"Bullied to Death"

    In the Time article "Bullied to Death?" it discusses the lethal effects cyberbullying can have on teenagers, with an emphasis on the abuse to which many gay teenagers are subjected. A case that caught my eye was the one involving 18 year old Tyler Clementi. As a student at Rutgers University, he was paired with a homophobic roommate who frequently made him feel unsafe. Although Clementi complained to his RA that he and his roommate were not getting along, he complaints did not help his cause. The roommate ultimately posted a video on the internet of Tyler kissing another boy, prompting Tyler to commit suicide by jumping off of a bridge. In light of all of the recent suicides that have been a result of bullying, I think it is tremendously important that schools and universities actively respond to any student's complaint of feeling threatened or unsafe. If schools make it a habit to end bullying and harassment before it prompts the victim to make an irrevocable decison, tragedies such as Tyler Clementi's would certainly decrease in frequency.
   A case that particularly caught my attention was United States v. Lori Drew. In this case, Lori Drew, a suburban mother, starting communicating with Megan Meier while posing as "Josh Evans" on MySpace. Her comments to Meier ultimately turned volatile and resulted in Meier hanging herself. After appealing her case, Drew was acquitted of all charges, which included conspiracy, fraudulent use of the internet, and providing false information to MySpace. I was extremely upset that Drew, who was a large in the not the sole cause of Megan's death, was able to evade punishment entirely. Therefore, I think that there ought to be anti-harassment laws put into effect that apply retroactively, thereby enabling abusive cyberbullies such as Lori Drew to be brought to justice.
    Even though I do not believe that bullying is a very big issue at DHS, there are still certain, perhaps less severe, forms of bullying that are present at our school. Unlike in the film we watched about Jamie Nabozny and several of the other cases we have examined that involve physical bullying at schools, I do not think that this form of bullying is very prevalent at DHS. Instead, any bullying that occurs using involves not what students are saying or doing, but rather what they are not saying or doing. Bullying at DHS frequently manifests itself in the form of isolation. Students who may not wear the latest clothes or have interests that deviate from the norm are often excluded and isolated from other students and activities. Potential solutions to this issue may be simply encouraging bystanders to intervene. Bullying can be a vicious cycle that can only be interrupted by the intervention of an adult or other student. If students are able to recognize when one of their peers may be isolated because of their differences and then choose to reach out to that student, it encourages other students to do the same while simultaneously preventing the negative ramifications of bullying from occurring.

Drug Testing: A Breach of the Fourth Amendment?

In cases such as Vernonia v. Acton and New Jersey v. T.L.O, the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment was brought to the attention of several courts across the country. Included in this debate is the issue of drug testing and the potential breaches of personal privacy that it implies. I am very much in favor of drug testing for students.


It seems to be that the paramount concern of those who protest random and required drug testing for students is the fact that it can be conducted without any suspicion that actual drug use is occurring. The drug test, a form of a 'search', is where many see a violation of the Fourth Amendment: the lack of any probable cause seems to directly contradict that which is outlined in the Fourth Amendment. Despite the argument that rejects random drug testing because of the lack of probable cause, I still believe that random drug testing in schools would be nothing by beneficial. When we had a debate in class, the side that was against drug testing argued that drug testing only punishes those who have already used drugs, therefore not truly preventing drug use in the first place. However, by creating a program in which random drug testing is required by all athletes/students who wish to participate in extracurricular activities, students would be able to use this policy as a way to diffuse any pressure to try drugs; a random drug testing policy is an effective excuse for students attempting to avoid drug use. Additionally, the argument made by the opposition that a suspicion-less search or drug test is unconstitutional, must consider the context in which this search is being placed. Schools hold dual responsibilities in providing an education for the students as well as adequately disciplining those who interfere with or present a threat to the learning environment. If a school official was obligated to obtain a warrant before conducting a search or drug test, it would severly interfere with obligation of the school to, according to Justice White, maintain "swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools."

While many would say that by allowing random searches is a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, I believe that if the searches are not overly invasive or practiced with such frequency that they disrupt the learning environment, then they ought to be allowed. After all, students who truly have nothing to hide will not be inconvienced, while the students who were engaging in potentially harmful activities will be appropriately disciplined, thereby improving the environment of the school as a whole.

After reading the ACLU article "U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional," my stance remains the same. It was the disproportionately invasive reaction of the school in response to the accusation that Redding possessed ibuprofen which made the school's actions so inappropriate and ultimately unconstitutional. Since the school did have suspicion that Redding may have had the pills in her posession, I would not necessarily refute their decision to search her backpack. However, the school officials were too extreme in their search and ultimately ended up violating her privacy to such a degree that their actions became violations of the Constitution.