The primary objective of education is to learn. Children are sent to school to learn. As children progress through the years of education going from basic skills in kindergarten to studying the workings of advanced mathematics in high school, they are learning so many things to prepare themselves to be out in the ‘real world’. Children are entitled to fundamental rights, but until about fifteen they have no depth conception of what these rights truly mean. Does a six year old need the right to petition? No, they have no understanding of what the purpose of petitioning really mean. Does a twelve year old understand the right of free speech? No, but there sure use it saying things that they really shouldn’t. Children have rights, but they don’t exercise those rights because they don’t always have a purpose too. Every court case that deals with children was started by a parent. Engel v. Vitale was a parent suing New York on behalf of their child for the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Brown v. Board of Education was a parent suing on behalf of their child because a black child couldn’t go to the school closest to the family because it was for white kids. Yoder v. Wisconsin was yet another Supreme Court case in which an Amish parent sued on their child’s behalf because the school was infringing on the religious beliefs of the Amish children. Children from kindergarten through middle school have their fundamental rights of free speech, freedom of religion, of press, and assembly. They possess these rights and no one can take them away. However, these rights aren’t used by children until they become young adults and they understand what these rights mean. Between the age of fifteen and eighteen, kids are growing into young adults, but they aren’t yet adults. They are still stuck in the developmental age and stand on the other side of a gray line that they automatically cross when they graduate. Up until that day, you are still considered children and have a protective shield that pretty much guarantees that your rights will be protected by your parents, or your school. When you’re out of high school and out in the real world, the only person that’s going to protect your rights is you.

The rights allotted to modern day students should remain the same. There definitely was a need for change in earlier years such as Brown v. Board of Education for racial equality and Wisconsin v. Yoder for more religious freedom. But as a senior in high school, I have never felt the need to challenge my rights. Every case that was won in the past has paved the way to a sound understanding of students' rights for today. Not only this but many children are not capable of grasping higher concepts such as politics and sciences until after the age of ten according to multiple psychology theorists. Minors are not intellectually advanced enough to understand their rights and how to appropriately apply them. Not only this but students in elementary and middle school are not necessarily concerned with their rights but rather focused on building relationships and education.

Schools should have the authority to restrict those types of media and press associated with them. In the 1988 Supreme Court case 'Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier,' the principal of the school did not allow two articles regarding teen pregnancy and divorce to be published in the school newspaper. In the article about divorce, the student who was being interviewed blamed her father and his actions for the divorce. The father was neither notified about anything relating to the article nor allowed to comment or give his opinion. The principal may have been worried about the writer's lack of concern for privacy in this case and therefore felt that it was within his rights to not allow the article to be published. The article on teen pregnancy, he felt, also violated the privacy of certain individuals as the only actions made to preserve anonymity for the students being interviewed was changing the name of said students. In the "real world" media, the freedom of press is exercised by writers and journalists being allowed to publish what they want to on a blog or in a newspaper - providing the newspaper or the website allows it. If something in the article covers controversial content, in the view of the publisher, the publisher has every right not to allow it to be a part of the product which their company puts out. In that case, the writer or journalist must find another place to publish their work. In the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the principal acted as the individual who chose which content would be allowed to be published in the paper, and he did not say that those articles could not be published at all, simply that they could not be published in the school newspaper.

There should be no place in schools for any element which detracts from the primary aim of education. The argument that certain non academic topics could expand the student's understanding of the world in which they live is eclipsed by the inevitable hijacking of such subjects by militants who would press for them to form an ever expanding roll in the school's curriculum. ''Give an inch and they'd take a mile''.

Students should have more or just slightly less freedoms for the simple fact that I believe that minors would simply take said rights for granted but that can be argued on a different day. For the most part though, equal rights should be given to students in the US because they are still citizens and in many supreme court cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines, students are still citizens that should have the right to freedom of speech to express their opinions. In Tinker V. Des Moines, it ended with the supreme court ruling in the favor of the students in that the school had to prove that the conduct or speech “materially and substantially interferes” with school operations in order to justify the ban, and it did not, it was simply voicing an opinion and schools should not be allowed to silence the voices of students.

