How would your reaction change if the student had posted a legitimate complaint- let’s say the student felt like an upcoming schedule change would be easier on administration but would hurt student performance.
Should she punished if she posts that?
How about a semi-legit complaint? Like that the dress code was stupid.
Where do you start drawing lines?
If a kid drives home drunk, or does any of the other things in your first paragraph I’d mostly certainly want to revoke their license. I’d also call it a punishment, not something quasi-politically-correct like “revocation of privilege.”
Oh come on, you couldn’t split that hair any finer with the world’s most precise laser.
The privilege is being removed as a negative consequence for unaccepted behavior. It’s a sanction.
And that is a terrible rationale for differing responses to the same act.
I think any school, particularly a public school, should operate in a fashion that upholds the liberties of students and teachers alike to the utmost, until such point as there is a legitimate disruption of school activity by virtue of something that is said or done.
Taste is subjective. What’s in “extremely poor taste” to you is barely a blip on someone else’s radar. That’s a horrible standard to use to determine if something is a problem.
A kid who drives drunk or with a friend on the hood or 70 on a residential street is not just openly flouting the law, but is endangering multiple people with reckless and life-threatening behavior. Comparing blogging an opinion to doing any of those things is so beyond realistic as to come darn close to invalidating the discussion completely.
So you’re suggesting that being a student officer is contingent upon being unflinchingly, sycophantically supportive of the faculty/administration? Or is it just that student officers are required to stifle their expression when other students are not, so the role of officer comes with a virtual muzzle?
I, personally, wouldn’t have punished her for calling them douchebags. I’d have lectured her till her ears turned red, though–not because it’s horrible, but because it’s non-productive and a personal attack and adults that want to be taken seriously do not make personal attacks on other adults with which they have a personal relationship. And if she called the dress code stupid, I’d have told her that she shouldn’t be making non-constructive attacks and does she have any better ideas?
To me the line is on the personal attack. As we well know here, they destroy discourse.
I agree they are over-reacting, but I do understand why it’s problematic, and I don’t see a first amendment issue.
It’s not the removal of a right, which seemed to be the way you were using the term.
Context matters. What if a teacher posted on a blog about how the student was a douchebag–does that deserve the exact same response? It’s the exact same act, but the context is different. It matters if she agreed in advance to act as a spokesperson for the school. If she signed some sort of “character contract”, then it matters if she violated it. Otherwise, why have it?
I absolutely agree. And if they wanted to keep her out of school, or limit her access to education in any way, I’d be incensed. But they haven’t.
To me, the standard is a personal attack that offers nothing constructive.
And not being able to be a class officer is nothing compared to losing your driver’s license. It’s a “oh, you can’t do that, go be on Debate team or play soccer or be in the school play or join the newspaper and write angry editorials to your heart’s content”. The point is that there is a direct connection between the incident and the consequences here.
Do I think it’s an over reaction? Sure. But I don’t see it as a grossly disproportionate one, or a 1st amendment issue. And I am a crazy wacko-leftist liberal high school teacher who defends kids on these kinds of things all the time. But it’s reasonable to ask a class officer to hold them selves to a higher standard of respect in public.
In many schools, it comes with the obligation to be respectful in public. “I feel like Mr. Smith didn’t listen to my side of the story” is fine anywhere and anytime. “Mr. Smith is a douchebag” is fine among friends. “Mr. Smith is a douchebag” is not fine when it’s published.
Say a kid held a public rally on a Sunday in the town square, the purpose of which was simply to insult a particular teacher from high school. It’s a small town, so everyone knows about it, most of the administration saw it, and lots of his friends attended the “rally.” What do you expect the school to do on Monday? Ignore it like it never happened? Is anyone going to be able to learn in that environment, especially in the particular class that the kid has with the teacher? Or is it going to be nothing but gossip and whispering for the next month? What if the kid does the same thing every Sunday?
Obviously, it causes a major disruption. The school has every right to prevent that- it doesn’t matter when the actions occured, if the disruption continues during school time. Whether or not the punishment is going to be a stern lecture, removal of priveledges (like running for student council), suspensions, or outright expulsions depends on the severity of the disruption and whether or not the student causes more in the future.
That is the difference between saying things in private and saying things in public. One creates a vastly larger disruption than the other.
The problem with your reasoning is that it presumes that there was a major disruption. The news article linked in the OP says that only 3 people read the girl’s blog. Did 1 of those 3 cause a “major disruption”? There was no “major disruption” referred to in the OP’s linked article; perhaps you have more information about a “major disruption” that occurred as a direct result of this girl posting her blog? Or are you arguing that the school is well within their rights to censure anyone that might do something that may, at some point in the future, cause a “major disruption”?
Following your reasoning, would a school be within their rights to censure a student who’s parent argues at state/county/city legislatures that public schools are terrible places staffed by lazy, greedy inept people and therefore should no longer be funded? Surely that could cause a major disruption, and according to your reasoning, the school would be within their rights to do what they could to stop it, including censure of the child of said parent.
Forgive me, but I do not agree with your reasoning or your conclusions.
This student was on her own equipment, at her residence. She can say whatever she wants about the school, it’s teachers, administrators, etc. Censuring her in this manner was wrong, IMO.
Truly, her school admins do seem to be douchebags.
EDIT: Almost forgot: freedom of speech doesn’t mean “only when in private”. The fact that her remark was made publicly doesn’t absolve it from being protected by the 1st Amendment.
I don’t see a first amendment abridgement here , but I believe that is only because the school in question did not have the tools in place to actually do the abridging. That she used an offsite network and blog to post her thoughts is her first amendment right, and the school for some bizarre reason decided to remove her from some dog and pony position.
What I did not see in the link the OP provided , was if any kind of conflict resolution that the school may have tried. Calling her into the office to hash this out and see what exactly her issue may have been. So far all I have seen on that site ,was that the school dropped the no tolerance hammer from the get go.
I can see the school being technically right , but they are supposed to be teaching to a higher ideal. Its one thing to ban stuff on school grounds for nebulous reasons, but to actually do some over the top stupidity , commit an act of petty revenge and have some legislater actively pushing a bill to garuntee a federal right that the kids should have enjoyed from the get go.
Are schools and teachers that naive these days , that on top of their all ready busy schedules ,do we really need to have them become more media savvy ??
Kids are already reciting the pledge of allegiance, do we really need to have the teachers reading the constitution.
Declan
A)Yes, schools have the right to prevent a major disruption from occuring. I can easily see how something like this could have spiraled out of control (obviously, it already has, but for different reasons), even if only 3 people read it. I think a lecture or a parent-teacher conference would have been more appropriate “punishment”, but whatever.
B) There wasn’t any censuring involved, just the removal of a priveledge that usually involves meeting a code of conduct (which the student failed to uphold). No one has a fundamental right to run for student council.
Of course not.
A) “So and so’s parents don’t like the public school system” is hardly gossip-worthy material. I doubt it would create a disruption in the least bit.
B) I wasn’t even remotely suggesting that a student should be punished for the actions of someone else. I’m not even sure why you brought that up. I did say it didn’t matter when the actions occured, I did not say it didn’t matter by whom.
Might I ask then, what sort of manner would be appropriate for a censure? Are we in agreement that some sort of lecture/meeting would have been better? Or do you think the school should have ignored it and done nothing?
It is still protected by the First Ammendment. She wasn’t thrown in jail. She wasn’t forced to take it down at gunpoint. The first ammendment doesn’t protect you from all consequences of speech. If you say mean things about your boss, you’re going to get fired. If you say mean things about your neighbors, don’t expect them to be nice to you. If a *school teacher *made mean comments about a student in a public blog, don’t expect her not to face disciplinary action. Why do you think a student should get free reign?