# data[].attributes.body
School shootings are unfortunately a threat that is on the mind of everyone in education. School Counselors provide various forms of support on school campuses, including crisis intervention. Crisis intervention is the immediate response to a crisis, but counselors and administration are also involved in prevention and threat assessment. The overall counseling goal is to support each student in their academic and social-emotional growth, which in some cases can involve working with a student who is experiencing homicidal thoughts while ensuring the safety of all students on campus. The goal of this legal and ethical guide is to provide information to school staff regarding laws, policies, and procedures  and student right to due process in all events, including the threat of a school shooting. This topic is timely and relevant and lives lost in school shootings are preventable. The more we know about how to prevent and support students before they get to the point of experiencing such anger and becoming a threat to others, the better.

# data[].attributes.headline
ASCA School Counselor Role in Threat Assessments

# data[].attributes.subject
ASCA School Counselor Role in Threat Assessments

# data[].attributes.body
Stone (2022) does a great job out outlining that the main role of school counselors in threat assessments, especially in regards to gun violence, is in prevention. School Counselors can participate in threat assessment teams but can never be the source of discipline in those teams, for example in searching students lockers or providing consequences. Overall, school counselors are to be a person that students feel comfortable coming to, be aware of and educate stakeholders on concerning behaviors, participate in a threat assessment team, a support a safe school climate, and participate in the over process a student would undergo if there is a perceived threat.

Stone, C. (2022, March 1). School counselors' role in threat assessments. ASCA School Counselor. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/Magazines/March-April-2022/School-Counselors-Role-in-Threat-Assessments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Counselors' Role in Threat Assessments

# data[].attributes.headline
Victims of school shootings sue because of lack of due process and prevention leading up to school shooting

# data[].attributes.subject
Victims of school shootings sue because of lack of due process and prevention leading up to school shooting

# data[].attributes.body
Parents of victims sue school district employees, including the school counselor, for not completing a full and appropriate threat assessment that could have prevented a school shooting.

There were warning signs leading up to this school shooting, but school employees did not even pursue a complete threat assessment and support the student’s right to due process.

Although there were some steps followed, when school officials asked parents to take the student home they refused. The shooting then occurred later that day.

Both perpetrators and victims of an event should have the constitutional right to due process to protect all involved.

El-Bawab, N. (2022, May 24). Victims, parents of oxford school shooting victims sue school employees. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/victims-parents-oxford-school-shooting-victims-sue-school/story?id=84933834

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Victims and families of victims of the November Oxford school shooting in Michigan filed a lawsuit against the Oxford school district and school administrators, accusing them of violating legally mandated school safety policies and of violating students' constitutional rights.

The lawsuit accused administrators of failing to notify law enforcement of the actions of the accused shooter leading up to the shooting.

Administrators named in the lawsuit include Superintendent Timothy Throne, principal Steven Wolf, dean of students Nicholas Ejak, student counselor Shawn Hopkins, Superintendent Kenneth Weaver and four teachers, including the teacher who caught the alleged shooter looking at ammunition for his gun online while in class.

The lawsuit was jointly filed by the parents of Justin Shilling and Tate Myre, who were killed in the shooting, and representatives for four minors who were injured in the shooting.

The lawsuit alleges that accused school shooter Ethan Crumbley had exhibited "concerning behavior that indicated psychiatric distress, suicidal or homicidal tendencies and the possibility of child abuse and neglect."

Justin Shilling died Dec. 1 from injuries sustained during the Nov. 30 shooting at Oxford High School in Oxford, Mich.

On Nov. 11, weeks before the shooting, Crumbley brought a severed bird's head to the Oxford high school and placed it in the boy's bathroom. While other students found and reported it, school administrators including the principal and district administrators concealed this information from staff and parents, the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit alleges that the school administration sent an email to parents on Nov. 12 telling them they have reviewed concerns they received and they have investigated all information provided to them and deemed there had been "no threat to our building nor our students."

Several parents raised concerns about the threats to students made on social media and about multiple severed animal heads at the school to the principal on or around Nov. 16, the lawsuit alleges. But, the school district dismissed concerns raised by students and parents as "not credible," according to the lawsuit.

Wolf, the principal, sent parents an email confirming that there was no threat at the school and assumptions made on social media "were merely exaggerated rumors," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit claims other students saw Crumbley with shell casings and live ammunition rounds one day before the shooting.

The suit also accuses one of the teachers, Pam Parker Fine, of violating the law by failing to contact child protective services, as required, in response to her being presented with evidence that Crumbley was researching ammunition in class and the refusal of Crumbley's parents to respond to her call. The lawsuit alleges she was required to notify police, specifically the high school's liaison officer, of the possibility that Crumbley was a victim of child abuse and neglect and posed a risk to himself and others.

A memorial outside of Oxford High School continues to grow, Dec. 3 2021, in Oxford, Mich.

Jacqueline Kubina, a second teacher named in the suit who found Crumbley looking up ammunition in class, is also accused of violating the law by failing to report it to law enforcement.

The suit also alleges that Ejak, the dean of students, and Hopkins, a student counselor, failed to search Crumbley's backpack or have local law enforcement search it the day of the shooting despite having "reasonable cause to do so." This was after teachers had found his drawings, including a drawing of people with gunshot wounds and text next to it saying, "The thoughts won't stop. Help me."

The school had called Crumbley's parents to the school to address the issue the morning of the shooting, but the Crumbley parents refused to take their child home. Hopkins had warned them the morning of the shooting that if they did not take Crumbley to counseling within 48 hours he would be "following up," the lawsuit alleged.

The lawsuit alleged Crumbley's parents refusing to address the issue was evidence of child abuse and neglect, which the dean of students and student counselor were legally required to report, but they did not.

Ejak and Hopkins "deliberately" conducted the meeting with Crumbley and his parents without the safety liaison officer or other local law enforcement, "preventing a proper and through investigation and lawful search of Crumbley's backpack, which would have prevented this tragedy," the lawsuit alleged.

A memorial outside of Oxford High School, Dec. 7, 2021, in Oxford, Mich.

Emily Elconin/Getty Images

The defendants' actions were "reckless" and put the lives of the victims "at substantial risk of serious and immediate harm," the lawsuit alleged. The lawsuit claimed that due to the school and district administrators' knowledge before the shooting began, "it was foreseeable that [Crumbley] would carry out such acts of violence."

The lawsuit also alleged that the district violated the victims' constitutional right to be free from danger.

"While this new lawsuit won't remedy the pain and suffering these families have gone through, it will certainly hold the school district and its officials accountable for their role in not properly supervising and training teachers and counselors, who have an obligation to ensure students remain safe," said Ven Johnson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, in a statement.

Lawyers are requesting damages in addition to interest, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as punitive and/or exemplary damages.

"With the alarming number of red flags and desperate cries for help that Ethan's parents, teachers, counselors and administrators all somehow missed, this mass shooting absolutely could and should have been prevented," Johnson said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Victims, parents of Oxford school shooting victims sue school employees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Victims and families of victims of the November Oxford school shooting in Michigan filed a lawsuit against the Oxford school district and school administrators, accusing them of violating legally mandated school safety policies and of violating students' constitutional rights. The lawsuit accused administrators of failing to notify law enforcement of the actions of the accused shooter leading up to the shooting.

# data[].attributes.headline
School Shotings, Special Education, and Due Process

# data[].attributes.subject
School Shotings, Special Education, and Due Process

# data[].attributes.body
Nikolas Cruz was charged with killing 17 students and staff members at Stoneman Douglas after having been placed at a district-run program for students with behavioral disabilities.

Cruz qualified for special education services and wanted to return to Stoneman Douglas high school, despite the stance of his parents and school staff for him to remain within the district-run program. Since Cruz was 18 at the time, he was able to make the final decision regarding his education.

The Broward school district could have filed a due process hearing to ask for an administrative law judge to make a decision about Cruz and his educational plan. The district failed to do that.

Due process hearings can be filed by school districts under IDEA.

Samuels, C. (2018, August 7). Parkland shooting report sharpens focus on special education and due process. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/parkland-shooting-report-sharpens-focus-on-special-education-and-due-process/2018/08

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In his junior year, Nikolas Cruz was struggling.

Cruz, a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School charged with killing 17 students and staff members at the school in February, had returned to Stoneman Douglas after a placement at Cross Creek, a district-run program in Parkland, Fla., for students with behavioral disabilities. Though Cruz had academic success both at Cross Creek and, for a period of time, at Stoneman Douglas, his behavior had started to deteriorate and his grades plummeted-possibly because of a break-up with a girlfriend, his mother reported.

What happened next forms part of a continuing debate over whether the Broward County, Fla. district responded appropriately to Cruz's behavioral needs as a student in special education.

Details about his case and recommendations for district actions came out in a report by a consulting firm hired by the district to review Cruz's educational records and the school system's actions in the wake of the school massacre.

School officials and Cruz's mother agreed that he should return to Cross Creek but didn't think he would take it well. They were right. During an individualized education program team meeting, Cruz angrily told them that he wanted to stay at Stoneman Douglas. And, as an 18-year-old at the time, he was in control of whether he could receive services, not his mother. A special educator in attendance told Cruz that if he wanted to stay at Stoneman Douglas, he would have to do so as a general education student. Cruz said that's what he wanted to do, giving up the services that had supported him in the district since he was 3 years old.

But the choices given Cruz weren't correct, said the report, which was released Aug. 3 and written by the Collaborative Educational Network. Broward County largely followed the law when it came to Cruz throughout his educational career. But, the report noted, under state statute, the Broward school district could have decided to file a due process hearing itself within 10 days after the contentious IEP meeting, asking for an administrative law judge to make a decision about where Cruz should be educated. And, based on his history, it's likely that the district could have prevailed on its desire to return him to the more restrictive placement, the report stated.

There's no way to know now if Cruz would have chosen to return to Cross Creek. Even if there was a due process hearing, Cruz could have decided to revoke his consent for special education at a later time. But the report stated that Broward should focus on staff development to make sure that educators understand student options, and that they have "training and practice in facilitating emotionally charged meetings."

Those insights into Cruz's special education history come from an error made by the district. It released the consultant's report, heavily redacted. But when the report was first placed on the district's website, the computer-generated redaction failed, making the entire report visible. The Sun-Sentinel of Florida was the first media organization to read and report on the entire document. The Broward County school board wants the paper and two of its reporters to be held in contempt of court, saying that it opted to report information the court had ordered to be redacted.

Due Process Hearings Filed By Districts

Due process hearings are overwhelmingly filed by parents when they disagree with district actions. But the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act makes it clear that due process is a legal maneuver available to both parents and the school district. And, about 10 percent of the time, it's the district that has the dispute, said Perry A. Zirkel, a professor emeritus of law and education at Lehigh University, in Bethlehem, Pa. Most of the cases filed by districts are not like the Cruz case; Zirkel noted: Most often, a district wants to conduct a special education evaluation over the objections of a parent, and they generally prevail, he said. Even when a student is found eligible for services, a parent is not required to accept them, the law states.

Ann Siegel, an attorney and education team manager for the advocacy group Disability Rights Florida, said that revoking all services "was the worst thing for [the school district] to do. They were on notice that he required their supports and services."

It's not an unusual for older students to make such a choice to drop special education services, but the district should have known that Cruz's disability affected his decisionmaking skills, Siegel said. But Siegel, who has represented other older students in special education, said "students who are behaviorally challenged are the kids we have the hardest time getting schools to keep."

An Atypical Case

There's been intense focus on Cruz's mental health history in the wake of the school massacre, especially because he had had violent and self-harming tendencies for years. However, students in special education for an emotional disturbance are not more likely than their peers to be school shooters. In an exhaustive examination of targeted school shootings between 1974 and 2000, the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education found that while perpetrators commonly described being bullied or persecuted and having thoughts of suicide, they generally did not have a history of mental health evaluations or diagnosis with a mental disorder.

Soon after his return to Stoneman Douglas as a general education student, Cruz continued to struggle academically and behaviorally, eventually leaving the school for an adult-education program. Two months later, in April 2017, he reached out to the school system and asked to re-enroll at Cross Creek, the program he had earlier rejected.

His request to return to Cross Creek bounced around among administrators at the adult education school he had enrolled in, at Cross Creek, and at Stoneman Douglas. Ultimately, they decided Cruz would have to re-enroll in Stoneman Douglas to restart the process, but it was too late in the school year to do so. Cruz's mother died in November 2017, and he did not pursue further services.

After releasing the report, Broward County schools said in a statement that it had used "a multi-disciplinary approach, including [exceptional student education] programming, school counseling/guidance and other related services in an effort to meet the ongoing and evolving needs of this student."

"We accept the recommendations regarding procedural improvements, and are pleased with the overall review, recommendations and findings," said Broward Superintendent Robert Runcie in a statement before the failed redactions were discovered. "We are actively reviewing our policies and procedures, training protocols and data systems in an effort to implement the recommendations in a timely and effective way."

'Burn, Kill, Destroy'

Days after the district report was released, authorities released another document: a transcript of interviews with Cruz conducted hours the shooting.

He said he had a voice in his head that told him to "burn, kill, destroy," a claim the officer attempted to test and push back on throughout the interview, according to a transcript released Aug. 6.

The shooting suspect said he'd felt lonely and isolated, especially since his mother's death, and that he didn't have anyone to discuss his struggles with. Living with the family of a former classmate, he stored a collection of guns he'd amassed since his 18 th birthday in an unlocked safe in his bedroom. Those guns included the AR-15 he is accused of used in the shooting, which he purchased because it was "cool looking," he said.

He said he used some drugs, including Xanax and marijuana. He'd tried to kill himself two months before the shooting by taking nearly an entire bottle of Advil, which he later vomited up.

He said he wanted to be an Army Ranger, but that he'd failed a prerequisite test.

"I am stupid," Cruz said.

Cruz is being held without bail on murder charges.
Staff Writer Evie Blad contributed to this post. Students return to class at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., after former student Nikolas Cruz killed 17 students and teachers.-Terry Renna/AP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parkland Shooting Report Sharpens Focus on Special Education and Due Process

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a contentious meeting in his junior year, then 18-year-old Nikolas Cruz revoked his consent for special education services after he was told that was the only way he could stay at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. But there were other options, said a report released by a firm hired by the...

# data[].attributes.body
1. In general, the topic of due process is important in the counseling field of education because it is the role of school counselors to advocate for students while ensuring they are not a threat to themselves or others. School counselors should have an awareness of student rights so they are able to build a school counseling program that advocates for rights of all students. In situations like school shootings, it could be more challenging to advocate for students who could potentially inflict harm on their school campuses. In addition to advocating for student rights, school counselors also work to address the circumstances that led to the student feeling a need to express themselves violently.

2. Best Practices Related to due process:

Always communicate in a timely manner with those involved in student success (ex. Parents, administrators, teachers, police, therapists/ doctors).

Follow district protocols and utilize district provided tools (screeners) when investigating any threat or emergency situations.

Always interact and participate in any hearings in a calm and appropriate way and do your best to de-escalate situations if necessary.

3. School shootings are unfortunately a constant threat and reality in schools today. Every time there is a school shooting, information always comes out about how it could be prevented. School counselors should pay attention to due process and school shootings because they are first and foremost student advocates, even students who are accused of a crime. It would be good for counselors to have an understanding of how current events have panned out so that situations can be prevented rather than reacted to. Every field within education should focus on continual development and learning from shoot shootings and how they can be addressed or prevented while still protecting the rights of all involved is incredibly important.

4. Sandra Orta is a social worker in Fort Worth ISD. She has worked within the Fort Worth ISD counseling department for over 6 years and was in the Peace Corps prior to working in the education field. She has an amazing ability to reach students and be a safe place during difficult times. She spoke about instances in her career  where parents or a teacher were concerned that a student may act out in violence on campus, but thankfully she has not had a school shooting or a student bring a weapon on campus. She has participated in discipline hearings, which are integral to the protection of a student’s right to due process.

(S. Orta, personal communication, July 15, 2022)

# data[].attributes.body
The 14th Amendment protects a citizen from government interference of their rights without due process.

Citizens have the rights to life, liberty, and property.

Although students operate under multiple jurisdictions, the 14th amendment guarantees they have the right to due process within the school setting.

The 14th Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. XIV.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AMENDMENT XI
Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.
Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

AMENDMENT XII
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment. The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. *Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

AMENDMENT XVIII
Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.
Section 1.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XIX
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XX
Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.
Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.

The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4.

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5.

Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

AMENDMENT XXI
Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.
Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXII
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.
Section 1.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXIII
Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.
Section 1.

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXIV
Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.
Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXV
Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.
Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

AMENDMENT XXVI
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.
Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXVII
Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Back to Constitution Main Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Constitutional Amendments 1-10 make up what is known as The Bill of Rights. Amendments 11-27 are listed below. AMENDMENT XI Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795. Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

# data[].attributes.body
Parents and school districts have the right to an impartial due process hearing.

The hearing must be requested within two years of the incident and notice must be given.

The hearings will utilize impartial hearing officers.

Individuals with Disabilities Act, 20 U.S.C.§1415 (2010).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
300.511 Impartial due process hearing.

(a) General. Whenever a due process complaint is received under §300.507 or §300.532, the parents or the LEA involved in the dispute must have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing, consistent with the procedures in §§300.507, 300.508, and 300.510.

(b) Agency responsible for conducting the due process hearing. The hearing described in paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted by the SEA or the public agency directly responsible for the education of the child, as determined under State statute, State regulation, or a written policy of the SEA.

(c) Impartial hearing officer.

(1) At a minimum, a hearing officer-

(A) An employee of the SEA or the LEA that is involved in the education or care of the child; or

(B) A person having a personal or professional interest that conflicts with the person's objectivity in the hearing;

(ii) Must possess knowledge of, and the ability to understand, the provisions of the Act, Federal and State regulations pertaining to the Act, and legal interpretations of the Act by Federal and State courts;

(iii) Must possess the knowledge and ability to conduct hearings in accordance with appropriate, standard legal practice; and

(iv) Must possess the knowledge and ability to render and write decisions in accordance with appropriate, standard legal practice.

(2) A person who otherwise qualifies to conduct a hearing under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is not an employee of the agency solely because he or she is paid by the agency to serve as a hearing officer.

(3) Each public agency must keep a list of the persons who serve as hearing officers. The list must include a statement of the qualifications of each of those persons.

(d) Subject matter of due process hearings. The party requesting the due process hearing may not raise issues at the due process hearing that were not raised in the due process complaint filed under §300.508(b), unless the other party agrees otherwise.

(e) Timeline for requesting a hearing. A parent or agency must request an impartial hearing on their due process complaint within two years of the date the parent or agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the due process complaint, or if the State has an explicit time limitation for requesting such a due process hearing under this part, in the time allowed by that State law.

(f) Exceptions to the timeline. The timeline described in paragraph (e) of this section does not apply to a parent if the parent was prevented from filing a due process complaint due to-

(1) Specific misrepresentations by the LEA that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the due process complaint; or

(2) The LEA's withholding of information from the parent that was required under this part to be provided to the parent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sec. 300.511 Impartial due process hearing - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Statute/Regs Main " Regulations " Part B " Subpart E " Section 300.511 300.511 Impartial due process hearing. (a) General. Whenever a due process complaint is received under §300.507 or §300.532, the parents or the LEA involved in the dispute must have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing, consistent with the procedures in...

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas School Discipline Laws and Regulations

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas School Discipline Laws and Regulations

# data[].attributes.body
Students have the right to due process in the form of  conferences, hearings, and reviews surrounding discipline issues.

Hearing information needs to be communicated and all parties involved should be timely notified.

Texas School Discipline Laws and Regulations. U.S.Department of Education § 37.009 (2021)

# data[].attributes.body
Integral case in the quest for due process for students.

Ruled that public institutions could not expel without at least minimal due process

Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150 ( U.S. Ct. App 1961). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/186/945/2374127/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama - 186 F. Supp. 945 (M.D. Ala. 1960)
August 26, 1960

St. John DIXON, Bernard Lee, Marzette Watts, Edward English Jones, Joseph Peterson, Elroy Embry, Plaintiffs,
v.
ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Governor John Patterson, Ex-Officio Chairman of Alabama State Board of Education, Montgomery, Alabama, Robert R. Locklin, Mobile, Alabama, J. T. Albritton, Andalusia, Alabama, J. P. Faulk, Jr., Samson, Alabama, Harry M. Ayers, Anniston, Alabama, J. J. Benford, Albertville, Alabama, E. W. Skidmore, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, W. C. Davis, Fayette, Alabama, Cecil Word, Scottsboro, Alabama, Chester Austin, Birmingham, Alabama, as Members of the Alabama State Board of Education, Alabama State College, H. Councill Trenholm, President of Alabama State College, Montgomery, Alabama, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 1634-N.

United States District Court M. D. Alabama, N. D.

August 26, 1960.