Students' current freedoms should stay the same or be a little more limited. Personally, I feel that the freedoms I posses in school right now are where they need to be. To add on to that, if school districts would give students too much freedom, then those freedoms could be abused such as aggressively expressing point of views or promoting different religions. However, if school districts were to decrease the freedoms students already possess, then it would come to violating the First Amendment. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, the school was sued by several people for allowing a student “chaplain,” voted on by the students, to lead prayers at home football games. The court decided that it was unconstitutional, for it was at a school-sponsored event where all people present were set in a position to participate in a religious event. This is an example of what could happen with too much freedom, such as people becoming offended because of the promotion of a religion that is not theirs.

(In response to @meaganfolmar's post- but I needed an original post)

The subject of pregnancy and divorce is touchy when it comes to legislature and should not be taken lightly. In the case of the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, a school newspaper; one of the purest forms of expression of thought and speech, was kept from publishing due to the potential of a student being singled out and shunned. In 2015 2.42% of all teenage girls became pregnant, which equates to 1294 annual teenage pregnancies. So you can see that, while this occurs more often than we think, it still singles out a single population, similarly to racism. Divorce on the other hand, does not have such an effect. While the divorce rate in the United States remains around the 50% mark, students are not as reactive as the statistics claim them to be. Ask your peers, while divorce is never fun, it's never always traumatic or emotionally damaging. Each individual has the right to privacy and speech, or the lack thereof. Teenagers are exposed to enough material that they are aware of the dangers, and are FREE to do so. It'll never be me, but it just might be. We all have freedom of expression, speech, religion, etc., but it doesn't always need to be expressed. We're find and functional as we are- no need for change.

I believe that is best for schools to continue the tradition of the same freedoms that they have today. Not only do restrictions in the schools keep people safe physically, they keep people safe emotionally as well. There are few incidents that go on at school that cause a major problem with other students and the staff as well. For example, in the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier case, girls tried to include the impact of divorce and teen pregnancy on teens and this was denied by the school and the Supreme Court as well. People do have the freedom of speech, but they only do at a certain extent. This paper would have caused many emotions to the people who were affected by it and maybe the staff as well. Those are unnecessary actions that can lead to a problem within the school. These few freedoms prevent these unhealthy events from taking place.

Thomas Jefferson stated that all men are created equal in the Declaration of Independence. This is one of the most famous and most quoted lines in the history of the United States of America. Yet, what exactly constitutes a man? Through countless years of debate and numerous court cases, the definition of a man, in the case of venerated legal documents, can be stretched to any person, regardless of gender or race, who has reached adulthood. But then the question becomes this - what is the age of adulthood?In 47 of the 50 states, a person reaches adulthood once they are age 50. Obviously, once someone reaches the age of adulthood, they are thereby equal under the Declaration of Independence and can receive all rights granted to them by the Constitution.

But what of those people who are under the age of 18? Across America, the vast majority of people under 18 go to schools (some do not because of various reasons, one being religion - see Yoder v Wisconsin). And by the time they reach 12th grade, most kids are 18 years of age. What then becomes of them and the rest of the schoolchildren while they are in school? In my opinion, I do not think that they should receive all rights guaranteed to adults in this country, as they are not yet adults. Particularly, when people are younger and still in school, while they may not lack the education (some of the kids blow me away), they lack the experience of the "real world". Thus, schoolchildren may not fully comprehend rights in certain situations and what is right or wrong. Therefore, to prevent offense and controversy, the schools should be strict on limiting the rights if students in schools.

I would write the following as a way to 'dispute' several arguments, but a lot of the same things are included in several of them so it would simply be a matter of copying and pasting the same thing over and over, so I'm going to include it all in this one post.

