The US Constitution protects students from unreasonable suspensions without adequate procedures. Students should know how to protect their rights and defend themselves when schools suspend or expel them from classes. The reasons for such measures include disobedience to the school authority and continued disruptive and violent behavior. Nevertheless, school administration and districts should evaluate every case carefully to determine whether the student committed the offense through due process to identify the most appropriate way to penalize him.
Analyzing differences between short-term and long-term suspensions is critical to understand the due procedures for each suspension type. Obviously, the difference is primarily connected to the time length of the suspension. A student who is forbidden to attend classes for less than five days experiences short-term suspension. He may be involved in in-school suspension or out-of-school suspension involving restorative practices (The ACLU of Arizona, n.d.). Since due process in the Arizona district for short-term suspension is not required, incident data is reported to the school administration without the legal involvement of third parties and school districts. Therefore, short-term suspension is considered the less strict way of dealing with student misbehavior.
Meanwhile, when the student is prohibited from going to school for more than ten days, he is the victim of a long-term suspension, which is considered a more severe behavior corrective solution. Considering that the long-term suspension can cause more detrimental consequences on the student’s learning outcomes, it involves several due process requirements. When the student severely violates the school’s code of conduct or insults somebody, his actions are reported to the school district. Thus, his due process requirements include adequate notice and hearing where the student’s parents or guardians are also involved (The ACLU of Arizona, n.d.). This hearing identifies the student’s fault and misbehavior, addressing several witnesses for and against the victim. Therefore, short-term and long-term suspension differs in the due procedure and its requirements, making the latter the legal process.
When it comes to Goss and Lopez’s case happened in 1975 in the US Supreme Court, it highlighted the importance of due process for providing every student with equal rights. In this case, Lopez and his fellows were suspended for a short time from school for destroying the school property without an adequate hearing (Schimmel, 2023). Considering the US’s Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” the school’s actions violated legal rights granted to its students (The ACLU of Arizona, n.d., p.14). This amendment points out that before suspending or expelling students, they should be given a chance to be heard by the court.
Since none of the participants received notification of their behavior became the reason for suspension, it deteriorated the Ohio school’s reputation even more. Although it is not mandatory to regulate this suspension through due process, the student and his guardians can request an appeal and require the school board to reconsider its decisions. These facts demonstrate that Lopez and his peers should have had a hearing and legal process to ensure their rights are not neglected.
To conclude, the US constitution and school policies are created to protect the students’ rights. When the students feel that the authorities should reconsider their behavior before the suspension, they may appeal and require a due process with all its requirements, such as adequate notice and hearing. Goss and Lopez’s case justifies the importance of acknowledging students’ rights before accepting being suspended for a long or a short time.
References
The ACLU of Arizona. (n.d.). A Manual for Arizona public school students. Web.
Schimmel, D. (2023). Goss v. Lopez. Britannica. Web.