ILNews

Plan: protect educators who discipline students

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels wants more legal protection for educators who discipline students to keep order in their schools.

A news release issued this morning announced the governor's plans to work with lawmakers in the coming legislative session to pass a law providing legal immunity for those teachers and school staff members who, in good faith, discipline students. He also wants the Indiana Attorney General's Office to use its statutory authority to defend any teacher who becomes the target of unreasonable litigation.

The Republican governor made the announcement in Fort Wayne, one of several spots he's visiting this week to unveil a series of announcements about proposed K-12 and higher education policy he hopes for if re-elected in November. This issue is one the governor has heard about from teachers statewide, according to spokeswoman Jane Jankowski.

In the release, the governor cited three examples: a central Indiana student who filed a tort claim notice for injuries against a gym teacher who required the student to do push-ups over an infraction; another student in the Indianapolis area filed claims against school personnel after teachers tried to separate two students involved in a fight; and a northern Indiana student sued the school and principal for attempting to restrain that student during a fight.

The governor noted that a number of states have laws protecting teachers. Those state statutes are being examined as potential models, according to the governor's office.

Student discipline is an issue the Indiana Court of Appeals recently addressed in State v. Paula J. Fettig, No. 49A02-0709-CR-807, a Marion County appeal that came down in April involving a Beech Grove teacher's discipline of a student in gym class. The court upheld the trial judge's dismissal of a battery charge against the teacher, writing that Indiana Code sections 20-33-8-8(b) and 20-33-8-9 protect the teacher from prosecution by stating that teachers "can take any action that is reasonably necessary to carry out or to prevent an interference with an educational function that an individual supervises."

The appellate court noted that "a dearth" of modern caselaw exists on this issue and most of its authority dates to the late 19th century. As a result, appellate courts have removed teacher corporal punishment mostly from jury discretion and put that responsibility in the courts' hands.

That decision drew a dissent from Judge James Kirsch, who wrote that times have changed since that precedent was established and that he has serious doubts that today's Supreme Court would uphold that precedent. Many countries and states now ban corporal punishment in schools, he wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT