In exercise 5-7 the argument is whether or not high school students should abide by the rules of the school,

including dress code, language, expression and so on. The exercise says that courts have ruled that high school students do not lose their rights as citizens when they go to a public high school: they still have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press The exercise then says Assume (for the purposes of this question) that we accept the legal principle that high schools have the right to restrict dress when necessary to maintain order and disruption of education and goes on to talk about the who should have the burden of proof? I believe the exercise sees the school as having to bear the burden of proof by saying the courts ruling on students not losing their rights as citizens when they go to a public high school. That though, I believe is a weak argument. Can a citizen go around disturbing the peace and imposing a clear and present danger to the surrounding civilians? Come on, of course not. I stand on the schools side on this one. I believe the burden of proof is on the high school student to carry the burden of proof. I have a few arguments as to why I stand on the schools side on this. I believe, since a school is private property, (meaning its not your land, but owned by the district), that you should have to abide by the rules and code of ethics which the school and school board have set. Also, a student should not be able to disturb the peace for the sake of making a statement, being rebellious, or the popular cause it makes me look cool, I like it and its my face. What I mean by evoking the private property clause, is that a person has to abide by the rules set by the organization theyre willing and going to pertain to. I will give you an example. You reading this, voluntarily let me in to your house to provide me with a service. What service? Lets say youre going to cook for me a very delicious three course meal, with sujuk as appetizer,

for the main course a nice moussaka dish and for desert baklava! But before you let me into your house you said Giorgio, you cant go into the kitchen with the reason being irrelevant. If I step into that kitchen, do you not have the right to kick me out of your house? Whether because stepping into kitchen I fall down a secret trap door that only you know about and I increase your insurance premium or because you said so. With reason being irrelevant, because I want to partake with you in something that I have no right to, I have to comply with your rules if I want to partake. If I blatantly step into your kitchen can you say, Giorgio, please leave. Yeah I believe you can and you will. So if a school says no nose rings, reason being irrelevant, and the kid puts it on, he should be justly dealt with. My next point is about disturbing the peace. If a teacher feels that what youre doing is disruptive and not allowing her to do the very thing that people go to school to do, learn and be taught, then the school has the right to castigate you for your mischief. For example, in your house, I pose a threat to your wife and daughter, or siblings, or parents or any other loved one in proximity. Whether it be a physical threat or a threat to the beliefs and standards of your family, do you not have the right, to at the very least kick me out of your house? And if I dont comprendo, with finding the exit, can you not kick my butt? I mean I do have my first amendment! The intent of the founding fathers and the law was that in a civil and orderly fashion, people have the right to whatever religion they wish and can say as they wish and publish what they wish, until they start posing a threat to their neighbors and to their country. Since I have the right to free speech, can I yell bomb threat in a school? Can I pull down a fire alarm to freely express my emotions? If I decide to not go to a school cause I cant have my butt showing through my shorts or a ring in my adenoids, then with my freedom of expression, I

will attend another school. So if a kid with a nose ring feels he doesnt disturb the class or the learning environment he should bear the burden of proof. In conclusion, I feel the high school student should have to bear the burden of proof, because hes the one that potentially is inhibiting the learning process, and because he is doing so, he should be the one to oppose and defend that he is not doing as the school says he is. If high schools are like the ones I went to, and students have to sign a sheet saying he will behave accordingly to the rules established, he has no right to disobey the school and if he wishes to change a rule, he should have to prove that he is not posing a hindrance on other students.