Students have lost millions of days of instructional time due to out of school suspensions. Despite the Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines that students do not “shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate,” most students who find themselves in these situations see that their right to due process is largely illusory in practice, creating a system that undervalues the interest a child has in attending school and overestimates a school’s capacity to handle issues of discipline fairly.
That is the argument being made by University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law Associate Clinical Professor of Law Diana Newmark in an upcoming paper set to be published by the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal and the focus of her research and clinical work over the past few years.
Diana directs University of Arizona Law’s Education Advocacy Clinic and has spent her career advocating for the rights of children, first as special education teacher, then as a lawyer for the Children’s Law Center in Washington, D.C. and the Legal Aid Society in the Bronx, New York, where she represented court-involved children in school discipline and special education matters.
“The school-to-prison pipeline is well researched and shows that school discipline and zero tolerance policies can have a huge impact for many students, particularly students of color,” Diana commented in a recent presentation at the William & Mary Law School Bill of Rights Journal Symposium which focused on constitutional issues within educational spaces. “And in addition to all of that, kids involved in other legal systems can have significant collateral consequences to school discipline – leading to disrupted foster home placements, violations of juvenile probation and even deportation.”
See here to learn more about Diana’s research and forthcoming paper.
|