Free Speech - The Right to Rip Your Teacher

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, that headline grabbed me. When I first read this I thought it was fairly open and shut: blogging insults about your teacher, especially off school grounds, is entirely protected free speech. Any punishment should be fought tooth and nail.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/05/lawmakers-press-free-speech-foul-mouth-blog-case/

 

But then I got to wondering how it is school authorities achieve the power to restrict freedom of movement, behaviors and etc constitutionally, let alone speech, in the first place. Is it rights that we, the parents, grant the school upon enrollment and admittance? Something I was supposed to have read before I signed?

 

At any rate, I have no sympathy for the "technology" excuse. Schools need to review and flex their procedures and rule structure to respond to changes in technology without trampling on our rights. I really have no idea where they're going with that excuse anyway - you can restrict the use of any electronic gizmos you want. Enforcement might be difficult, so what else is new?

 

This floored me:

 

"Generally speaking, these are the kinds of decisions that we would say are best left in the hands of school boards," said Tom Hutton, senior staff attorney for the NSBA. Legislatures are often years behind changes in technology, Hutton said, leaving their laws "stuck in time," whereas schools can react much more rapidly.

 

Yeah that's cute. The school board is best to decide what part of the constitution will be followed.

[padren]

That article definitely upset me when I read it. I recall my shenanigans in high school... I don't want to go into details but the administrative body went along with a plan that where they signed off on irreversible upgrades that they thought "would not cost more in maintenance" knowing full well they would, and then completely screwed the students, allowing them to suffer so the funding would have to be increased. We'd be learning the final material in physics before an exam week and our teacher would get sick, but since they could not afford substitutes we'd have to go to study hall and the couch would try and walk us through quantum physics - for days at a time. If you missed a class your teacher was present for, it was up to the teacher if you got in trouble, but if you didn't know your teacher was sick that day and you missed a class you'd be suspended for three days no matter what.

 

My point being - free speech is rather important and there is very little a student could say that would not be considered to reflect poorly on the school in such a situation. I recall letters to the editor in the local community newspaper of parents taking students out of that school directly because of my rather public shenanigans - but even then I never had an issue of being censored by the school.

[Pangloss]

Okay.

 

But there are very few absolutes when it comes to minors and the Constitution. Freedom of speech is not one of them, even for adults.

[Mokele]

But then I got to wondering how it is school authorities achieve the power to restrict freedom of movement, behaviors and etc constitutionally, let alone speech, in the first place. Is it rights that we, the parents, grant the school upon enrollment and admittance? Something I was supposed to have read before I signed?

 

Some of it is indeed from the parent's consent/demand that their kids be educated (remember, education used to not be mandatory, and it was the parents who insisted it should be, way back when).

 

But some of it is also from the perspective of "disrupting the learning environment". For instance, it's acceptable to dispute a teacher's claim in class, but not to drag out the argument so it takes up the entire class period, simply because in doing so, you're depriving the other students of their lesson.

[padren]

Okay.

 

But there are very few absolutes when it comes to minors and the Constitution. Freedom of speech is not one of them, even for adults.

 

I entirely agree it's probably not a Constitutional issue - or at least not a clear one. We have tons of situations in which nondisclosure is vitally important, and other situations where it's agreed upon via gag orders etc. Contracts can override free speech quite easily.

 

My general point has to do with ethics - a school may not like what a student has to say outside of school, but the school has the unique position of being allowed to enact disciplinary actions against students, and appears to be using that ability to punish a student for something that isn't related to their performance or school activity at all.

 

Ethically, even if not Constitutionally, I consider that an abuse of power.

[Pangloss]

You may consider discipline for actions taken off school grounds an abuse of power, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you, ruling in Morse v. Frederick (per the article ParanoiA linked in the OP) that schools can discipline students for something that happens off school grounds.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

 

It's important to remember that the reason minors aren't provided the full measure of constitutional rights is because they're not capable of understanding the responsibilities that come with citizenship. Nobody is born with that understanding. It has to be learned.

 

Those constitutional rights that they do enjoy revolve primarily around protecting them from others, not around allowing them to exercise freedoms they don't yet understand the power of.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's a school-sponsored event. I don't think the Internet is quite the same.