I feel like a lot of people have alluded to this, but no one has exactly outright said it, so I will: we're teenagers. Even though we might feel like we know anything and everything that has to do with the way we should think and conduct ourselves, we don't, because all we know is what we have been taught by our parents, teachers, and other adults in our lives. We know how to develop and interact with other people of our age and maybe we've learned a few things here and there from that, but we don't really know what we're doing or how to act on our own because most of us have never been on our own. This is not to speak for every single teen; without a doubt, there are many teens or younger that have faced many struggles that left them alone to cope with learning how to live that way, and if that is the case, this doesn't entirely apply to that group of people, but they are still growing up and learning new things and developing their opinions as they grow more educated. For the reasons that we are not fully grown, we are not as developed or mature as most adults, and we have not yet learned how to make decisions on our own, adults are put into our lives other than our parents and the people our parents know - our teachers. These teachers are supposed to help us see several things besides simply educating us in topics such as math or how to read Shakespeare. One of their unwritten responsibilities is to help us view a situation from all sides. A lot of people are condemning the school principle in the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, for removing the two articles concerning teen pregnancy and divorce due to the controversial nature they possessed, but no one has really mentioned the fact that he didn't find the topics controversial, he found the way that they were expressed to be a matter of concern. First, let's look at the article regarding divorce. Yes, of course I respect the student's decision to write about this topic and I know that the topic is something that should be expressed and talked about, but I also agree with the principal in saying that the way it was written about was wrong. It is sometimes said that people will believe anything that they read. This is true in some cases, but it is not true in others. Either way, if you read something, it stays in your mind whether you are conscious of it or not. Especially in an article covering a topic as sensitive as divorce, this can have a huge impact on the people who read it if they go through something similar. It was said that the article "featured a story about a girl who blamed her father's actions for her parents' divorce." Who is to say that some students who may have divorced parents - or parents who would get a divorce in the future - and did not feel that it was the fault of a particular parent start to feel that way after reading the article due to them realizing (or even imagining) parallels between their experiences and that girl's? Or maybe they had those thoughts beforehand but were able to rationalize them, thinking it was okay for that parent to have their own opinions because they are, after all, human - that student may read the article and think that rationalization isn't necessary after all. Suddenly, there is a group of angry, emotionally unstable teenagers blaming their parents for the reason their life is now so terrible and additional responsibilities are placed on the guidance counselor, who has to calm these students down and help them see reason again; on the teachers, who have to deal with students being disruptive or not doing their work; on the principal, who has to cover complaints from parents regarding the article - it puts a large amount of unnecessary stress on a lot of people. This is the reason why the principal did not allow the article to be published. If the father who the student was complaining about was allowed to make a comment and let his own side of the story be explained as well, that would be a different case and perhaps the principal would have allowed the story to be published but the problem was that another side to the story was not present and there was not enough time to gather that information and edit the article to include it before the paper was sent to the publisher, so the article was simply removed. Secondly, let's take a look at the article regarding teen pregnancy. This one will be shorter, I promise. There is a possibility of a parent reading the article and recognizing that one of the girls who is being interviewed sounds a lot like their daughter (or the daughter of a friend who is no more than a phone call away) and suddenly the principal is getting a call from an angry parent yelling about the fact that "she's MY daughter and you had no right to allow a story like that to be published!" The next thing you know, the school has a lawsuit regarding the right to privacy on their hands because the daughter is under 18 and is still under the protection of her parents. You can see one of the reasons why the principal would be concerned about the privacy of the students, even if they did consent to be interviewed, and how it was not addressed by the writer clearly enough by simply changing their names. This also goes with seeing two sides: anticipating how another party could possibly perceive something and taking the proper measures to avoid it.

Another thing I have seen a few people mention is prayer in schools. Now, there is no law that can be made regarding religion, which according to the Establishment Clause means that the government cannot favor one religion over another, religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. What this can be translated to is that public schools, which are government funded, cannot legally encourage students to practice one religion or another, nor discourage students to practice their respective religion. What they can do is allow students to practice their religion. Therefore, students have a legal right to pray in private or among themselves, but not to use school equipment to broadcast their prayer to everyone in the school. In an example used by many people wanting more rights for students, Muslims should be allowed to pray in schools - legally, they are allowed and any public school law preventing them from doing so is unconstitutional and is therefore the fault of the school district, not the nation in general. That argument belongs on this side, which supports the same amount of freedoms as students already legally have.

