Can schools punish you for a legal act?

Factual Questions
21

It was the principal’s wife who ratted on her. I believe I heard that the school district’s purpose in a policy like this was to mimic the state’s athletic and arts competition league (NDSHSL), and extend the limitations sanctioned for athletes on the entire school population (or those who wish to go to school functions like dances…i.e. prom). I am guessing there was some hullaboo concerning athletes sitting out of games for tobacco offenses and their friend they were smoking with didn’t get punished because they weren’t in athletics.

It will be interesting to see what the judge will have to say in this case and it will be interesting to watch to see how much power schools do have in dictating student’s life choices.

22

This link contains a little more information.

23

*Fitzpatrick gave a speech to a class last month about smoker’s rights, and admitted she had smoked. The principal’s wife reported that she saw Fitzpatrick smoking at a bank in town. *

Well, admitting that she smoked was not that bright of an idea, but saying that she has smoked isn’t quite the same as smoking.

I would think that the source of the evidence is a bit tenuous here. Unless the principal’s wife works for the school system, the ban from the prom is based on nothing but hearsay, right? (assuming, of course, that the student’s speech can’t be used against her). Could the principal’s first cousin rat out the student? Maybe the principal’s gardener?

24

As moronic as this all is, I think I see where they have their jurisdiction:

The prom is an extracurricular activity.

Now, if the school said that anyone caught smoking would not be allowed to take Math class, they’d be screwed. (Not to mention that every student would take up smoking to get out of class…) But students are guaranteed an education, not extracurricular activities like sports, marching band, A/V club, or the prom.

The policy is unreasonably intrusive, IMO, but I see where they get off thinking they have the right to enforce it.

25

As far as juristiction goes, it’s the Prom that’s a school-sponsered event. So they can set their own (non-discriminatory) rules about who gets to attend. Since it’s not illegal to “discriminate” against smokers, the school’s within it’s rights.

-lv

26

FYI: a judge granted an injunction today so the girl gets to go to her prom cuz the policy was unreasonable. The school district’s lawyer says that the district will be “taking a serious look at the policy” to make changes.

27

If this were my daughter, and she was of age to do so; and if the school said there would be no prom for her because she had been smoking, then the school, and the school board, would be hearing from my lawyer.

First of all, what she does or doesn’t do at school is the business of the school. At the same time, what she does outside of school is my business. Not the school’s. They dictate what happens in her life between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:15 (or whatever the school’s teaching hours are); I and my wife look after the rest. If she is smoking at 5:00 p.m., that is not the school’s problem; it is ours. The school doesn’t enter into it.

Assuming my daughter was legally old enough to smoke, and this happened to her, then no matter how much I disapprove of teen smoking, I’d buy her a pack of cigarettes and tell her to light up on the sidewalk (that is, public property) in front of the school in view of the school administrators. What could they do? Call a cop and arrest her? They couldn’t, and they know this full well.

They might be able to do something at the prom itself, being a school-sponsored event, but if she attended without cigarettes, they would be unable to do anything. Even if she did take cigarettes (would they search her purse on entry?), and chose to smoke outside on a public sidewalk, could they do anything? I am not a lawyer, but I feel that there is a case here somewhere. An adult of legal age cannot be prosecuted for possessing tobacco, can she?

I am not a lawyer, but this sounds way out of line for a school board. Does this school board do the same for students who have drug or alcohol offenses while driving?

My senior prom had ashtrays on every table and a cash bar (drinking age was 18 in those days). Have we forgotten that we are challenging and preparing young people for adulthood, or has this policy changed to one of keeping them children, never letting them experiment and grow? This policy seems to provide the latter as the answer, and thus, I wonder. If our children are not allowed to experiment, and are encouraged to accept only one answer, then I am afraid for the future.

28

Smoking was far more socially acceptable in those days. Now you’ve got lunatics in state legislatures outlawing it in all bars and clubs (damn you, Bloomberg), without even a loophole for having a smoking room. Basically, if it weren’t such a common and historical crop, tobacco would be a controlled substance. Is it right or fair? Maybe not, but it’s the way the wind blows.

29

Well sure, but I didn’t think this was a debate, I thought we were trying to settle a general question of fact.

Schools routinely had prohibitions against smoking for athletes in-season, even when there was no such thing as a “smoking age” and 14 year olds could legally smoke.

30

Two things to note:

First, as I noted, it made sense to wait for some more information before spouting. All the posters who have asserted that the school can set any restrictions it wants must now be a bit red-faced that the judge has made a preliminary finding that the school district cannot do any such thing. Of course, not that actual facts have ever been the main focus of posting in GQ. :rolleyes:

Second, public school districts are required to follow the dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment the same as any other governmental subdivision of a state. This means that students are entitled to due process, just as adults are. The only difference is that minors are often considered to have a somewhat lesser expectation of the extent of their rights, a natural conclusion based on how our society treats minors. But, at a minimum, any policy of the district is going to have to address a legitimate concern of the school district in a rational fashion.

Given that the person in question is 18, and legally entitled to smoke, the difficulty the district would have with its policy is establishing what legitimate purpose is being forwarded by a blanket application of a no-smoking policy to those who are legally entitled to smoke. In the case of athletes, one could assert that the interest of the school is maximizing the athletic prowess of the student, thought to be affected by smoking. But it is hard to assert that the district has a legitimate interest in seeing that its 18 year old students are not smoking, and use the punishment of inability to attend extra-curricular events to enforce such an interest.

The district might still prevail at trial, though if the report of the attorney’s comments is accurate, the district may be about to find out that it needs to modify the policy. Certainly the judge thought that the girl had a good chance of prevailing on the merits, or the injunction wouldn’t have issued.

31

VERY good points, DSYoungEsq! You must know public school law well.