*946 Fred Gray, Atty., Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiffs.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen. of Alabama, N. S. Hare and Gordon Madison, Asst. Attys. Gen., Robert P. Bradley, Legal Adviser to the Governor, Montgomery, Ala., for defendants.

JOHNSON, District Judge.

This case is now submitted upon the issues made up by the pleadings, the evidence taken orally before the Court, the several exhibits introduced and admitted, *947 and the briefs of the parties. This Court upon this submission now proceeds in this memorandum opinion, as authorized by Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., to make the appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

This action is brought by six Negroes who were formerly students at the Alabama State College, Montgomery, Alabama, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction to restrain the Alabama State Board of Education, the individual members of that Board, including the Governor as ex-officio chairman, the Alabama State College, and H. Councill Trenholm, as president of the Alabama State College, their agents, representatives, employees, assigns, and successors, from obstructing, hindering, preventing, and otherwise interfering with the plaintiffs' right to attend the Alabama State College in Montgomery, Alabama, as students. Plaintiffs invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Title 28, §§ 1331 and 1343 of the United States Code. Generally, the plaintiffs' complaint avers that they were students in good standing at the Alabama State College and remained so until they entered a publicly owned lunchroom in the Montgomery County Courthouse on or about February 25, 1960, after which and because of which the defendant State Board of Education expelled each of them from the college. The plaintiffs aver that the defendants' action in expelling them was taken without regard to any valid rule or regulation concerning student conduct and was nothing more than a retaliation against, punishment against, and intimidation toward them for having lawfully sought service in a publicly owned lunchroom, which service they had a legal right to seek. Plaintiffs aver they were summarily expelled without notice or opportunity to defend against the charges; that said action by the State Board of Education was arbitrary and in violation of their constitutional rights.

On the 25th day of February, 1960, the six plaintiffs in this case were students in good standing at the Alabama State College for Negroes in Montgomery, Alabama. This college is a state owned and operated institution of higher learning for prospective Negro school teachers; the college is owned by the State of Alabama, and maintained and operated with state funds. The State Board of Education is authorized to control and manage this and several other teacher-college institutions.[1] The State Board of Education has the authority, upon the recommendation of the State Superintendent of Education, to make the rules and regulations for the government of the school.[2] On this date, approximately twenty-nine Negro students, including these six plaintiffs, according to a prearranged plan, entered as a group a publicly owned lunch grill located in the basement of the county courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama, and asked to be served. Service was refused; the lunchroom was closed; the Negroes refused to leave; police authorities were summoned; and the Negroes were ordered outside where they remained in the corridor of the courthouse for approximately one hour. On the same date, John Patterson, as Governor of the State of Alabama and as chairman of the State Board of Education, conferred with Dr. Trenholm, a Negro educator and president of the Alabama State College, concerning this activity on the part of some of the students. Dr. Trenholm was advised by the Governor that the incident should be investigated, and that if he were in the president's position he would consider expulsion and/or other appropriate disciplinary action. On February 26, 1960, several hundred Negro students from the Alabama State College, including several if not all of these plaintiffs, staged a mass attendance at a trial being held in the Montgomery County Courthouse, involving the perjury prosecution of a fellow student. After the trial these students filed two by two from the courthouse and marched through the city approximately two miles back to the college. On February 27, 1960, several hundred Negro students from this school, including several if not all of the plaintiffs in this case, staged mass demonstrations in Montgomery and Tuskegee, Alabama. On this same date, Dr. Trenholm advised all of the student body that these demonstrations and meetings were disrupting the orderly conduct of the business at the college and were affecting the work of the other students, as well as the work of the participating students. Dr. Trenholm personally warned plaintiffs Bernard Lee, Joseph Peterson and Elroy Embry, to cease these disruptive demonstrations immediately, and advised the members of the student body at the Alabama State College to behave themselves and return to their classes. On this same date, Bernard Lee filed a petition with the Governor of the State of Alabama protesting certain statements attributed to the Governor by the press.[3]

On or about March 1, 1960, approximately six hundred students of the Alabama State College engaged in hymn singing and speech making on the steps of the State Capitol. Plaintiff Bernard Lee addressed students at this demonstration, and the demonstration was attended by several if not all of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff Bernard Lee at this time called on the students to strike and boycott the college if any students were expelled because of these demonstrations.

Investigations into this conduct were made by Dr. Trenholm, as president of the Alabama State College, the Director of Public Safety for the State of Alabama under directions of the Governor, and by the investigative staff of the Attorney General for the State of Alabama.

On or about March 2, 1960, the State Board of Education met and received reports from the Governor of the State of Alabama, which reports embodied the investigations that had been made and which reports identified these six plaintiffs, together with several others, as the "ring leaders" for the group of students that had been participating in the above-recited activities. During this meeting, Dr. Trenholm, in his capacity as president of the college, reported to the assembled members of the State Board of Education that the action of these students in demonstrating on the college campus and in certain downtown areas was having a disruptive influence on the work of the other students at the college and upon the orderly operation of the college in general. Dr. Trenholm further reported to the Board that, in his opinion, he as president of the college could not control future disruptions and demonstrations. There were twenty-nine of the Negro students identified as the core of the organization that was responsible for these demonstrations. This group of twenty-nine included these six plaintiffs. After hearing these reports and recommendations and upon the recommendation of the Governor as chairman of the Board, the Board voted unanimously, expelling nine students, including these six plaintiffs, and placing twenty students on probation. This action was taken by Dr. Trenholm as president of the college, acting pursuant to the instructions of the State Board of Education. Each of these plaintiffs, together with the other students expelled, was officially notified of his expulsion on March 4th or 5th, 1960.[4] No formal charges were placed against these students and no hearing was granted any of them prior to their expulsion. On or about March 3, 1960, approximately two thousand Negro students staged a meeting at a church near the college campus. These plaintiffs, or at least a majority of them, were leaders in this demonstration. At this time the State School Board and the college administration were criticized and denounced.[5]