[Pangloss]

It was off school property, so it meets padren's criteria above. And classes (like the one this girl was criticizing) are also official school events.

 

There are many aspects to this case, I agree. But my main point is just that kids simply do not enjoy the constitutional rights that people seem to assume they do.

 

It's worth noting that the law being proposed in the article is not the same thing as the constitution. If the constitution guaranteed these rights, then there would be no need for such a law. So the law itself would be a recognition that the basis doesn't exist in the first place. I'm surprised that the girl supports it, since it undermines her case before the Supreme Court. But that just goes to show you that children don't always understand the full measure of their actions, which of course is why they do not enjoy the full measure of constitutional rights in the first place.

[ParanoiA]

But some of it is also from the perspective of "disrupting the learning environment". For instance, it's acceptable to dispute a teacher's claim in class, but not to drag out the argument so it takes up the entire class period, simply because in doing so, you're depriving the other students of their lesson.

 

Well, that's more about what drives the necessity for authority and I don't dispute that. I don't have any issues necessarily with controlling the kiddos, my question is about where that authority technically comes from, legally.

 

In other words, if a school official detains a student, for whatever reason, what law supports the force to do that? I would think that verbiage would be detailed somewhere. I'm thinking I basically handed that authority to the school system with my signature somewhere in the enrollment paperwork, but I'm not sure.

 

Ethically, even if not Constitutionally, I consider that an abuse of power.

 

Same here. If nothing else, are they not under my authority, my gaurdianship when not on school grounds? I mean, children don't lose their rights to the nearest adult, just because they're kids. At some point, a threshold must exist, I would think. Otherwise, I'm suing the school for neglect. They do a terrible job of raising them, I'm over here doing practically everything except readin' and writin' and 'rithmetic.

 

You may consider discipline for actions taken off school grounds an abuse of power' date=' but the Supreme Court disagrees with you, ruling in Morse v. Frederick (per the article ParanoiA linked in the OP) that schools can discipline students for something that happens off school grounds.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick[/quote']

 

Yeah, I never agreed with the ruling in that case either. That case is just as juicy as this one.

 

It's important to remember that the reason minors aren't provided the full measure of constitutional rights is because they're not capable of understanding the responsibilities that come with citizenship. Nobody is born with that understanding. It has to be learned.

 

There's no arguing with that, it's a good point. We've had a few threads lately that touch on children's rights. I'm thinking somebody needs to start a discussion on it. I know I would certainly get something out of it.

 

I'm surprised that the girl supports it, since it undermines her case before the Supreme Court. But that just goes to show you that children don't always understand the full measure of their actions, which of course is why they do not enjoy the full measure of constitutional rights in the first place.

 

But it doesn't undermine the result she wants though. Of course, that still supports your point that they don't always understand the full measure of their actions. The ends don't justify the means, yadda yadda.

[Sisyphus]

In other words, if a school official detains a student, for whatever reason, what law supports the force to do that? I would think that verbiage would be detailed somewhere. I'm thinking I basically handed that authority to the school system with my signature somewhere in the enrollment paperwork, but I'm not sure.

 

I'm not sure either. They are responsible for them, which I guess necessarily includes a certain degree of authority over them. But really, that particular case doesn't need a law backing it up. They're not going to physically restrain the kid in detention and they probably couldn't legally do so (I'm guessing), but they can say that a kid who can't follow even that degree of authority gets failed or tossed out of school.

[iNow]

Schools seem to be able to do just about anything they want. Just recently, a teacher in Texas was suspended just for being an atheist and "too" liberal.

 

 

http://democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts/27752-texas-teacher-suspended-for-being-liberal-and-an-atheist

 

Then on January 7th, a student in my classroom in second period left my class, went to the Principal's office, and told him that there was an inappropriate discussion in my classroom. I was informed by the principal, Richard Turner, that I needed to talk to her mother because she was very upset. Her mother came to class on January 7th, came to the school January 7th, very upset. She made some threats to me in the hallway. And then on January 8th, Mr. Turner informed me that I needed to call the parent, Mrs. Lowe. On January 9th, I had Vicki Smith, the school secretary, call "REDACTED" on my behalf to arrange a conference at 10:35 Monday, January 12th. Monday the 12th, I met with REDACTED and School Principal Richard Turner in his office. REDACTED was very angry. She accused me of being an atheist, saying I was too liberal, and that I allowed the students to talk about inappropriate things in the classroom. I told her that occasionally students would get on topics and say things, but I was unable to censor them before they were able to say them. She said that I called her daughter a name and I denied the accusation. But then she said that I didn't believe in god and shouldn't be teaching. She also said that she had spoken to 3 other board members who agreed with her that I shouldn't be teaching because I was too liberal and I was an atheist.

