements for acceptance and rules for the behavior of its students, and those who enter as students implicitly agree to conform to such governmental regulations," while publicly funded can not claim the same ability.
In Morse v. Frederick Justice Clarence Thomas, in favor of the majority, argues that Tinker contradicts the "traditional understanding of the role of the judiciary in relation to public schools," and neglects the history of public education (127 S.C. 2634). He believes the role of the judiciary to determine whether students have freedom of expression is limited by in loco parentis . He quotes Lander v. Seaver (1859), which states that in loco parentis allows schools to punish the expression of students whose school or teacher believe contrary to school interests and educational goals. This ruling states that the only restriction of forced doctrine is an act of crime or legal action that causes permanent injury. None of these are cases with Tinker.
Maps In loco parentis
Higher education
Although in loco parentis continues to apply to primary and secondary education in the US, the application of the concept has largely been lost in higher education. This is not always the case.
Before the 1960s, students were subject to many restrictions in their personal lives. Women are generally subject to the curfew at 10:00, and the dorms are separated by sex. Some universities expelled students - especially female students - who were somehow "morally" unwanted. More importantly, the university sees fit to restrict freedom of speech, on campus, often prohibits unwelcome organizations or with different views from speaking, organizing, demonstrating, or acting on campus. This restriction was heavily criticized by the student movement of the 1960s, and the Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley was formed partly because of them, inspiring students elsewhere to improve their opposition.
Landmark Case 1961 Dixon v. Alabama is the beginning of end for in loco parentis in higher education. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Alabama State College could not quickly expel students without a legal process. However, it still does not prevent students who exercise their rights from greater legal action even if they do nothing but violate arbitrary rules.
See also
- Locum
- Next friend
References
External links
- Conrath, Richard Cranmer. In Loco Parentis: Recent Developments in this Legal Doctrine as Applied to University-Student Relations in the United States, 1965-1975. - doctoral dissertation submitted to the Kent State Graduate School of Education, 1976, summarizes the origins and development of doctrines from ancient times through the 1970s.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments