Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: School searches of student lockers

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 20:21, 9 June 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Argument #1)
← Previous diff
Current revision (13:56, 8 April 2011) (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Reverted edits by Ahuffman (Talk); changed back to last version by Jwats)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
-{|style="font-size:85%; border:1px solid #BAC5FD; " cellpadding="0"+{|style="font-size:100%; border:1px solid #BAC5FD; " cellpadding="0"
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style=""| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style=""|
===Do schools have the right to search students’ lockers?=== ===Do schools have the right to search students’ lockers?===
|} |}
-'''<big>YOU</big>''' CAN BECOME AN EDITOR OF THIS PAGE. DEBATEPEDIA IS A WIKI THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT! '[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki WHAT'S A WIKI?] [[Debatepedia:Getting started (tutorial)| GETTING STARTED]].+{|style="font-size:100%; padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;" cellpadding="5"
 +|-
 +|bgcolor="#F7F7F7" colspan="2" style= "border:1px solid #BAC5FD"|
 +===Background and context===
-'''Editing tasks:''' This page needs more arguments and quotations to be drawn from the main pro/con resources (bottom) and placed in [[Debatepedia:Argument pages| argument pages created by you]]. See other [[Debatepedia:Editing tasks| editing tasks on Debatepedia]].+This is a debate about privacy, and the extent to which the state can invade the private life of its citizens. Although it may seem unimportant, the school locker is usually the only private space available to a student in the communal environment of the school, and so it focuses many of the issues involved in privacy debates.[[Image:Student lockers.jpg|right|200px]] This is usually thought of as an American issue, but it could apply in any country and the arguments could also be transferred from school lockers to desks and lockers in the adult workplace. The rights to privacy claimed in this debate find expression in two key documents: Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." 4th Amendment to the US Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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." In the USA this became an issue at the highest level with the 1980 Supreme Court case, New Jersey v T.L.O. The law differs from state to state as to whether reasonable suspicion is required before an individual student’s locker can be searched, or whether blanket/random searches can be carried out.
 +|}
{| style="width:100%; height:100px" border="0" align="center" {| style="width:100%; height:100px" border="0" align="center"
|__TOC__ |__TOC__
|} |}
-{|style="font-size:100%; padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;" cellpadding="5" 
-|- 
-|bgcolor="#F7F7F7" colspan="2" style= "border:1px solid #BAC5FD"| 
-===Background and Context of Debate:=== 
-This is a debate about privacy, and the extent to which the state can invade the private life of its citizens. Although it may seem unimportant, the school locker is usually the only private space available to a student in the communal environment of the school, and so it focuses many of the issues involved in privacy debates. This is usually thought of as an American issue, but it could apply in any country and the arguments could also be transferred from school lockers to desks and lockers in the adult workplace. The rights to privacy claimed in this debate find expression in two key documents: Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." 4th Amendment to the US Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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." In the USA this became an issue at the highest level with the 1980 Supreme Court case, New Jersey v T.L.O. The law differs from state to state as to whether reasonable suspicion is required before an individual student’s locker can be searched, or whether blanket/random searches can be carried out. 
- 
-''You can click the pencil icon and edit, add arguments, supporting evidence, quotes, and links...here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki What's a wiki?]. [[Debatepedia:Getting started (tutorial)| Getting Started]]'' 
- 
- 
- 
-|} 
{| {|
|- |-
Line 29: Line 22:
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-===Argument #1===+===Crime: Are locker-search important in fighting student crime? ===
|- |-
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
====Yes==== ====Yes====
-*'''Lockers are school property and, therefore, subject to any school searches:''' Students are merely allowed to use lockers as they do with sports equipment, library books, school computers, etc. Lockers can be taken back without notice, for example if they are vandalised or become smelly with rotting food. Students are or should be told that schools have the right to search their lockers - it is a part of being in a school community where you have to accept its rules and responsibilities.+*'''Locker searches reduce drugs and weapons in schools, which is in the interests of all students.''' The best way to ensure that such contraband items are found and removed is for the school authorities periodically to search a random selection of student lockers. Even if there is a privacy issue, students yield that minor right in return for the wider benefit of safety.
 + 
 +*'''Schools must protect against the use of lockers in serious crimes.''' In addition to general searches of lockers, particular individuals are often suspected of activity, often quite serious, that mean teachers need to inspect their property. Without the ability to inspect lockers, young criminals will know that they can hide forbidden things there without fear. On the other hand, the possibility of a search means that students will think twice before bringing things in to school. Students may indeed find other hiding places – but this doesn’t mean that they should be given total control over the most obvious hiding place in school. Other safety techniques – such as metal detectors, sniffer dogs, security guards – may be useful too, but they are not mutually exclusive to locker searches. All these things can be used in addition to, not instead of, locker searches – and indeed, a combination of all of them may yield the most secure results.
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-====No====+====No====
-*A sense of alienation and isolation in the school environment has been at the forefront of the rise of psychological problems amongst students – resulting in tragedies like Columbine. Denying students the security of a secure anchor in this environment, a known reference point without risk of removal or meddling, means they are more likely to be adrift and insecure. +
-*'''Schools searching lockers is an invasion of privacy.''' Schools should not be able to search students' lockers unless someone has a bad school record and has been suspected of doing something wrong. A lot of schools search students' lockers for a sense of power...for no reason and they don't have the right to do it. +*'''Student locker searches lack "probable cause".''' Students should not to be considered criminal suspects without probable cause. And, yet, school searches of lockers often lack probable cause. In the USA, it is therefore contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Elsewhere it is covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' guarantee against "arbitrary interference with… privacy".
 + 
 +*'''Medal detectors are a better approach than locker searches.''' It is obvious that if students are faced with the prospect of locker searches, they will just find another hiding place, or keep things on their person. The thrust of policy should not be about finding things once they are in school – it should be about stopping them getting there in the first place. Metal detectors, for example, are fair – because they check everyone (rather than singling people out) without intruding on them. Students who are singled out for searches are effectively and publicly accused of a crime. Occasionally, something incriminating may be found; almost always it won't be, but any bond of trust between school/teacher and student will be broken, and disaffection is likely to follow.
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-===Argument #2===+=== Privacy: Do searches of student-lockers avoid privacy concerns? ===
|- |-
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
====Yes==== ====Yes====
-It is in the interests of all students that drugs and weapons are not in school. The best way to ensure that such contraband items are found and removed is for the school authorities periodically to search a random selection of student lockers. Even if there is a privacy issue, students yield that minor right in return for the wider benefit of safety. 
- 
 +*'''Lockers are school property and, therefore, subject to any school searches:''' Students are merely allowed to use lockers as they do with sports equipment, library books, school computers, etc. Lockers can be taken back without notice, for example if they are vandalised or become smelly with rotting food. Students are or should be told that schools have the right to search their lockers - it is a part of being in a school community where you have to accept its rules and responsibilities.
 +*'''Schools are responsible for student activities so must be able to search lockers.''' This responsibility is placed upon schools because the students in their charge are minors - children in the eyes of the law - who need more protection than adults. This same legal status also explains why constitutional rights to privacy, etc. cannot be applied absolutely to school students. Schools' duty of care applies both morally and legally – and they may be open to lawsuits if they don't take reasonable measures to prevent other students from bringing drugs or weapons into school, or to recover stolen property. In both these cases, searching lockers is an obvious and reasonable response to a threat to student welfare.
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
====No==== ====No====
-General searches constitute an unacceptable intrusion, a search ‘without probable cause' or 'fishing expedition'. In the USA it is therefore contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Elsewhere it is covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' guarantee against "arbitrary interference with… privacy". 
- 
- 
 +*'''Schools searching lockers is an invasion of privacy.''' Schools should not be able to search students' lockers unless someone has a bad school record and has been suspected of doing something wrong. A lot of schools search students' lockers for a sense of power...for no reason and they don't have the right to do it.
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-===Argument #3===+===Abuse: Can concerns over teacher abuse of locker-searching power be reduced? ===
|- |-
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
====Yes==== ====Yes====
-We trust teachers to use this power responsibly and not abuse it. Even if the policy sees a small minority misuse the search power, the cost is outweighed by the benefit of greater security and disincentive to smuggle contraband such as drugs and weapons in to school.+*'''We must trust teachers to perform locker-searches responsibly.''' Even if the policy sees a small minority misuse the search power, the cost is outweighed by the benefit of greater security and disincentive to smuggle contraband such as drugs and weapons in to school.
- +
- +
- +
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
====No==== ====No====
-Many belongings aren’t illegal but are nevertheless potentially the source of embarrassment, for example love letters, pornography, contraceptives, or medicines. Teachers can abuse this power to inflict embarrassment on students they dislike, or may allow it to influence negatively their attitude to and treatment of the student concerned.+*'''Many belongings aren’t illegal but are nevertheless potentially the source of embarrassment.''' For example love letters, pornography, contraceptives, or medicines. Teachers can abuse this power to inflict embarrassment on students they dislike, or may allow it to influence negatively their attitude to and treatment of the student concerned.
- +
- +
- +
 +*'''Denying students a locker increases dangerous feelings of resentment and alienation.''' A sense of alienation and isolation in the school environment has been at the forefront of the rise of psychological problems amongst students – resulting in tragedies like Columbine. Denying students the security of a secure anchor in this environment, a known reference point without risk of removal or meddling, means they are more likely to be adrift and insecure.
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-===Argument #4===+===Compelling interest? Is the problem compelling, making searches a compelling interest? ===
|- |-
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
====Yes==== ====Yes====
-Schools have a duty to care for their students. This responsibility is placed upon schools because the students in their charge are minors - children in the eyes of the law - who need more protection than adults. This same legal status also explains why constitutional rights to privacy, etc. cannot be applied absolutely to school students. Schools' duty of care applies both morally and legally – and they may be open to lawsuits if they don't take reasonable measures to prevent other students from bringing drugs or weapons into school, or to recover stolen property. In both these cases, searching lockers is an obvious and reasonable response to a threat to student welfare. 
- 
- 
 +*'''The magnitude of the problem makes locker-searches a compelling interest.''' In the USA, every school day, at least 100,000 students bring guns to school; 160,000 students skip classes because they fear physical harm; 40 students are hurt or killed by firearms; 6,250 teachers are threatened with bodily injury; 260 teachers are physically assaulted. Is searching someone’s locker really a step too far in trying to stop this?
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-====No====+====No====
-Students should not to be considered as suspects without an adequate reason – that’s their right just as much as for adults, and if it is violated, they and their families can and will sue the school.+
- +
 +*'''There’s no doubt that there are grave problems in schools.''' but we should send a message to children that we trust them – making them feel like adults. Always suspecting them of something widens the gulf between the generations that has caused so much harm in society. In any case, how often are lockers directly implicated in the crimes listed opposite? Most weapons are hidden on the person, and lockers are hardly involved in assaults on teachers.
