Issue 1
1) The issue is whether president Ingles can limit Professor Castro’s freedom of speech.
2) The law is from the Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541 case in which the court held that the campus was a public forum (Lee & Kaplin, 2013). Putnam, therefore, had the same level of access to it as any other member of the public.
3) Because the school is a public forum, the students should be free to speak Spanish in the school compound. I picked this fact because it relates to the stigmatization claim in the Putnam case. The students were being stigmatized by the no Spanish rule. Students whose mother tongue is English were allowed to speak English (Walkout, 2006). Spanish students should be allowed to speak in their native tongue as well. Any denial of this right would result in stigmatization, just as in the Putnam case. The plaintiff was entitled to a hearing and denial of this right resulted in stigmatization.
4) Therefore, Principal Ingles cannot limit Professor Castro’s freedom of speech. The principal has no power to limit the professor within the confines of the school because he does not have that power even outside the school.
Issue 2:
The issue is whether the institution can limit the students’ ability to speak Spanish in class.
The Case that is applicable to this situation is the Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961). This law rejected the in loco parentis idea, under which the law accorded on institutions of learning the powers over students that parents had over minor children (Lee & Kaplin, 2013). In this regard, the ruling of this case accorded students enforceable rights including freedom of speech.
The compliance to the no-Spanish-in-class rule would violate the rights of the students because teachers do not have the authority to decide the language used by students. I chose this fact because it relates specifically to the Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education case. In the Walkout film, when the student activists from East Los Angeles are stopped from speaking in Spanish in school and punished, one can argue that the Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961) would be applicable to this situation (Lee & Kaplin, 2013; Walkout, 2006).
The school cannot impose a rule to stop students from speaking Spanish in class. This regulation represents an infringement on students rights.
Issue 3:
The issue is whether the institution can assign different tasks based on different students.
The Flanagan v. President and Directors of Georgetown College, (1976) case is applicable to the issue above. In this case, the court held that any racial discrimination in the provision of financial aid should not be tolerated (Lee & Kaplin, 2013). The principle, in this case, is that there should be no difference in treatment of students based on their race. Rules should be applied equally.
In this regard, institutions cannot assign more tasks to Latin American students than those assigned to white American students(Walkout, 2006). Such allocation of tasks is tantamount to discrimination.
Therefore, students should not be treated differently because of their racial orientation.
Issue 4
The issue is whether the police can brutally prevent students’ protest.
In the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court held that the student protest was the non-disruptive activity of free speech and that the students should not be punished through suspension (Lee & Kaplin, 2013).
In the film Walkout, the students did not disrupt the learning process of students who wanted to remain in school (Walkout, 2006). In this regard, one may argue that their protest was not a disruptive one. I have chosen this fact to show the link between the film and the 1969 Tinker case.
The police cannot brutally prevent the students’ protest because it is non-disruptive and peaceful.
Issue 5
The issue is whether the institution executes the duties.
The above issue is related to the Morris v. Nowotny (1959) case in which the court held that there is power inherent in the University officials to keep proper order and decorum within the institution (Lee & Kaplin, 2013).
The fact is that the school in the film Walkout does not exercise its authority to maintain peace. I chose this fact because the students fight and hurt each other with no clear intervention from the authority of the school (Walkout, 2006). The film relates to the Morris case because order and decorum are not maintained.
In conclusion, it is evident that the student does not exercise its duties in protecting the students from violence within the school premises.
Issue 6
The issue is whether the institution can supervise students outside school.
The case that relates to the issue in question is Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College (1993), in which the appellate court held that there was a special relationship between the college and the student who collapsed after a cardiac arrest (Lee & Kaplin, 2013).
In the Walkout film, members of the institution took photos when the students were outside the school (Walkout, 2006). As such, they had knowledge of the students’ whereabouts as well as the risks to which they were exposed. I chose this fact because it underlines that the institution knew of the students’ whereabouts. In this regard, the film relates to the Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College case because, in both situations, there is knowledge of the risks that the students may face (Magid, 2010).
The institution can supervise students outside school because a special relationship exists between them.
References
Lee, B. A., & Kaplin, W. A. (2013). The law of higher education. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.
Walkout. (2006). HBO cable television.