The law is now too well settled and the authorities are now too numerous for this Court to spend any considerable time on the various defenses herein raised by these defendants challenging the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide this type controversy. It suffices to say that jurisdiction is clearly vested by Title 28 U.S.C., §§ 1331 and 1343(3).[6] The various objections raised by these defendants as to the insufficiency of process and that this action is prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are frivolous and merit no discussion. See this Court's opinion and the authorities cited therein in In re Wallace, D.C., 170 F. Supp. 63.

The only real question in this case is whether these plaintiffs were accorded "due process" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States in their expulsion from the Alabama State College by the Alabama State Board of Education.

The right to attend a public college or university is not in and of itself a constitutional right. Waugh v. Board of Trustees, etc., 237 U.S. 589, 35 S. Ct. 720, 59 L. Ed. 1131; Hamilton et al. v. Regents of the University of California et al., 293 U.S. 245, 55 S. Ct. 197, 79 L. Ed. 343. The right to attend and matriculate in a public college or university is conditioned upon an individual student's compliance with the rules and regulations of the institution. The governing board, which in this instance is the State Board of Education, has the authority to establish reasonable rules and regulations for the government of the institution that is committed to its care. The regulations governing students at the Alabama State College for Negroes, which were enacted by the State Board of Education and published in the college catalogue and distributed to all students prior to their enrollment, read, in part, as follows:

"Attendance at any college is on the basis of a mutual decision of the student's parents and of the college. Attendance at a particular college is voluntary and is different from attendance at a public school where the pupil may be required to attend a particular school which is located in the neighborhood or district in which the pupil's family may live. Just as a student may choose to withdraw from a particular college at any time for any personally-determined reason, the college may also at any time decline to continue to accept responsibility for the supervision and service to any student with whom the relationship becomes unpleasant and difficult. Alabama State College seeks to give maximum service to every student who evidences a sincere willingness to accept the leadership and supervision of the college. The college is given authority and is made responsible for the administration of the regulations as set up by the State Board of Alabama. Some excerpts from these official regulations are as follows:

"Every pupil, in addition to complying with the requirements fixed by this Board for entrance into said school, will be required to render strict obedience to all the rules and regulations, for the government of the school and for the conduct of the pupils thereof. The pupils shall conduct themselves in a manner becoming future teachers in the public schools of Alabama, and will be expected to show a spirit of loyalty to the institution they attend, and give willing and ready obedience to the President and faculty in charge of the school. Acts of insubordination, defiance of authority, and conduct prejudicial to discipline and the welfare of the school will constitute grounds for suspension or expulsion from schools.

"Pupils may be expelled from any of the Colleges:

"a. For willful disobedience to the rules and regulations established for the conduct of the schools.

"b. For willful and continued neglect of studies and continued failure to maintain the standards of efficiency required by the rules and regulations.

"c. For conduct prejudicial to the school and for conduct unbecoming a student or future teacher in schools of Alabama, for insubordination and insurrection, or for inciting other pupils to like conduct.

"d. For any conduct involving moral turpitude."

These rules and regulations were promulgated in 1935, and apply to all colleges under the management and control of the State Board of Education. The courts have consistently upheld the validity of regulations that have the effect of reserving to the college the right to dismiss students at any time for any reason without divulging its reason other than its being for the general benefit of the institution. This is true as long as the dismissal is not arbitrary and falls within the classes specified for preserving ideals of scholarship or moral atmosphere. Waugh v. Board of Trustees, supra; Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, supra; Lucy v. Board of Trustees, etc., D.C.N.D.Ala., C.A.No. 652; and the authorities referred to in 14 C.J.S. Colleges and Universities § 26, pp. 1360-1363; 79 C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 503-b, pp. 449-450; and 55 Am.Jur., Universities and Colleges, § 22, p. 15.

Those cases cited by the plaintiffs to this Court which deal with elementary schools requiring compulsory attendance as opposed to state educational institutions of higher learning, permitting attendance upon a basis of mutual agreement, are not applicable in this case.[7] Plaintiffs' complaint that they were expelled without formal charges and without having the opportunity of a hearing and that such action was in violation of their rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not sustained by the majority of the applicable authorities.[8] These many decisions that are contrary to plaintiffs' contention as to this aspect of the case have been criticized,[9] but the fact remains where there is no statute or rule that requires formal charges and/or a hearing, as is the case in Alabama, the prevailing law does not require the presentation of formal charges or a hearing prior to expulsion by the school authorities.