I believe the freedoms provide to kids in school today are sufficient. Kids already have the right to express their own opinions as long as it does not infringe on the learning environment. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tinker kids wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War because it was not infringing on other students learning. Anything that would infringe on other students learning environment would not be allowed, so I do not think the students need any more freedoms then they already have. If they went an farther they would disrupt the learning environment and take away from the purpose of school; receiving an education.

A school's purpose is for the intake of information. Following the argument in the case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the censoring of school related public forums is within reason. While the institution should have information readily available concerning sensitive subjects, it should be provided by adults at the school, meaning teachers, guidance counselors etc. But anyone who has concerns about things like pregnancy, or needs help coping with divorce should not be seeking out guidance from a fellow student. That responsibility belongs to a staff member. I maintain that the information should be available, though not printed by a forum such as a school newspaper. The rights of a student currently are sufficient when it comes to receiving an education. The uses of newspapers, news letters, and clubs are a privilege and an EXTRA when it comes to education. The public school system is very lenient with the freedoms of students and I see no reason to expand them. There will be other mediums for the children get their opinion out, and once they graduate, their circles of influence will increase. Giving them this privilege too early will be a distraction from the primary cause of instituting a neutral learning environment.

I don’t see any problem with the way things currently are handled as far education is concerned. There needs to be limits to the way students can act in school in order to provide the best learning environment possible. The Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case is the perfect example of why students freedom of expression should be limited. If students are free to say whatever it brings subjects and controversies to school that are otherwise unnecessary and distract from the learning environment. Schools have to have the ability to keep things out of school that shouldn’t be there, because if there is no one regulating what's happening in schools students and teacher will lose focus of the real goal, which is education.

I support the notion of students having enough rights and liberty as far as education goes. The major objective schools have is to educate students so that they are prepared for their future and for the chaotic world they are about to enter. Schools, in today's age, have done an excellent job of preserving all of the students rights and freedom. I believe that schools don’t need to limits students rights nor make students have more freedom. For example, look at the cases Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and the case of Tinker v. Des Moines. In the Hazelwood case principles do have the right to prohibit the publishing of certain articles, which he deems inappropriate, in the school newspaper this is to help keep the school safer and in turn the students, which he is in charge of safe. In the case Tinker v. Des Moines I believe that justice have been served and the students did have the right to wear religious or symbolic things, as long as they don't disrupt class, and are now implemented in schools today making it fair and just in school systems.

My argument is much the same to many of the other arguments that have already been made. However when mentioning the Hazelwood v.s Kuhlmeier case one of the many arguments is how the material submitted for the newspaper was removed because of its content. While it's understandable why the writers of the article were upset, I can't help but understand why the content discussing divorce specifically was removed. It was noted in the case that in article itself it was written the father was the cause of the divorce. Keep in mind this is a school article not a celebrity gossip column. Many have already agreed the content was not appropriate for the school as it had no educational value. In my opinion, by writing the article which blames the father for the event they have changed the intent of the newspaper from a source of information to a source of gossip which is unneeded in a newspaper that represents the school as a whole. A divorce is a very personal matter and has no need to be published for a student body to read especially since the father himself was never informed on the article.

One of the main problems I find in giving students more freedom is just how far will these new freedoms extend? Compared to most, many teachers are rather respectful of a student's freedoms and only intervene when it goes against something like the school's reputation or a subject many could take offense to. This argument has already been touched on by others but it's one that is rather important. Student can be unpredictable and filters don't always work. For example, if one student were to voice an opinion on a side of going against someone's religion then that student who does believe in that faith would get offended along with their family and friends. A school's credibility is very important and to have it ruined by a teenager is something rather unfair to the teachers, staff, and rest of the student population who are now being viewed as to be in agreement with the opinion as they did nothing to stop it.