 

On January 15th, there was a board meeting. Nothing was on the agenda concerning me. During the open forum, several audience members spoke to their concerns that I was an atheist and I was too liberal. On January 16th, I was called to Mr. Richard Turner's office (my principal), and he informed me that I had been put on administrative leave with pay. The reasons, as stated to me by Mr. Turner at the time, were that I was accused of being an atheist and teaching atheism in the classroom, and I was too liberal. On January 23rd, Mr. Turner and members of the board met behind closed doors concerning my suspension and allegations that were directed at me. On January 24th, I received a certified letter from Mr. Turner that stated that the causes for my suspension apparently had been changed to inappropriate contact with students and comments.

 

 

As PZ noted, it sure is a good thing they didn't think he was a witch, or he'd have been strung up and hung, or possibly burned at the stake by now.

[Pangloss]

But it doesn't undermine the result she wants though. Of course, that still supports your point that they don't always understand the full measure of their actions. The ends don't justify the means, yadda yadda.

 

Yes, she's doing a good job of learning the lesson of "How To Get What You Want No Matter The Cost To Society". She's also making great strides in the lesson of "Get Your Face On Every Television Program", which as we all know is required when defending your Constitutional rights (Article 12, wasn't it?). I believe there's even a picture of her and her mom, grim and determined in the face of The Powers That Be.

 

She'll make an exemplary addition to our society. I wonder if Oprah has called yet.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's important to remember that the reason minors aren't provided the full measure of constitutional rights is because they're not capable of understanding the responsibilities that come with citizenship. Nobody is born with that understanding. It has to be learned.

 

Those constitutional rights that they do enjoy revolve primarily around protecting them from others, not around allowing them to exercise freedoms they don't yet understand the power of.

 

I think the same applies to presidents?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Says the article,

A state lawmaker is

proposing legislation that would bar schools

from punishing students for their electronic insults, even if they write them on class computers during school hours.

...

Doninger's digital disdain became a national cause after school authorities

barred her from running for office

at Lewis B. Mills High School in Burlington, Conn., where she had been class secretary as a junior. Her family believes the punishment was a violation of Doninger's First Amendment rights and that the school "showed a phenomenal disregard for basic liberties," her mother, Lauren Doninger, told FOXNews.com.

 

Not sure I see anything wrong here. The kid is free to say anything she likes, but that doesn't mean she is immune to the consequences. I'm not even sure this would qualify as a punishment -- what administration would want someone who publicly calls them douche bags to hold an office? While I think that the administrators have now publicly shown themselves to be douche bags like they were accused of being, being a douche bag isn't illegal. I hope the kids don't think that they can insult their bosses publicly and still expect to get a promotion.

 

ParanoiA, forgive me if I misunderstand you, but aren't you opposed to excess laws? Why support a law that restricts what schools can do? Shouldn't this be a local issue?

 

PS: Can a kid go to a different school, or do they have to go to a particular school?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Incidentally, the proposed bill does not look like the monstrosities that I've come to expect (takes up part of one page). That's refreshing. I think its a state bill, but I can't be sure.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[D H]

The kid is free to say anything she likes, but that doesn't mean she is immune to the consequences.

Consequences such as being sued for libel and slander, for instance. Freedom of speech is not, as Pangloss already noted, is not an absolute. If I wrote some falsehood that inflamed my employer and their clients, I would be fired at a minimum and possibly sued as well. This proposed legislation is ridiculous pandering.

[swansont]

You may consider discipline for actions taken off school grounds an abuse of power, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you, ruling in Morse v. Frederick (per the article ParanoiA linked in the OP) that schools can discipline students for something that happens off school grounds.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

 

 

"The opinion first concluded that Frederick's "Bong Hits" banner was displayed during a school-supervised event, making this a "school speech" case rather than a normal case of speech on a public street."

