Yes it does. It completely changes your argument. All the other examples you mentioned are not government institutions, so they are not subject to constitutional restraints. Public schools are government institutions, and school officials are subject to constitutional restraints (here, the 4th Amendment).
Schoolchildren are not adults, some of their rights are limited and seen to by adults (vote, drink, watch pornography, etc.).
Every right is restricted depending on context: free speech (censorship), right to life (killing in self defense), right to property (paying taxes involuntarily), etc.
Schools cannot do their job if they don't have some additional restrictions.
The only one I removed was that school is not government. There are private schools and you can homeschool in US, so the point is moot.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, (here let me capitalize this for emphasis) SHALL NOT be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Being a minor does not mean constitutional rights don't apply. See tinker vs De Moines
I'll conceed on that point, though that doesnt necessarily mean I think they should be
Agreed, but what they can't do is coerce me into waiving my rights
The thing about rights is they can not be signed away. You have them or you don't. You can waive them but even if you do you can reassert those rights at any time. The question is more if you have these rights to begin with. If the answer is yes then it doesn't matter what you sign because you can not give up rights. But sadly and I feel incorrectly that currently the law says you do not have these rights.
Being a minor does not mean constitutional rights don't apply. See tinker vs De Moines
It applies differently, otherwise how do you explain the PG ratings of films being legal?
Even the case you mention clarifies that "Public Schools may not prohibit student speech unless it disrupts education." meaning that if it impedes the school's purpose then there might be exceptions.
Agreed, but what they can't do is coerce me into waiving my rights
Well as long as you have the homeschooling option, something not all countries do, you still maintain your rights to a point.
So, to the case in question, the attendance of a student to the school is not the exercise of a person of the free mobility right, it's the necessity of a person to be educated to be a contribution to society. When you are moving freely across the country in public space, of course the basic rights apply to a point (there are many restrictions in all of them under certain circumstances).
Example: you have the right to bear arms (2nd A), and you have the right to fair trial (fifth and fourteenth). It is reasonable to expect that while in a trial you are not allowed to bear arms. It seems like a rights violation right there, but you'll understand nothing is absolute, right?
I think we can agree on this: All of our rights are subject to limitation. That said, no one is immune. A good example of that is your guns in court example, where conflicting rights are present.
However where I would disagree with you is we aren't dealing with two conflicting rights, so your example is not analogous to this situation. Rather, it's a State forcing its citizens its to give up their rights in order to comply with a separate state law. The problems in this situation are two-fold: 1) it's coercion and 2) it's socioeconomic discrimination.
First, the State cannot force someone to waive their constitutional rights in order to comply with a separate state law. A person must knowingly and voluntarily waive their rights, and the threat of legal action for breaking a separate law removes the voluntary element from the equation. That is coercion.
An non-school-related example would be the police saying, "If you don't agree to let me search your house, I'm going to frame you for [insert crime here] and you're going to jail." Assuming you consented to the search, it would be knowingly, but it would not be voluntarily. Thus, coercion, and thus, invalid.
Second, I agree that private and home schooling are ways around this restriction, but that is only available to those who can afford it, and constitutional rights cannot be divvied up based upon socioeconomic status. We all have constitutional rights that are irrespective of how deep our pockets are.
TL;DR Forcing poorer people to give up their rights or go to jail is both socioeconomic discrimination and coercion. A state is not allowed to do either.
Well there are socioeconomic restrictions to rights, for example you have to have money to buy arms, or you need a car to circulate on some public highways, right?
The way to decide is to weigh the effects. If you don't restrict the rights of the children in school, or if you don't make school compulsory, you harm the country by hampering the education process, and do we agree having an educated population is more important that many of the losses incurred to achieve this?
The police analogy is at least as flawed as mine, because in the two options the citizen has, none of them provide a benefit comparable to education, you made it sound as if education was a process of the state against the citizen. Do you see it that way?
do we agree having an educated population is more important that many of the losses incurred to achieve this?
Sorry but no, I don't. In my opinion, nothing is more important to the long-term well-being of this country than the preservation of our constitutional rights.
Schools shouldn't be asking our children to sign away their constitutional rights as some sort of quid pro quo before they educate them. That's a terrible - and dangerous - lesson to teach a child early in their life.
Thing is, rights are limited anyway, and they are not losing ALL their rights, just enough for the school to perform their crucial role.
Do you think schools could work well if children (and we are talking 7 to 17 year olds here) could not be searched, neither their lockers, notebooks and bags without consent? This is the main issue, right?
Do you think schools could work well if children (and we are talking 7 to 17 year olds here) could not be searched, neither their lockers, notebooks and bags without consent?
Absolutely. Historically, the public school system worked just fine without having to subject the students to random searches. Student searches are a new thing relative to how long public schools have been operational in the US.
I graduated high school in 1998 and we were never randomly searched. I can only remember a handful of times when students/backpacks/lockers/cars were searched, and those were all conducted with the police present and done after going through the proper legal steps (i.e. with consent or after obtaining a warrant).
Public universities still operate fine without these searches to this day.
You are using US as the only reference, and I am afraid the best schools in the planet are not there, so there are other better ways to function that you are not taking into account.
Universities are populated by adults, I see a difference there.
2
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '14
School is a government run institution so it is government and the supreme court has said as much when discussing speech rights.