Case Summary and Outcome

Facts

A student at a public school expressed his political views and criticized his school and the legal regime governing education in Chile. His school’s administration refused to renew his enrollment. The justification for this step was a teachers’ committee decision stating that education was not the student’s main priority, since he primarily spent his time on political activities at the school, and that these activities were not part of the school’s educational goals.

The student’s mother filed an action to enforce constitutional rights (recurso de protección) before the Court of Appeals of Antofagasta. The action argued that the decision not to renew her son’s enrollment due to his political ideas and the expression of these ideas through legal means (meetings and the delivery of “written materials” to his classmates) “create[d] a form of arbitrary, illegal and unjustified discrimination” [p. 2]. The action also stated that the measure was disproportionate, since her son’s behavior was normal for a child of his age, and although he expressed his disagreement with the systems in place, he did so within a framework of respect and legality.

The school’s attorneys requested the court to quash the action to enforce constitutional rights on the grounds that the school has not committed any “illegal or arbitrary actions”. Particularly, they indicated that the student made “purely political calls to action” in his criticism of his school and the legal regime governing Chilean education. The school’s counsel explained that the student ran for the presidency of the School Students’ Center on a platform entitled “May ‘68,” honoring the liberation movements that took place in Paris in May 1968.

They also noted several examples of “propaganda” spread by the student and a large poster […] which was placed in multiple locations in front of the school. An example of the propaganda statement was:

• “Against market education, against Pinochet’s and his sister’s LOCE [Organic Constitutional Education Law, Ley Orgánica Constitucional de Enseñanza], the LGE [General Education Law, Ley General de Educación] that came about through what was obviously a deal between Concertación and the Right.
• No LOCE, no LGE! Let’s fight against the growing precariousness of education, work, and art! […] Let’s fight to rebuild our students’ centers and federations based on Direct Student Democracy, with delegates who can be recalled at any time. Because the PSU [University Entrance Exam, Prueba de Selección Universitaria] is a class-based filter for public and private schools.
• Let’s fight for unrestricted access to university! No to the PSU! […] We call on the other organizations in our school […] to reject these laws; they have been silent about this and haven’t fought to give the student movement an independent political vision against the Government and the right, which have exacerbated market-based education […]
• Let’s stand up for a movement for a Second University Reform. For free, public education at all levels. Let’s rebuild the federations and the CCAA [Students’ Centers, Centros de Alumnos] based on direct democracy. Unrestricted admission to University. For student-labor unity” [p.4-6].

The Antofagasta Court of Appeals dismissed the action to enforce constitutional rights filed by the student’s mother because it did not show that the school principal had committed an arbitrary or illegal act or omission that violated any constitutional guarantees. The Appeals Court declared that the school’s code of conduct authorized terminating the student’s enrollment upon conducting an internal procedure, in extremely serious cases, and that the contract for the provision of educational services was signed by the parties for only one school year. The student’s mother appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court reviewed the original judgment, it ruled that the public school administrators’ decision was arbitrary and contrary to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution, given that it punished the legitimate communication of ideas. Consequently, it reversed the original judgment and ordered the school to renew the student’s enrollment and adopt the necessary measures to reinstate him.

Decision Overview