 

This case is missing that crucial element. How is this case not a "normal case of speech on a public street?"

 

I hope this policy isn't applied retroactively by my school district. I called school officials D-B's and worse when I was a student.

[padren]

Not sure I see anything wrong here. The kid is free to say anything she likes, but that doesn't mean she is immune to the consequences. I'm not even sure this would qualify as a punishment -- what administration would want someone who publicly calls them douche bags to hold an office? While I think that the administrators have now publicly shown themselves to be douche bags like they were accused of being, being a douche bag isn't illegal. I hope the kids don't think that they can insult their bosses publicly and still expect to get a promotion.

 

Firstly, an administration doesn't get to choose who gets elected by the student body, the student body does by electing them, they are generally organized so haphazardly that there are not any real fixed rules as to who is allowed to run or not.

Secondly, it's a public school, so the teachers and administrators are there to provide a public service that the students are (within reason*) entitled to. If this was a private school I wouldn't doubt the student could be expelled without the school overstepping any boundaries whatsoever.

 

* by within reason, of course schools can expel or suspend students that disrupt the environment that other students are entitled to and such. Actually I am not sure if they even had a direct policy on what students can write at home. If they clearly stated in their rules that actions such as hers would result in a punishment at least then there was fair warning, but if not it makes the punishment worse, as it's basically saying a student can be punished for breaking a rule that didn't exist until they decided it was one after the fact.

[Pangloss]

"The opinion first concluded that Frederick's "Bong Hits" banner was displayed during a school-supervised event, making this a "school speech" case rather than a normal case of speech on a public street."

 

This case is missing that crucial element. How is this case not a "normal case of speech on a public street?"

 

I hope this policy isn't applied retroactively by my school district. I called school officials D-B's and worse when I was a student.

 

That's the thing about the Web, it can be viewed either way. What was the purpose of her public rant? Was it intended to provoke opinions amongst her classmates? Does it matter what it was intended to do, or does it only matter what effect it actually had (e.g. only 3 visitors)? These are questions that lawmakers and courts have not yet decided.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Not sure I see anything wrong here. The kid is free to say anything she likes, but that doesn't mean she is immune to the consequences. I'm not even sure this would qualify as a punishment -- what administration would want someone who publicly calls them douche bags to hold an office? While I think that the administrators have now publicly shown themselves to be douche bags like they were accused of being, being a douche bag isn't illegal. I hope the kids don't think that they can insult their bosses publicly and still expect to get a promotion.

 

I wondered about that as well. She wasn't even suspended, she was only stopped from running for class president, for pete's sake. Not exactly a big deal.

 

We seem to be doing that a lot these days, teaching kids that it doesn't matter what's right or wrong, it only matters what Oprah can convince people of on television.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Lemme run a little example by you guys of something that happened to me when I was in high school, and let's see if we can apply this example in a hypothetical way to today's environment.

 

I was in something called "Academic Bowl", which was a kind of quiz-show-like game that schools would put up teams to compete in. It was like a debate team, in a sense -- we had a squad of students and two faculty members to "captain" us, and we'd go around the state entering competitions. We were a small school and lost a lot, but it was great fun.

 

In my senior year we went to state finals, in a little town in central Georgia known mostly as the place where the infamous Andersonville Civil War prison was at. It's a very quiet town with literally nothing to do aside from touring that landmark, so after that tour we went back to the hotel and settled down for the night. Well there were students from other schools staying there as well, and some of them gathered around the pool. But there wasn't really anything interesting going on, so most of us just went to bed early. But we didn't notice that one of our freshman students had disappeared.

 

He showed up later a little drunk, after having gone to get beer with older students from another school. We didn't know anything about it. I did *literally nothing*, but I was suspended from school for a week and had to write a long essay about responsibility. All of the students got the same punishment and the team was disbanded. I don't recall what happened to the freshman kid who got drunk. (This was almost 30 years ago!)

 

Nobody had ever told us to watch out for this kid. We had two adult minders who had been up in their hotel room during this pool gathering. Nothing at all happened at the pool, no drugs, no alcohol, nothing (that we saw anyway -- apparently the booze was out in the parking lot). We did literally nothing, and yet we were suspended and had permanent marks put on our records.