In appraising all the testimony in this case, together with the several exhibits, this Court reaches the firm conclusion that these several plaintiffs in organizing their group and then presenting themselves at the public eating establishment on February 25, 1960, had as their primary purpose the protesting of the discrimination (because of color) on the part of that public eating establishment and others in this area, and had as their aim the intention of focusing public attention upon themselves and upon that discrimination. The obtaining of service was only incidental to those objectives. This Court is of the further opinion that the series of demonstrations, speeches, news releases, petitions, and resolutions that followed the initial demonstration and occurred prior to the expulsion of these plaintiffs was for the same purpose. This Court is of the firm opinion that these plaintiffs, in their zeal to focus public attention upon this area and what they considered to be illegal discrimination as to the members of their race by certain public officials in this area, acted without regard to their status as students at the Alabama State College and acted without considering the damage they were doing to the orderly operation of the Alabama State College during this period.

This Court further finds and concludes in this case that the conduct of these plaintiffs and other students of the Alabama State College from February 25, 1960 until they were expelled or probated on March 5, 1960, in organizing, leading and actively participating in the several demonstrations, was calculated to provoke and did provoke discord, disorder, disturbance and disruption on the campus of the college and in the college classrooms, generally. This Court further finds and concludes that the conduct of these plaintiffs in persisting after warning by the president of the college was flagrantly in violation of the college rules and regulations, was prejudical to the school, constituted insubordination, resulted in inciting other pupils to like conduct, and, in general, was conduct unbecoming a student or future teacher in the schools. This Court is of the further conclusion that the action taken by the defendants as members of the State Board of Education and as officials of the Alabama State College was justified and, in fact, necessary in order that the college could operate and be operated in a proper manner. It is further concluded that the expulsion of these plaintiffs was in good faith, was in the exercise of the authority of the governing board of the Alabama State College, and was not an arbitrary action. It necessarily follows that such action did not operate to deprive any of these plaintiffs of their constitutional rights guaranteed them by the Constitution of the United States.

The pertinent observations, findings and conclusions of this Court, as herein recited, are not to be construed as either an approval or disapproval of the so-called "sit-in" demonstrations; the legality of such actions is not here involved. Nor is anything stated or concluded *953 herein to be construed as an approval or condonation of the operation of publicly owned and maintained lunchrooms where there is practiced discrimination solely on the basis of race in violation of the settled law in Derrington et al. v. Plummer et al., 5 Cir., 1956, 240 F.2d 922, certiorari denied 353 U.S. 924, 77 S. Ct. 680, 1 L. Ed. 2d 719; City of Greensboro et al. v. Simkins et al., 4 Cir., 246 F.2d 425; and Department of Conservation & Development, etc., et al. v. Tate, et al., 4 Cir., 231 F.2d 615.

An appropriate order will be made and entered, in accordance with the foregoing.

NOTES

[1] Section 438, Title 52, 1940 Code of Alabama, as amended:

"§ 438. Control. The state board of education shall have the control and management of the several teachers' colleges of the state, for white teachers, located at Florence, Jacksonville, Livingston, Troy, and of the Alabama State College for Negroes located at Montgomery."

[2] Section 439, Title 52, 1940 Code of Alabama.

[3] "Students Petition the Governor

"To the Honorable Governor John Patterson

"We have taken cognizance of your mandate to President H. Council Trenholm of Alabama State College to dismiss from the School those students who participated in the sitdown strike at the County Court House snack-bar, Thursday, February 25, 1960.

"We, a united group of students of said college, humbly request that you reconsider your order to President Trenholm. This decision is out of tune with the spirit of true Americanism. The snack-bar at the Court House is a symbol of injustice to a part of the citizens of Montgomery. It is a flagrant contr i diction of the Christian and Democratic ideals of our nation.

"We went to the snack-bar not as hoodlums, but in the same manner and spirit in which other college and university students have done in other parts of the country. Our purpose was to express our resentment of a scheme that fails to recognize its responsibility to decent and orderly persons of all creeds, colors or nationalities. Honorable Sir, we did not violate any laws. We did not disturb the peace. We did not disobey the order of the law enforcement officers. Our behavior was in line with what we have been taught. We know you recognize the facts of history in the area of necessary social changes. We grow because of the freedom of individual and group expression in the forms of petition and protest."

* * * * *

"We have no desire for a prolonged and bitter struggle. But we shall not yield our rights and student- s estiny without an extreme effort to retain them. The way we take, we do not know, but our way shall be directed by moral and spiritual designs. Our cause is just. We are asking that you study it with an open mind and give President Trenholm the authority to settle this issue with us.

"We are reasonable and considerate. We may be crushed, but we shall not bow to tyranny."

[4] Letter from Alabama State College, Montgomery, Alabama, dated March 4, 1960, signed by H. Councill Trenholm, President:

"Dear Sir:

"This communication is the official notification of your expulsion from Alabama State College as of the end of the 1960 Winter Quarter.

"As reported through the various news media, The State Board of Education considered this problem of Alabama State College at its meeting on this past Wednesday afternoon. You were one of the students involved in this expulsion-directive by the State Board of Education. I was directed to proceed accordingly.

"On Friday of last week, I had made the recommendation that any subsequently-confirmed action would not be effective until the close of this 1960 Winter Quarter so that each student could thus have the opportunity to take this quarter's examinations and to qualify for as much OH-Pt credit as possible for the 1960 Winter Quarter.

"The State Board of Education, which is made responsible for the supervision of the six higher institutions at Montgomery, Normal, Florence, Jacksonville, Livingston, and Troy (each of the other three institutions at Tuscaloosa, Auburn and Montevallo having separate boards) includes the following in its regulations (as carried on page 32 of The 1958-59 Registration-Announcement of Alabama State College)

"`Pupils may be expelled from any of the Colleges:

"`a. For willful disobedience to the rules and regulations established for the conduct of the schools.

