CITATION:     Goss v. Lopez 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

TOPIC:     Student Rights

ISSUE:     At issue was the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The text of the amendment states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;  nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...”  The big problem here:  could education be considered a constitutional right, and even so, would it be feasible to enforce due process in a school setting?

FACTS:     During the months of February and March of 1971, a number of students were suspended for ten days each in Columbus, Ohio.  The rational:  action deemed by administrators “disruptive” or “disobedient.”  Six (Randolph Sutton, Tyrone Washington, Susan Cooper, Deborah Fox, Clarence Byars, and Bruce Harris) were suspended from Marion-Franklin High School for demonstrating on school property and resisting ejection therefrom.  One child,Dwight Lopez, was suspended with seventy-five others from Central HighSchool for damage to the school cafeteria.  Lopez claimed to have taken no partin the vandalism.  The principal made no attempt at investigation, insteadblanket suspending everyone.  Another student, Betty Crone, was arrested whileprotesting at one high school, and then suspended from McGuffey Junior HighSchool which she attended.

No hearings of any kind were held for any of these suspensions.

The students, claiming a civil rights violation, filed suit.  The district courts found for the students, and ordered that their records be purged of any record of the suspensions.  Ohio school administrators, including the Buckeye Associationof School Administrators, appealed.  The appeal reached the Supreme Court of the United States.

FINDINGS:     In a startlingly close vote, the Supreme Court found for the plaintiffs (students), five to four.  Justices White, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, andMarshall backed the students.  Justices Powell, Burger, Blackmun, and Rehnquistbacked the administrators.

RATIONALE:     Justice White wrote the opinion of the majority, who were clear in their ruling:  Once Ohio gave students the right to an education, the statecould not interfere by arbitrarily stripping it away.  At issue here:  Ohio law, Revised Code sections 3316.64 and 3313.66 (1972).  Also, as precedent, Tinder v.Des Moines (1969) established that students retain their constitutional rights while in school despite claims of the school administration to act in loco parentis (that is, to act in place of the parent while students are under schoolsupervision).  Thus:  “We do not believe that school authorities must be totally free from notice and hearing requirements if their schools are to operate withacceptable efficiency.”  However, the Court held that the hearings need only be informal and brief, also noting that the hearings could be held later (after the suspension was declared) if students had to be removed due to violence or abusive behavior.

Justice Powell dissented, finding that “the decision unnecessarily opens avenues for judicial intervention in the operation of out Public Schools that may affect adversely the quality of education.” That is, it allows too much interference in school management-- it monkey wrenches discipline.  Also, hewarned that it would slow down school operation, as the hearings would burnup huge amounts of administrative time.

In short, the majority voted for reasons of the constitution (as set by precedent) while the minority voted primarily for reasons of practicality, and for the possible danger to public education that the decision entailed.