 

So really what I think happened is that the adults were doing a bit of CYA. They didn't want to admit that they had lost control of the situation, and parents were complaining, so they needed some place to put the blame. After all, their jobs were on the line, but these kids were just... kids. Who cares?

 

Looking back on it now it doesn't really bother me. But at the time I thought it was a huge outrage, and I can only imagine what I would have done if I'd known that I could bust out a web site, or call Dr. Phil and get these adults in trouble. And maybe that's a little bit of good, in the sense that accountability would have been put back into the picture. But at what cost? Isn't the real solution NOT depending on attention-seeking methods to add accountability to schools? Do we really want Oprah policing our schools? Surely we can do better than that.

 

What I'm suggesting here is that even when the school does something to a kid that's completely wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean that a huge drama needs to erupt and a massive correction needs to take place. I'm not saying we should excuse serious crimes like rape or abuse, but in cases where the adult mistakenly disciplines a child, or some minor penalty like this doesn't seem to fit whatever minor crime has taken place, there is a huge drawback to the general public getting involved. We end up asking all sorts of questions that just are not warranted by the events, nor are we qualified to answer them from this distance.

 

It's like using a bazooka to swat a fly -- you miss the fly and cause a lot of collateral damage, right? Had I done something about the above, I could have ended two careers. Is that really better than what happened? Really? Aside from that one negative experience, I have POSITIVE memories of both of those adults. They were incredibly beneficial to my early learning -- I wouldn't have gone to college without their tutelage. And I know they did the same for hundreds if not thousands of other students. Is this one mistake in judgment really enough to destroy all that? I don't think so. But I sure did at the time!

 

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say kids aren't able to make these calls. And we feed them right into the fire of Oprah and Dr. Phil. Are we insane?

Edited February 6, 2009 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

That's the thing about the Web, it can be viewed either way. What was the purpose of her public rant? Was it intended to provoke opinions amongst her classmates? Does it matter what it was intended to do, or does it only matter what effect it actually had (e.g. only 3 visitors)? These are questions that lawmakers and courts have not yet decided.

 

I don't see why intent or effect matters. She wasn't in school or participating in a school-sponsored event, which was the reason why the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" sign fell under the jurisdiction of the school. To me, that's the point.

 

How is this different, from a school jurisdiction perspective, from someone speaking this in public, or saying it over the phone? Or saying it, and being recorded on someone's video recorder, and having them post in on youtube? I don't see any difference in any of those scenarios.

[ParanoiA]

Not sure I see anything wrong here. The kid is free to say anything she likes, but that doesn't mean she is immune to the consequences. I'm not even sure this would qualify as a punishment -- what administration would want someone who publicly calls them douche bags to hold an office?

 

 

For one, it's not an appointed position, they barred her from running for office, implying an election. Tantamount to Obama being denied to run in the primaries because he admitted to doing drugs.

 

Second, I agree with the consequences angle when we're talking about the freedom to disagree, shun, speak out..etc - exercising rights. However this is a consequence delivered from the position of authority. Only authority could give her this punishment. The fair consequence would be for her to run and no one votes for her because this teacher campaigned against her, reminding everyone what she said. That sort of thing.

 

ParanoiA, forgive me if I misunderstand you, but aren't you opposed to excess laws? Why support a law that restricts what schools can do? Shouldn't this be a local issue?

 

Actually, I've been trying to steer clear of commenting on this law until I understand where school authority over my child comes from, legally speaking. In general I do resist excess laws. Right now, I'm not sure where I'm at in the constitution in reference to this whole scenario to distinguish a need for a new law, or the improper interpretation of a current one.

 

Consequences such as being sued for libel and slander, for instance. Freedom of speech is not, as Pangloss already noted, is not an absolute. If I wrote some falsehood that inflamed my employer and their clients, I would be fired at a minimum and possibly sued as well. This proposed legislation is ridiculous pandering.

 

Well then you sue her. You don't have the local authorities remove her from the rotary club.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because this is the crux of my position, but if I'm interpreting this case correctly she could say her teacher is stupid on her myspace page and have to answer to school authority for it. That is WAY beyond the doorstep of the school house. This presupposes that they're subordinate to school staff continuously, regardless of geographical location, purely at their discretion. After all, disparagement is a subjective parameter so even complimenting a teacher while throwing in a nod at one of their flaws or something, could also be punishable.

