law and juvenile justice for people of color in elementary and secondary schools, The

Journal of Negro Education, The, Summer 2002 by Brown, Frank, Russo, Charles J, Hunter, Richard C

Laws affecting juveniles, however, cannot be confined to the delinquent behavior of students' lives while enrolled in school but they have consequences for life after school. In the past, juvenile crimes brought before a juvenile court were closed to the public. Now juvenile records are available to be counted as a third strike later in life. The transfer of student delinquents from juvenile courts to adult courts has other implications. We need to ask if 13- and 14-year-olds are mature enough and have sufficient knowledge to defend their rights under the Constitution in adult courts. The age at which a juvenile may be transferred from juvenile court to adult courts differs from state to state. Even the language differs from state to state: some refer to such a transfer as a "waiver" of juvenile rights, "bindover" from juvenile court to adult court, or a "trigger" delinquent behavior requiring a transfer from a juvenile court to an adult. Examples of cases where juvenile delinquents transferred to adult courts are presented and discussed but an exhaustive review of court cases on this subject is beyond the scope of this article.

All categories of students are not considered alike under the laws of the federal and state governments. Special education students, at least theoretically, are treated differently if they have an emotional disability. Children from ages 3 to 21 with a disability must be provided with special education services according to the federal law. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that special education students may not be expelled from school due to violent behavior if that behavior is caused by his/her disability (Murdick, Gartin, & Crabtree, 2002). The U.S. Supreme Court in Honig v. Doe (1988) ruled that such behavior must not be a manifestation of the student's disability. Schools may suspend such a student for a minimum of 10 days, unless there is evidence that the student may do harm to himself/herself, another student, or teacher (see East Islip Union Free School District v. Anderson, 1994; School Board of Pinellas County v. J.M. by L.M., 1997). However, IDEA allows school officers to report criminal behavior by a special education student to law enforcement authorities or supply a special education student's disciplinary records to law enforcement authorities (Murdick et al., 2002). School authorities have the right to transfer a student with a disability to an interim alternative setting for up to 45 days for the possession of a weapon or illegal drugs on school grounds or at a school function under the Gun-Free Schools Act and the Drug-Free Schools Act (Murdick et al., 2002).

These laws extend beyond schools to housing for the poor. These laws affect the poor only, because middle-income families do not qualify for federally funded public housing. The Federal "Zero-Tolerance" laws of 1994 and 1996 involving weapons and illegal drugs on school grounds also included weapons and drug possession in any federally funded housing (Stevenson, 2002). The law states that anyone entering a public housing unit who is connected to illegal drugs will cause the tenant to be evicted, even if the tenant did not know the visitor or did not invite the person to their home. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this part of the law as just, but some lower courts are not abiding by the strict legal guidelines supported by the Supreme Court (Stevenson, 2002). For example, a public housing resident who likes to braid hair to make extra income had a potential client to inquire about getting his hair braided. He made an appointment but was arrested for drug use before he could keep the appointment. The Public Housing Authority in Durham, North Carolina sought an eviction of the tenant because a police officer observed the person visiting the home prior to his arrest for the possession of illegal drugs. However, a North Carolina Appellate Court ruled in favor of the tenant-a disabled mother with three small children (Stevenson, 2002). Others are not likely to be as fortunate. Still, the importance of this case should not be lost on minority children who become involved with drugs for any reason. If the children are convicted of using or selling illegal drugs, or are found in the presence of those who traffic in drugs, their parents may be evicted from public housing. Additionally, if they are convicted of the sale or use of drugs and wish to attend college, they will not be able to qualify for government guaranteed student loans. Again, it is unlikely that the wealthy will find themselves in this position because mainly children from poor and lower middle-income families can qualify for such loans.