I’m really torn about this one. On one hand, I don’t want schools to have the power to punish my kid for unpopular beliefs or ideas, say she supports Trump or BLM or whatever. But on the other hand, any organization has the power to regulate the conduct of its members. A young kid saying “fuck” directed at the school would have gotten my ass paddled 30 years ago under this same Constitution.
What say ye Dopers?
I say someone on the cheerleading team who says “fuck cheer” is pretty much the definition of defying team rules.
If she were suspended from classes, I would have a different opinion.
I think schools should have no ability to regulate out of school conduct of their students. EXCEPT, in cases like this, where she signed an agreement to refrain from such conduct. I don’t really agree with the “no profanity” policy, but she agreed to it.
I think the student is in the right…oh shit. I just wrote this whole post and then read the link more carefully and realized I don’t. Well, not legally in the right, anyway. I’ll post it anyway and explain why at the end.
Summary: 14 year old posted “fuck cheer” to some friends on Snapchat after not making varsity cheerleading squad, one “friend” took a screenshot and snitched to the cheer coach, who threw her off the team.
My argument in her favor: She made her statement in a private conversation with friends outside of school hours and off school property. (well, of course nothing on the internet is really “private”, as this student has presumably learned from this experience, but her intention was not to utter public speech) It seems ridiculous to me to argue that this would rise to the level of “substantially disrupting school operations”, which is the threshold Tinker v Des Moines says must be met in order to justify restricting student speech. It’s hard to imagine literally any student speech that would be protected under this standard.
Interpretations like those the school district is arguing for have been used to punish students from blowing the whistle on administrators’ failures to, for example, enforce social distancing requirements or prevent bullying. There are certainly important social interests in not repressing such speech.
But that was all written when I’d assumed the kid got some sort of suspension or academic probation or something. Getting thrown off the cheerleading squad is not a Constitutional issue. Coach is still a dick, though.
I think school’s should be able to police speech and conduct that influences the learning environment and other students, even if that speech or conduct happens outside of school. Cyber bullying for instance, or selling test answers out of your bedroom (say the school’s teachers are very into reuse and the student collect old tests).
As an immigrant from Norway I find the tight integration between youth sports and school in the US slightly bizarre, but here’s what I think about this specific case:
If cheerleading is an integral part of school, the conduct rules are bizarre and unconstitutional. Saying “fuck cheerleading” is no different from “fuck math class” and is protected speech. Students shouldn’t be allowed to do it in class, sure, but to their friends outside of school, that’s perfectly fine.
A public school board is not “any organization” and students are not voluntary “members”. A public school board is a branch of government and students are there under compulsion of law. That analogy doesn’t work. Government agencies are required to comply with constitutional restrictions in ways that private organizations are not.
That said, the school board and the anti-bullying group are taking it way too broadly, in my opinion. Cyber-bullying is definitely an issue, but that doesn’t mean that all off-hours electronic communications can be the basis for school discipline. They seem to be saying that because they have to deal with bullying, that sweeps all e-speech into their authority. Too broad.
The lesson the school is teaching is that conformity with government speech directives is paramount.
I think it’s fair for a school to discipline speech that is directed against the school. If she had said something completely unrelated - i.e., “Fuck Ron DeSantis” or “fuck Joe Biden” - then the school should let her have her free speech. But it’s fair to take action when the school is the target of the student’s speech.
That being said, it has potential for a mighty slippery slope. A student might get disciplined for saying, “Teacher Smith is a totally unfair grader; he gives As to the pretty girls and Ds to the ugly ones even though their essays were equally good” and then the school might clamp down on it.
If this situation happened when/where I went to high school 40-some years ago I know exactly what would happen. A group of students would attend football games specifically to chant, “FUCK CHEER” in support of the girl. The administration would react in some way, attempting to punish those involved. The student body would respond to that by boycotting football games. Then summer break would happen and everything would reset.
Right. And this is my only hangup on it. You would agree that if this were not “Public School” but the Elks Club, the Moose Lodge, or the SDMB, there would not be a problem at all?
To me, though, this goes right at the heart of the school. How can you effectively discipline students if they can say “fuck school” three feet off of campus or blast it all over Facebook? Maybe in 1990, we could make a distinction, but that now comes into the school.
So the school posts photos and commentary that criticises the school for not enforcing masking requirments. That’s directed at the school. Disciplinable?
Is that a word? 
A Canadian one? LOL
Well, fuck the school that didn’t teach me that. 
Why does the school need to do anything about that at all?
I think you meant to say “student” in the first sentence, but, reserving the right to change my mind, I think yes. Should the government be powerless to control members of its own organizations? I mean, I have the right to think that husbands can beat their wives (I don’t) but if I work for the local government funded Coalition Against Domestic Violence I can’t say that. This goes to the heart of the school’s mission.
Would you agree that they would need to do it in class?
Because the teachers are, and this is a crazy thing, in a position of authority and need respect from the students, or at least the appearance of it.
Today I learned that students are government employees.
Wait, no - they aren’t.
If a teacher said “fuck school” publicly, discipline them. But a student?
If you say “Fuck the DMV” should the state be allowed to revoke your license?
sure. School rules apply in school. If the school doesn’t like what a student says outside of school, they’ll just have to live with it.
A school needs to be able to discipline disruptive behavior in class because it’s disruptive – for the same reason, my three-year old got sent to the principal’s office because she wouldn’t shut up at story time. But it doesn’t have anything to shows of authority by the school staff or, more importantly, the specific content of the disruption.
This case is about the content of the speech (i.e., speech that “shared negative information” about cheerleading and/or failed to “show respect” for the school), not the manner in which it was shared or even the fact that it contained expletives.
So, if the question presented is whether Tinker’s “substantial disruption” standard should apply to off-campus speech, then sure, I think so. But I don’t see how this could be an example of that.
I disagree. I think if she would have posted, “Coach, you made the wrong choice. I would have been a great varsity cheerleader” that she wouldn’t have been suspended. It was because of the vulgar and disrespectful manner in which she did it she was disciplined.