Revisiting Parents Involved v. Seattle School District: Race Consciousness and the Government-Speech Doctrine

Professor William M. Carter, Jr.’s trailblazing work, Affirmative Action As Government Speech, first examined the relationship between government speech and race-conscious measures. According to Professor Carter, the United States Supreme Court “has come to view race-conscious government action as a form of prohibited government speech.” This Article takes a different approach from that of Professor Carter; specifically, the Article reviews the majority, dissenting, and concurring opinions in the Parents Involved case for language indicating the Justices’ parameters for viewing voluntary race-conscious measures as government speech. This is important, given that Parents Involved is the landmark Supreme Court decision on race-conscious measures at the K-12 school level. Part I of this Article describes the government-speech doctrine. Part II describes the Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence (the traditional weapon of choice for those challenging race-conscious measures, due to the potency of the strict-scrutiny test). Part III presents the facts of the Parents Involved case. Part IV examines the opinions of the United States Supreme Court Justices in Parents Involved in light of the government-speech doctrine. The Article concludes that the government-speech doctrine would provide schools needed leeway to pursue race-conscious measures

Revisiting Parents Involved v. Seattle School District: Race Consciousness and the Government-Speech Doctrine

Professor William M. Carter, Jr.’s trailblazing work, Affirmative Action As Government Speech, first examined the relationship between government speech and race-conscious measures. According to Professor Carter, the United States Supreme Court “has come to view race-conscious government action as a form of prohibited government speech.” This Article takes a different approach from that of Professor Carter; specifically, the Article reviews the majority, dissenting, and concurring opinions in the Parents Involved case for language indicating the Justices’ parameters for viewing voluntary race-conscious measures as government speech. This is important, given that Parents Involved is the landmark Supreme Court decision on race-conscious measures at the K-12 school level. Part I of this Article describes the government-speech doctrine. Part II describes the Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence (the traditional weapon of choice for those challenging race-conscious measures, due to the potency of the strict-scrutiny test). Part III presents the facts of the Parents Involved case. Part IV examines the opinions of the United States Supreme Court Justices in Parents Involved in light of the government-speech doctrine. The Article concludes that the government-speech doctrine would provide schools needed leeway to pursue race-conscious measures

Teacher Cell Phone Searches in Light of Ontario v. Quon

Technological innovations permeate almost every inch of society. From the government and corporate workforce to family and social settings, technology seemingly knows no boundaries. Technology’s limitless reach has even crossed into the realm of public schools, where, according to teacher Lyn Newton, “[s]chool principals are witnessing more and more cell phone use by their teachers.” Teachers, like other cell phone users, use cell phones not only for making phone calls, but also for taking pictures and texting, which has landed some teachers in trouble for inappropriate communications. Indeed, the sexting wave has not eluded teachers

Multilateral Relationship between Information Literacy, Self-Concept and Metacognitive Ability

This study examined information literacy, metacognitive abilities and self-concept capabilities. The evaluation of this research indicated that self-concept is the totality of psychological, emotional, psychosomatic and mental development that provide confidence to individual in the ability to search, use, appraise and assess information resources, which are critical qualities needed to enable information literacy; an individual needs to be conscious and develop aptitude to identify useful information. Metacognitive ability is important because of the age of information overload which an individual is overwhelmed with which signified that information available is exceeding processing capacity of an average individual. Accordingly, once information overload ensues, it is possible that a decrease or decline in quality of decision-making will happen. In view of this, metacognitive ability becomes necessary in order to equip people with the critical ability to contemplate rigorously before action is taken. The objective of this research is to embark on content analysis of the subject matter of information literacy, metacognitive abilities and self-concept in which existing research was thoroughly evaluated in order to identify gap in research and bring out new knowledge. This research uses qualitative content analysis as a method of data collection in which existing journals and other information resources were evaluated. Research has been silenced on the triangular relationship of metacognitive ability, self-concept and information literacy, that is, the gap this research attempt to bridge

Are California’s Charter Schools the New Separate-But-Equal “Schools of Excellence,” or Are They Worse Than Plessy?

The lack of quality education many charter schools offer disproportionately and adversely impacts communities of color. This article considered two models of charter school governance in use by California and Ohio. The first model posits that a fundamental tenet of charter schools is freedom from the burdensome bureaucracy traditional public schools bear. Based on the argument that deregulation enables charter schools to employ more innovative instructional and management practices, it assumes higher achievement scores would follow. The second model proposes to address educational inequality by increasing accountability on charter school authorizers by increasing regulatory practices. These models example the variety of governance models extant. In addition, arguments supporting each model are presented. The authors conclude with a discussion that supports the position that while autonomy is essential to maintaining the original objectives of charter schools, states must hold authorizers accountable for student achievement

Danger or Resort to Underwear: The Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding Standard for Strip Searching Public School Students.

Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding (Redding III) represents a pivotal decision in school search and seizure jurisprudence, specifically regarding strip searches of students. Redding III establishes constraints specific to strip searches on the search and seizure authority of school officials. Redding III is intended to provide a uniform test for the judiciary and school officials when evaluating the reasonableness of strip searches of students. The Court explicitly interposed a “reliable knowledge” element requiring: (1) the degree to which known facts imply prohibited conduct; (2) the specificity of the information received; and (3) the reliability of its source. The Court reasoned that strip searches should not be initiated until the school has conducted a thorough investigation to ensure the reliability of the information available to determine if a strip search is justified. Redding III revealed that the constitutionality of strip searches does not depend on how much of a student’s body is seen during the search. Nonetheless, the Court reasoned that the content of the suspicion for a strip search must match the degree of intrusion. A general claim and research showing that students generally hide drugs in their underwear will not suffice. For a strip search to survive constitutional scrutiny, the school official must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the particular student to be searched is hiding drugs in his underwear. According to the Court, Redding III has settled the law on strip searches in schools, and school officials should not expect qualified immunity unless the school officials do their due diligence