 

At some point they must leave the jurisdiction of school authority. Where is that point? 18 years of age? Graduation? Off school grounds?

 

I wondered about that as well. She wasn't even suspended, she was only stopped from running for class president, for pete's sake. Not exactly a big deal.

 

Unless of course that was her life dream from 5 years old. Likewise, getting that speeding ticket for floating a stop sign that you actually stopped at, is not worth fighting in court Pangloss, because I don't think it's a big deal. <slams gavel> Next case!

 

What I'm suggesting here is that even when the school does something to a kid that's completely wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean that a huge drama needs to erupt and a massive correction needs to take place. I'm not saying we should excuse serious crimes like rape or abuse, but in cases where the adult mistakenly disciplines a child, or some minor penalty like this doesn't seem to fit whatever minor crime has taken place, there is a huge drawback to the general public getting involved. We end up asking all sorts of questions that just are not warranted by the events, nor are we qualified to answer them from this distance.

 

I understand your aversion, but public attention and dramatic outrage is the check in our system. From your story, the adults were unethical, and failed to lead by example. They missed what is arguably the most important moment to teach such things as well. And no one else was able to correct this action, either, apparently.

 

I do agree with your general tone here, and I agree there is a threshold to make a big deal out of these things. I'm not going to roast a teacher on KC News Channel 5 for throwing my kid's fingerpainting away after calling her a name. I tend to look at the essential principle at question in a given situation. Since we're dealing with free speech and school jurisdiction, I think this particular case warrants attention. It's a good time to review this, particularly in the internet age.

 

Edit: Thinking about it a little more, I wonder how your fellow classmates learned from that experience with the adults that didn't step up for their mistake. Do they rationalize around ethics also? When they're between a rock and hard place, do they also justify screwing others the way those adults did?

 

What's that ole saying...our characters are defined by the decisions we make when our backs are against the wall, not when things are going just fine? Are you sure you did the right thing in not destroying their careers?

Edited February 6, 2009 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

I don't see why intent or effect matters. She wasn't in school or participating in a school-sponsored event, which was the reason why the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" sign fell under the jurisdiction of the school. To me, that's the point.

 

How is this different, from a school jurisdiction perspective, from someone speaking this in public, or saying it over the phone? Or saying it, and being recorded on someone's video recorder, and having them post in on youtube? I don't see any difference in any of those scenarios.

 

If you want to split that hair that's fair enough, but I don't think it's at all clear what the Supreme Court would say.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Unless of course that was her life dream from 5 years old. Likewise, getting that speeding ticket for floating a stop sign that you actually stopped at, is not worth fighting in court Pangloss, because I don't think it's a big deal. <slams gavel> Next case!

 

That's total soccer-mom, parents-who-scream-at-umpires mentality, IMO -- utterly ripping the ground right out from under anybody who ever dares to take care of a parent's child. Her "life dreams from age 5" are IRRELEVANT to the subject of whether she's being treated appropriately by those responsible for her upbringing.

 

And I'm an adult, not a high school student, so that comparison is invalid on the basis that, as I say above, what's at issue here is treatment, not fairness. If I challenge a speeding ticket there is no higher issue of upbringing and responsibility -- I'm just challenging a ticket, nothing more. For adults to give this child a masqueraded "right" for ideological reasons isn't just a wrong on society, it's also bad for the child.

 

It's reactionary reasoning like the above that make it absolutely impossible for services to be provided to parents. Impossible.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Says wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_S._Mills_High_School#Controversy

Lewis S. Mills High School is currently embroiled in a civil rights lawsuit brought by Student Avery Doninger against Principal Karissa Niehoff and Superintendent (now retired) Paula Schwartz. In spring 2007 Doninger posted a blog entry criticizing the administration and encouraging students to email or call the school regarding the scheduling of Jamfest (a school event). She also referred to the administration as "douchebags." When the blog was discovered some weeks later by the Superintendent's 36 year old son, the administration banned Doninger from running for a class officer position. Doninger won by write-in, but the write-in votes were not recognized.

 

A few facts that make the school look just a bit worse IMO.

