In loco parentis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term en loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent", refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. American courts primarily apply the doctrine of in loco parentis to educational institutions. Originally derived from British common law, it was applied as a broad provision allowing such institutions to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, allowing what would otherwise be considered violations of the students' civil liberties.
The first major limitation to this came in the Supreme Court case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1942), in which it ruled that students cannot be forced to salute the American flag against their will. More prominent change came in the 1960s and 1970s in such cases as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), when the Supreme Court decided that "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."
Many provisions of in loco parentis have been upheld over time. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) upheld the search of lockers and other personal space while on school property, indicating that students are not afforded the same rights as adults in other settings and stating that while acting in loco parentis, school officials are still representatives of the state. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1987) the Supreme Court similarly ruled that "First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment" and schools may censor school-sponsored publications (such as a school newspaper) if content is "...inconsistent with its basic educational mission." Other student issues, such as dress codes, have not yet been tested in the Supreme Court.
Private institutions are given significantly more authority over their students than public ones, and are generally allowed to arbitrarily dictate rules. In the Kentucky State Supreme Court case Gott v. Berea College, it was upheld that a "...college or university may prescribe requirements for admission and rules for the conduct of its students, and one who enters as a student impliedly agrees to conform to such rules of government", while publicly funded institutions could not claim the same ability.
