Summary of West v. Derby Unified School District (2000)
Facts:- Derby School District had many race motivated violent incidents and due to such violence, the school district adopted a “Racial Harassment and Intimidation” policy. The plaintiff was a seventh grade student in the defendant’s district and he read the policy and provided his signature stating that he had understood the racial harassment policy of the school district. One day, the plaintiff drew a confederate flag during his math class and he showed it to a fellow student. The student told the teacher and the principal suspended the student for 3 days. The plaintiff filed suit against the school district claiming that his 1st Amendment rights were violated, his due process rights were violated, and his constitutional rights were violated because the racial harassment policy of the school was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The district court ruled in favor of the defendants and now the plaintiff appeals.
Issue: 1. Did the defendant’s policy violated plaintiff’s 1st Amendment rights? 2. Did the defendants violate plaintiff’s due process rights? 3. Was the policy unconstitutionally vague and overbroad?
Holding: 1. No 2. No 3. No
Legal Reasoning: The court ruled that the plaintiff was informed why he was being suspended and he was given time to explain his side. The court further stated that the school districts are not required to determine if the students being punished had the actual mens rea to violate school district’s policy. The court further stated that the the defendant’s actions did not violate plaintiff’s first amendment rights. The court ruled that “A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission even though the government could not cnesor similar speech outside the school.” The court reasoned that there were many race related incidents occurring in defendant’s school district and they had the right to punish the plaintiff for his actions which could have resulted in more of such violent incidents. The court further held that a rasonable student could have understood the school’s plicy and for that reason, the school’s policy was not vague or overbroad. So the ruling of the district court was affirmed.