[Pangloss]

I do think it's a stupid thing for them to be obsessing over, btw. Who cares if you're being criticized by your students? Maybe you should analyze what they're saying and see if it's legitimate criticism, and if it is, take it to heart. If it isn't, ponder some ways to better motivate and less alienate your students. Sometimes kids don't understand how to criticize while being constructive. As educators and adults, it's our responsibility to do better.

 

That having been said, Oprah and her over-obsessed mom need to take a valium and STFU.

[ParanoiA]

Found an interesting article that talks about this case and covers many of the dynamics we've engaged in here:

 

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/schools-lack-authority-punish-online-student-speech

 

Some hightlights:

 

Some have argued that we should not get too worked up about schools restricting their students' expression because they are minors and therefore entitled to lesser First Amendment protection....Certainly if by "children" we mean persons from birth to age 18, claims that children are emotionally and mentally less mature and more vulnerable than adults is obvious....the Supreme Court has never held that adults who less emotionally or intellectually developed are somehow not entitled to benefit from First Amendment protection.

 

Commentators arguing that minors have reduced free speech rights point to Supreme Court cases upholding laws aimed at protecting minors from profanity and sexually explicit expression. Notably, however, none of the Court's cases addressing the speech rights of children concern the right of minors to speak; instead, they all focus on protecting children from hearing or receiving speech that is regarded as harmful.

 

Another argument some have made against juvenile speech rights is that the various theoretical justifications for the First Amendment-the promotion of self-government, the search for truth in the marketplace of ideas, and the fostering of autonomy and self-fulfillment-all have little application to minors...Allowing the "marketplace of ideas" to flourish at school and on the Internet helps prepare students to be participants in democracy where the free exchange of ideas and diversity of viewpoint are cherished. Given that young people spend the bulk of their time in school acquiring knowledge and developing their belief systems, the theory of the marketplace of ideas has particularly strong currency for them.

 

Clearly it is unobjectionable for teacher leading a physics lesson to tell students that they can't talk about the presidential election during class. In this way, permitting schools to restrict speech that disrupts their work closely resembles the ability of, say, courtroom deputies to enforce certain rules of conduct while court is in session or any number of other time, place, and manner restrictions that we tolerate in any number of public fora. For the most part, however, communications on the Internet do not intrude into the public space, and therefore by their very nature cannot cause an immediate disruption to the work of the school.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Looks like the legal origination of school authority over students is the in loco parentis doctrine. It’s been ruled on a few times too. Here’s an interesting ruling by the supreme court in 1969 concerning Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District:

 

"conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."

 

Very interesting and has a gaping interpretative hole in the phrase “materially disrupts classwork or substantial disorder”. I don’t think Doninger v Niehoff qualifies as a material disruption or any kind of disorder.

 

Apparently Clarence Thomas criticized this ruling citing Lander v. Seaver:

 

…in loco parentis allowed schools to punish student expression that the school or teacher believed contradicted the school’s interests and educational goals. This ruling declared that the only restriction the doctrine imposed were acts of legal malice or acts that caused permanent injury. Neither of these were the case with Tinker.

 

And neither of these were the case with Doninger v. Niehoff either.

 

 

I still haven’t found any definition of when in loco parentis is in effect and when it isn’t, but I thought this was interesting.

 

I'm starting to lean toward standing against this proposed law. Because it's sounding like an interpretive issue for the Supreme Court to figure out first. If they don't infer a subordinate authority to the legal parent over the student, then I'll be on board for a new law. Principly, I believe the parent trumps the public official concerning supervision and authority (and responsibility) and thus allocation of first amendment rights.

 

I don't so much see it as the right of a student to speak, as much as I see it the right of the parent to allow their child to speak. If they're under their parent's supervision, then the parent should be the one to punish and decide what is acceptable free speech for their child to engage in - still subject to federal laws concerning minors, indecency and etc, of course.

 

Until I find a good argument otherwise, I'm inclined to conclude that in loco parentis ends at the school yard gate, unless explicit legal parental consent is given beyond that.

[Severian]

Why should a minor have a right to free speech?

 

And if you think they do, should we also legislate that their parents aren't allowed to punish them? After all, if they haven't done anything illegal, isn't punishing them a violation of their human rights?

[Pangloss]

Interesting points. I can see where you're going with that, but I generally disagree with the idea of having the Supreme Court take a position, even on a subtle point of law, before passing new legislation.