4 ms·

"Still?" The answer used to be "of course schools can punish children for speech". The constitution does not have, or at least traditionally has not had, the re

"Still?" The answer used to be "of course schools can punish children for speech". The constitution does not have, or at least traditionally has not had, the relevance to random school affairs you think it has. If anything its influence is increasing.

unanswered 5y ago
The answer also used to be "of course schools aren't government-run daycare"; but here we are. It may not be the importance of the constitution which is changing.
- dharmab 5y ago
  Under historical common law, schools are in loco parentis- they absolutely were "government-run daycare" in the sense that they had many of the same role, responsibilities and rights as parents.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
sigstoat 5y ago
https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supr... students have had significant freedom of speech protections since 1969. not sure what time scale you had in mind.
- andrewflnr 5y ago
  The time scale in my mind was the lifetime of the Constitution, so about 200 years.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    Constitutional rights wouldn't have applied to local governments prior to the 14th amendment, so that's only about 100 years. And until Brown v. Board, the court was wrong on the 14th amendment as well.
  - sigstoat 5y ago
    seems rather expansive. as the sibling comment notes, it wasn't relevant to the states for some time. and until there was a nontrivial number of older students in state run schools, there wouldn't have even been opportunities for case law to arise. (mandatory) public schooling started with younger students and expanded from there. (while children of any age should have their freedom of speech, i think we can both agree that as a practical matter, they're more likely to put it to use the older they get.)
    - andrewflnr 5y ago
      > it wasn't relevant to the states for some time. This is pretty much my point, the influence of the Constitution has been increasing over time, not decreasing as the commenter to whom I originally replied seemed to imply. I don't know why you would use any but the longest available timeline when considering whether the Constitution is "still the law of the land". It's an inherently from-the-start kind of question.

unanswered 5y ago

The answer also used to be "of course schools aren't government-run daycare"; but here we are. It may not be the importance of the constitution which is changing.

dharmab 5y ago
Under historical common law, schools are in loco parentis- they absolutely were "government-run daycare" in the sense that they had many of the same role, responsibilities and rights as parents.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

sigstoat 5y ago

https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supr... students have had significant freedom of speech protections since 1969. not sure what time scale you had in mind.

andrewflnr 5y ago
The time scale in my mind was the lifetime of the Constitution, so about 200 years.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  Constitutional rights wouldn't have applied to local governments prior to the 14th amendment, so that's only about 100 years. And until Brown v. Board, the court was wrong on the 14th amendment as well.
- sigstoat 5y ago
  seems rather expansive. as the sibling comment notes, it wasn't relevant to the states for some time. and until there was a nontrivial number of older students in state run schools, there wouldn't have even been opportunities for case law to arise. (mandatory) public schooling started with younger students and expanded from there. (while children of any age should have their freedom of speech, i think we can both agree that as a practical matter, they're more likely to put it to use the older they get.)
  - andrewflnr 5y ago
    > it wasn't relevant to the states for some time. This is pretty much my point, the influence of the Constitution has been increasing over time, not decreasing as the commenter to whom I originally replied seemed to imply. I don't know why you would use any but the longest available timeline when considering whether the Constitution is "still the law of the land". It's an inherently from-the-start kind of question.