|
A supreme call, in my opinion
By Jim Walsh
 The U.S. Supreme Court believes that Kerry Wilson overreacted. But the court had the good sense to leave it at that, rather than opening the door to a six-figure claim of damages against the assistant principal of the middle school in the Safford Unified School District in Arizona.
I expect by now you have read of the court’s decision in Safford USD #1 v. Redding. Eight members of the Supreme Court held that Wilson violated the constitutional rights of Savana Redding when he ordered a strip search of the 13-year-old in pursuit of a prescription-strength ibuprofen. In so doing, the court made it clear that not all searches are created equal. Searches by school officials that involve underwear will be judged by different standards than a look-see into the backpack.
But seven members of the court were sympathetic to Wilson, noting that “we mean to cast no ill reflection on the assistant principal.” Justice David Souter observed that “parents are known to overreact to protect their children from danger, and a school official with responsibility for safety may tend to do the same.”
Thus, Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity, a legal deflector shield, protecting him from personal liability. The court acknowledged that the law about strip searches was not so “clearly established” at the time of this incident. Even though Savana’s constitutional rights were violated, she will not be able to recover damages from Wilson.
There are many ways to correct a mistake in judgment, and many ways to hold school officials accountable for violations of law or policy. In the litigation culture, there are those who believe that nothing short of a humongous penalty of monetary damages will do the job. Of course, many of those who hold that view also have a vested interest in that outcome. The lawyer who wins that award for his client usually shares in the bounty.
But if we really believe in local control of our schools, we also have to trust that wise administrators and board members can take corrective action that is swifter, less complicated and more appropriate. Someone in authority ought to tell Wilson that he messed up. He invaded a student’s privacy without a compelling reason to do so. If the Safford USD did not get that message before the Supreme Court’s decision, it certainly should have received it by now.
Litigation polarizes. When accused of wrongdoing (especially when big dollar figures are tossed around), people get defensive. They circle the wagons and seek to justify their courses of action in any way possible. Litigation is all about who is right, who is wrong and who should be ashamed. That system works for the lawyers, but it does not serve the people well.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case points the way to a saner solution — a recognition that not every legal wrong has to be compensated with money.
Let’s hope that everyone comes out a winner after this case. This decision recognizes and protects student privacy. As a result of the decision, hopefully, fewer kids will be subjected to the humiliation that Savana Redding experienced. Assistant principals now have clearer guidance on what is acceptable in a search, which hopefully means fewer will put themselves in legal jeopardy. Moreover, principals and superintendents should understand that they can — and should — take strong corrective action when assistant principals or teachers make serious mistakes. The Supreme Court set a good example for us here. It credited Wilson with good motives, but it did not end the inquiry there. It assessed Wilson by his actions in light of prevailing legal standards. The court took corrective action without shaming anyone. That’s a good model for anyone in a position of authority.
JIM WALSH is editor in chief of Texas School Business and the managing editor of Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest. Also a school attorney, he co-founded the firm of Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Gallegos & Green, P.C. He can be reached at jwalsh@wabsa.com or by visiting www.walshanderson.com.
|