 +*'''Students more likely to carry weapons than keep in locker.''' Why would students put their weapons in their lockers? Wouldn't they just keep them on their person? For this reason, it doesn't seem that locker-searches has much solvency for the problem of students bringing weapons into school; it looks in the wrong place.
 +|-
 +|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#f2f2f2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;"|
 +=== Resistance: Won't students rebel against their lockers being inspected? ===
-|- 
-|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| 
-===Argument #5=== 
|- |-
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-====Yes====+====Pro====
-In addition to general searches of lockers, particular individuals are often suspected of activity, often quite serious, that mean teachers need to inspect their property. Without the ability to inspect lockers, young criminals will know that they can hide forbidden things there without fear. On the other hand, the possibility of a search means that students will think twice before bringing things in to school. Students may indeed find other hiding places – but this doesn’t mean that they should be given total control over the most obvious hiding place in school. Other safety techniques – such as metal detectors, sniffer dogs, security guards – may be useful too, but they are not mutually exclusive to locker searches. All these things can be used in addition to, not instead of, locker searches – and indeed, a combination of all of them may yield the most secure results.+
- +
- +
- +
- +
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-====No==== 
-It is obvious that if students are faced with the prospect of locker searches, they will just find another hiding place, or keep things on their person. The thrust of policy should not be about finding things once they are in school – it should be about stopping them getting there in the first place. Metal detectors, for example, are fair – because they check everyone (rather than singling people out) without intruding on them. Students who are singled out for searches are effectively and publicly accused of a crime. Occasionally, something incriminating may be found; almost always it won't be, but any bond of trust between school/teacher and student will be broken, and disaffection is likely to follow. 
- 
- 
- 
 +====Con====
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-===Argument #6===+===Pro/con resources===
 + 
|- |-
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
====Yes==== ====Yes====
-The magnitude of the problem should be the basis for this debate. In the USA, every school day, at least 100,000 students bring guns to school; 160,000 students skip classes because they fear physical harm; 40 students are hurt or killed by firearms; 6,250 teachers are threatened with bodily injury; 260 teachers are physically assaulted. Is searching someone’s locker really a step too far in trying to stop this? 
 +|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
- 
- 
- 
-|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| 
====No==== ====No====
-There’s no doubt that there are grave problems in schools. but we should send a message to children that we trust them – making them feel like adults. Always suspecting them of something widens the gulf between the generations that has caused so much harm in society. In any case, how often are lockers directly implicated in the crimes listed opposite? Most weapons are hidden on the person, and lockers are hardly involved in assaults on teachers. 
- 
- 
- 
- 
|- |-
-|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#f9f9f9" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;"|+|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
- +==See also==
-== Motions ==+==External links==
- +
-* This House believes that schools should have the right to search students' lockers+
-* This House believes the right to privacy is not absolute+
-* This House believes children should not enjoy the full rights of adults+
-* This House would do more to make our schools safer environments+
- +
-==References:==+
- +
-==This debate in legislation, policy, and elsewhere==+
- +
-==See also on Debatepedia:==+
- +
-==External links and resources:==+
* [http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html University of Illinois project on the subject, including wide range of links] * [http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html University of Illinois project on the subject, including wide range of links]
Line 167: Line 124:
* [http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/4492d797dc0bd92f85256cb80055fb97/23825cd5d8d5693685256cca0055c0f8 Florida School Search Manual] * [http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/4492d797dc0bd92f85256cb80055fb97/23825cd5d8d5693685256cca0055c0f8 Florida School Search Manual]
* [http://www.devon.gov.uk/dcs/a/drugs/guidedox/THE%20MANAGEMENT%20OF%20DRUG%20RELATED%20ISSUES%20AND%20INCIDENTS%20IN%20SCHOOLS.doc Drug policy guidelines from a UK Education Authority; p8-9 deal with searching school lockers] * [http://www.devon.gov.uk/dcs/a/drugs/guidedox/THE%20MANAGEMENT%20OF%20DRUG%20RELATED%20ISSUES%20AND%20INCIDENTS%20IN%20SCHOOLS.doc Drug policy guidelines from a UK Education Authority; p8-9 deal with searching school lockers]
 +*[http://students.ed.uiuc.edu/jkelsey/surveillance/locker.htm "Surveillance in Schools: Safety vs. Personal Privacy"]
== Books == == Books ==
- 
* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0897748549/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Search, Seizure and Privacy] : Darien A. McWhirter * [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0897748549/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Search, Seizure and Privacy] : Darien A. McWhirter
* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1861682778/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Protecting Our Privacy] : Craig Donellan * [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1861682778/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Protecting Our Privacy] : Craig Donellan
* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415305845/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Children Rights & Childhood] : David Archard * [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415305845/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Children Rights & Childhood] : David Archard
* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415250366/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 The New Handbook of Children's Rights: Comparative Policy and Practice] : Bob Franklin * [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415250366/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 The New Handbook of Children's Rights: Comparative Policy and Practice] : Bob Franklin
 +
|} |}
-[[Category:Debatabase]]+ 
[[Category:Education]] [[Category:Education]]
-[[Category:Legal]]+[[Category:Schools]]
 +[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Individual rights]] [[Category:Individual rights]]
 +[[Category:Privacy]]
 +[[Category:Youth]]
 +[[Category:Politics]]
 +[[Category:US politics]]
 +[[Category:Personal]]

Current revision

[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Do schools have the right to search students’ lockers?

Background and context

This is a debate about privacy, and the extent to which the state can invade the private life of its citizens. Although it may seem unimportant, the school locker is usually the only private space available to a student in the communal environment of the school, and so it focuses many of the issues involved in privacy debates.
This is usually thought of as an American issue, but it could apply in any country and the arguments could also be transferred from school lockers to desks and lockers in the adult workplace. The rights to privacy claimed in this debate find expression in two key documents: Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." 4th Amendment to the US Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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." In the USA this became an issue at the highest level with the 1980 Supreme Court case, New Jersey v T.L.O. The law differs from state to state as to whether reasonable suspicion is required before an individual student’s locker can be searched, or whether blanket/random searches can be carried out.

Contents

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Crime: Are locker-search important in fighting student crime?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Locker searches reduce drugs and weapons in schools, which is in the interests of all students. The best way to ensure that such contraband items are found and removed is for the school authorities periodically to search a random selection of student lockers. Even if there is a privacy issue, students yield that minor right in return for the wider benefit of safety.
  • Schools must protect against the use of lockers in serious crimes. In addition to general searches of lockers, particular individuals are often suspected of activity, often quite serious, that mean teachers need to inspect their property. Without the ability to inspect lockers, young criminals will know that they can hide forbidden things there without fear. On the other hand, the possibility of a search means that students will think twice before bringing things in to school. Students may indeed find other hiding places – but this doesn’t mean that they should be given total control over the most obvious hiding place in school. Other safety techniques – such as metal detectors, sniffer dogs, security guards – may be useful too, but they are not mutually exclusive to locker searches. All these things can be used in addition to, not instead of, locker searches – and indeed, a combination of all of them may yield the most secure results.


