According to the Washington Post and CNN, the US Supreme Court decided on Friday to hear the case involving a strip search of a thirteen year-old (eight grade) student who was suspected of possessing illegal substances. A Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco has previously ruled 8-3 that the search of students by School Administrators is unconstitutional. The family of the student argues that children have the same inherent rights as that of adults. However, if stare decisis is to prove anything, the courts have continuously demonstrated that the classroom is a medium in which the facilitation of education is to be safeguarded for the good of society and the protection of the nations children is of the utmost importance. In order to accomplish this, it is often necessary to create tightened security and a heightened sense of "non-tolerance" to disobedience in the classroom environment. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the School District, policy will be upheld and administrators may be given too much power which may lead to corruption. However, if the Court where to rule in favor of the student and seize the power from the hands of those entrusted with the education of today's youth, we may see an even greater degree of change in educational policy. In a society that strives to excel in a world marketplace and rise above its competitors, a higher level of education is a necessity to which the future of our nation depends. The need to grant individuals a level of leniency in order to administrate in an effective manner, is key to the success in preventing crime from flowing from the local streets into a school that is expected to be a safe-zone for learning. Although the school system in San Francisco might not be considered a "high-risk" area in which strip searches are necessary, an area such as local Newark certainly is. If the Supreme Court establishes policy to make such practices unconstitutional because of a individualized school system, it could very well lead to an unintended negative impact that will only need to be reversed in the court systems in the future.
Just some thoughts to get responses. For further reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR2009011603287.html