"`b. For willful and continued neglect of studies and continued failure to maintain the standards of efficiency required by the rules and regulations.

"`c. For Conduct Prejudicial to the School and for Conduct Unbecoming a Student or Future Teacher in Schools of Alabama, for Insubordination and Insurrection, or for Inciting Other Pupils to Like Conduct.

"`d. For any conduct involving moral turpitude.'"

[5] The action of the Board is accurately reflected in plaintiffs' Exhibit 3, which reports the recommendation made to the Board by the Governor:

"After a full investigation of the demonstrations carried on by the students of the Alabama State College for Negroes and after careful consideration of the evidence obtained as a result of the investigation, I recommend that the following action be taken:

"1. That the following students be expelled:

Bernard Lee, Norfolk, Virginia

St. John Dixon, National City, California

Edward E. Jones, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania

Leon Rice, Chicago, Illinois

Howard Shipman, New York, New York

Elroy Emory, Ragland, Alabama

James McFadden, Prichard, Alabama

Joseph Peterson, Newcastle, Alabama

Marzette Watts, Montgomery, Alabama

"2. That the following students be placed on probation and allowed to remain in school pending good behavior:

"Henry Allen, Seale, Alabama; Richard Ball, Fairfield, Alabama; Willis C. Battle, Phenix City, Ala.; Cornelius Benson, Birmingham, Alabama; Samuel Bouie, Anniston, Alabama; Floyd Coleman, Sawyerville, Alabama; Henry Crawford, Montgomery, Alabama; James Earl Davis, Prichard, Alabama; Thomas C. Ervin, Heflin, Alabama; Arthur Lee Foster, Montgomery, Ala.; Isham Harris, Troy, Ala.; Jonathan Hicks, Chatom, Ala., Trenholm Hope, Selma, Alabama; Jerry Leon Johnson, Collinsville, Alabama; Andrew William Jones, Birmingham, Ala.; Eddie Lee McSwain, Eufaula, Alabama; Theophilus Moody, Camden, Alabama; Joe Louis Reed, Evergreen, Ala.; William Renfroe, Roba, Alabama; Robert Lee Woods, Heiberger, Alabama.

"3. That all other members of the student body be advised that they will be expected to behave themselves and obey the law and that any future conduct on their part which is in violation of the law or calculated to incite riots and disorders will result in their immediate dismissal from the school.

"/s/ John Patterson"

[6] "§ 1331. Federal question * * *

"(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

"(b) Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where the plaintiff is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $10,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interests and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff."

"§ 1343. Civil rights

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

* * * * *

"(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States."

[7] West Virginia State Board of Education et al. v. Barnette et al., 319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628.

[8] See the annotation in 58 A.L.R.2d 903-920.

[9] See "Dismissal of Students: `Due Process'", 70 Harvard Law Review 1406.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 186 F. Supp. 945 (M.D. Ala. 1960)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama - 186 F. Supp. 945 (M.D. Ala. 1960) August 26, 1960 St. John DIXON, Bernard Lee, Marzette Watts, Edward English Jones, Joseph Peterson, Elroy Embry, Plaintiffs, v. ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Governor John Patterson, Ex-Officio Chairman of Alabama State Board of Education, Montgomery, Alabama, Robert R.

# data[].attributes.body
FWISD students have the right to due process hearings in every case where a suspension may occur. If there is a threat or act of violence towards the school by a student and a suspension occurs, then the student should have an impartial hearing with notification.

Fort Worth ISD. (2022). Student code of conduct. https://www.fwisd.org/Page/27502

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student Discipline and Placement / Student Code of Conduct English 2021-2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leadership Academy at Maude I. Logan Elementary

# data[].attributes.body
School counselors should advocate for students and ensure that due process is followed to protect student rights. According to ASCA (2020), school counselors are to communicate care and understanding while still ensuring due process and diligence.

American School Counselor Association. (2022). ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/44f30280-ffe8-4b41-9ad8-f15909c3d164/EthicalStandards.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Procedures and protocols should always be supported by laws and regulations. In a closer look at due process and especially how it applies to school shootings, it is important to see how ensuring due process can both protect the individual who has been accused and other students. For example, if due process has been followed in the case of Parkland then the student who committed the shooting may have been given the appropriate support which could have resulted in prevention of such a traumatic event. The right to due process is of utmost importance because it is protected by multiple layers of law. Federal, state, local, and even ethical standards shown in this brief all ensure the right to due process. As a school counselor, it it important to advocate for all rights of students. Current events have struck a chord with myself and many others in education. By following procedures and staying up to date with laws and policies, I can work towards better preventing situations like school shootings and can ensure everyone has their voices heard.

# data[].attributes.body
Communicate with all involved parties in a respectful and caring way.

Communicate in a timely manner, in some cases within a few days of any incident.

Stay up to date with current IDEA changes to ensure that students with disabilities are receiving appropriate support.

Follow district protocol when responding and addressing any violent behavior.

Remain impartial and advocate for victims and perpetrators.

Work as a part of a team or committee rather than the sole participant in school threat assessments and due process hearings.

Work towards preventing unfavorable situations rather than reacting to them.