[Add New]

No

  • Student locker searches lack "probable cause". Students should not to be considered criminal suspects without probable cause. And, yet, school searches of lockers often lack probable cause. In the USA, it is therefore contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Elsewhere it is covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' guarantee against "arbitrary interference with… privacy".
  • Medal detectors are a better approach than locker searches. It is obvious that if students are faced with the prospect of locker searches, they will just find another hiding place, or keep things on their person. The thrust of policy should not be about finding things once they are in school – it should be about stopping them getting there in the first place. Metal detectors, for example, are fair – because they check everyone (rather than singling people out) without intruding on them. Students who are singled out for searches are effectively and publicly accused of a crime. Occasionally, something incriminating may be found; almost always it won't be, but any bond of trust between school/teacher and student will be broken, and disaffection is likely to follow.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Privacy: Do searches of student-lockers avoid privacy concerns?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Lockers are school property and, therefore, subject to any school searches: Students are merely allowed to use lockers as they do with sports equipment, library books, school computers, etc. Lockers can be taken back without notice, for example if they are vandalised or become smelly with rotting food. Students are or should be told that schools have the right to search their lockers - it is a part of being in a school community where you have to accept its rules and responsibilities.
  • Schools are responsible for student activities so must be able to search lockers. This responsibility is placed upon schools because the students in their charge are minors - children in the eyes of the law - who need more protection than adults. This same legal status also explains why constitutional rights to privacy, etc. cannot be applied absolutely to school students. Schools' duty of care applies both morally and legally – and they may be open to lawsuits if they don't take reasonable measures to prevent other students from bringing drugs or weapons into school, or to recover stolen property. In both these cases, searching lockers is an obvious and reasonable response to a threat to student welfare.


[Add New]

No

  • Schools searching lockers is an invasion of privacy. Schools should not be able to search students' lockers unless someone has a bad school record and has been suspected of doing something wrong. A lot of schools search students' lockers for a sense of power...for no reason and they don't have the right to do it.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Abuse: Can concerns over teacher abuse of locker-searching power be reduced?

[Add New]

Yes

  • We must trust teachers to perform locker-searches responsibly. Even if the policy sees a small minority misuse the search power, the cost is outweighed by the benefit of greater security and disincentive to smuggle contraband such as drugs and weapons in to school.


[Add New]

No

  • Many belongings aren’t illegal but are nevertheless potentially the source of embarrassment. For example love letters, pornography, contraceptives, or medicines. Teachers can abuse this power to inflict embarrassment on students they dislike, or may allow it to influence negatively their attitude to and treatment of the student concerned.
  • Denying students a locker increases dangerous feelings of resentment and alienation. A sense of alienation and isolation in the school environment has been at the forefront of the rise of psychological problems amongst students – resulting in tragedies like Columbine. Denying students the security of a secure anchor in this environment, a known reference point without risk of removal or meddling, means they are more likely to be adrift and insecure.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Compelling interest? Is the problem compelling, making searches a compelling interest?

[Add New]

Yes

  • The magnitude of the problem makes locker-searches a compelling interest. In the USA, every school day, at least 100,000 students bring guns to school; 160,000 students skip classes because they fear physical harm; 40 students are hurt or killed by firearms; 6,250 teachers are threatened with bodily injury; 260 teachers are physically assaulted. Is searching someone’s locker really a step too far in trying to stop this?


[Add New]

No

  • There’s no doubt that there are grave problems in schools. but we should send a message to children that we trust them – making them feel like adults. Always suspecting them of something widens the gulf between the generations that has caused so much harm in society. In any case, how often are lockers directly implicated in the crimes listed opposite? Most weapons are hidden on the person, and lockers are hardly involved in assaults on teachers.
  • Students more likely to carry weapons than keep in locker. Why would students put their weapons in their lockers? Wouldn't they just keep them on their person? For this reason, it doesn't seem that locker-searches has much solvency for the problem of students bringing weapons into school; it looks in the wrong place.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Resistance: Won't students rebel against their lockers being inspected?

[Add New]

Pro

[Add New]

Con

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con resources

[Add New]

Yes

[Add New]

No

See also

External links

Books

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.