Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Editorials / Opinion


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Originally published June 29, 2009 at 12:00 AM | Page modified June 29, 2009 at 4:29 PM

Comments (0)     E-mail E-mail article      Print Print      Share Share

Editorial

Supreme Court reaffirms boundaries for school policies

Leeway ought to be given to school officials to enforce zero-tolerance policies for drugs and violence. But it is not tying their hands to ask authorities to respect a student's basic rights.

THE U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of a 13-year-old girl strip-searched by school officials appropriately thwarts officials who might overreach in the name of enforcing zero-tolerance drug policies.

Justice David Souter wrote for the majority and offered one cogent point after another about the need for boundaries in enforcing school policies.

Authorities at the Arizona middle school would have been justified in their 2003 search had they confined it to the girl's backpack and outer clothing. But when they searched her undergarments, exposing her breasts and pelvic area to some degree, the search went from reasonable and legal to an "embarrassing, frightening and humiliating search." Souter said.

Savana Redding, now a 19-year-old college student, was suspected of having prescription-strength drugs, which are banned in school without prior permission. The search was a breathtaking example of overreach. The suspected contraband was not illegal drugs or powerful ones that might have compelled heavier measures in the interest of student safety.

The court's ruling was nearly unanimous, with Justice Clarence Thomas the sole dissenter.

A larger argument within the context of the case drew a more mixed reaction from the court and promises to remain a focus of debate in education circles. The majority opinion protected the assistant principal who ordered the search from liability, noting that "parents are known to overreact to protect their children from danger, and a school official with responsibility for safety may tend to do the same."

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed. Ginsburg pointed out correctly that the assistant principal committed humiliating actions, including making Redding sit in a chair outside his office for more than two hours and failing to call her parents.

That doesn't sound like action taken in the interest of student safety.

Leeway ought to be given to school officials to enforce zero-tolerance policies for drugs and violence. But it is not tying their hands to ask authorities to respect a student's basic rights.

Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company

More Editorials headlines...

E-mail E-mail article      Print Print      Share Share

Comments
No comments have been posted to this article.


Get home delivery today!

More Editorials

NEW - 5:04 PM
Washington's state House should pass workers compensation reform bill

NEW - 5:05 PM
Breathe easier, a plan to stop burning coal for power

Heed auditor's recommendation about consolidating school health plans

Uncover managers' role in Seattle schools scandal

Detractors of crusade against childhood obesity should eat their words

Advertising

Video

Marketplace

 
Most read
Most commented
Most e-mailed
 
 

Most viewed imagesMore

Advertising