I doubt SCOTUS is going to come up with a single bright-line rule for this case. It’s just far too complex. And the justices, as this Vox article noted, appear to be “overwhelmed” and “looking for an off-ramp.” It’s an excellent article. I highly recommend.
Also, let’s consider the component people keep leaving out when referencing Tinker: it’s not just speech that would disrupt school, it’s speech that “would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline” of the school. If the work of the school includes extracurricular activities, and it does, and if that “work” is impeded by student speech that’s disrespectful to the sport and its participants, that speech can be disciplined. The question then becomes whether the discipline in this case was too onerous. What should the parameters for such discipline be?
Before we discus the parameters for discipline, we should discuss the parameters for defining “impeded.” I think that the definition should have some meat on it, and should not be reduced to a lowest common denominator whereby any tiny effect can be characterized as impeding the work and discipline of the school.
Quite frankly, I find beyond risible the school’s argument that this adolescent rant so impeded school work and discipline, and had such potential to disrupt all of that stuff going forward, that a one-year ban was necessary.
This is one of those things that should be settled by gathering all the cheerleading students and staff together, and making a call for unity and harmony. “B.L. said some things that some of us find offensive and that she regrets. While we don’t condone what she said, we understand that she was upset and frustrated at missing out on the varsity squad, and in the heat of the moment she said a few things she shouldn’t have. What we all need to do now is pull together, put aside any differences that we might have, and make this the best cheer squad that the school has ever put on the field. Yay team!”
Job done. It’s the stuff that stupid and inspiring American high school movies are made of.
If a bunch of adults can’t deal with a stupid little profane rant like this, and ensure that it doesn’t substantially impede their mission, then they don’t deserve their damn jobs.
I don’t understand this. When did “bullying” because something of constitutional importance? As long as a person is not making a true threat against another person, it is free speech, right? (Outside of school).
This and other posts seem to me to be along the lines of I personally would make a different decision based on different criteria. Sure, and that’s fine, but you are not the coach. It seems like you are basing the “in school/out of school” distinction based on your own value judgments. This seems bad to me and therefore it affects the school. This seems not so bad so it doesn’t. That can’t be the law because it just lets judges act as school coaches.
And that is clearly false. The activity took place in a physical location. Either it happened at school or it didn’t. Either she used school equipment or she didn’t. Those factors are all clearly distinct.
I spent my entire post talking about how schools actually deal with social media posting at school. They don’t dictate what you can say. They dictate what sites you can visit.
You seem to just want to find ways to increase the federal government’s power in this case. You don’t want it to be restricted to the minimum necessary. You’re okay with using purely hypothetical “disruptions” as reason they can control a student’s entire online posting.
For most students, social media is the vast majority of their social life. They may hang out with friends in person, but the way they contact them is through social media of some sort. And they chat online all the time. You seem to want the schools to be able to control all of that, with no reasonable restrictions.
The restrictions that already exist make sense: the school can only usurp parental rights for things the student does at school or using school property. Your attempt to remove the distinction just seem to be a naked power grab for the government.
Again, it’s so at odds with the type of thing you usually argue that it seems like it’s motivated reasoning. You seem to have started from the position that saying “fuck [class]” should be punishable, and then came up with arguments to try and get that conclusion. The problem is that they give the government very broad, sweeping powers—the sort of thing you are usually against.
Don’t you always argue it’s the liberal left trying to make big government? Yet here we are the ones standing up for freedom of speech, and saying you have a right to be offended by someone’s speech, but not a right to regulate it.
I think you’re downplaying the effects of her rant, a rant that was not just offensive but hurtful. And it’s not “school work”–that is, class work–that is at issue here; it’s the lessons that are learned outside the classroom but within the purview of the school district. I’ve never played team sports outside of PE (where I was often among the last picked), but I’ve worked with hundreds of students who played team sports. I’d be an idiot to have all that experience and not recognize the valuable lessons to be learned in team sports.
Had I been the coach, my speech would be quite different than yours. Actually, there’d be two speeches, one to Levy, one to the squad as a whole:
To Levy: "As you know, cheerleaders have an important role to fulfill here at school, and we expect them to take that role seriously and to avoid comments and behavior that hurt other students, damage school spirit, and destroy the teamwork you and your squad have worked so hard to build. You sent your rant to a lot of people, and from there it was sent to others, something you knew could happen but didn’t consider in the heat of your emotions. Your comments showed poor sportsmanship, and your words affected others beyond the people you shared your comments with and this squad. I’m sure you regret that, and I know you’ll learn from this experience.
I could suspend you for a year, but I’m going to give you a break because I know you can do better. You’re suspended for a month. During that suspension, you’ll apologize sincerely and personally to your squad and then, through the student newspaper, to the entire student body. Those apologies will include no rationalizations for your comments but will include an explanation of how harmful such comments can be.
Now let’s talk about why you didn’t get moved up to varsity and how you might have approached that disappointment in a more constructive way."
To the squad: “As you know, Brandi here made some comments that have upset a lot of people. She understands that those comments displayed poor sportsmanship, damaged team spirit. and hurt many of you. Today she’s going to apologize to all of you. It will take time for her to prove to you that she respects you and cheerleading and to regain your trust. I expect you to give her that chance.”
Jesus, talk about over-reaction. Do you honestly, truly, really believe that the words "“fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything” are actually harmful in any really meaningful way at the high school level? Do you believe that these kids don’t hear worse on the playground and in the hallways every single day? If you really define this as harm, I submit that you and I probably have little more to talk about with respect to this case, or at least the part about defining what constitutes impeding school work and discipline.
I’m all for protecting students from actual harassment and actual bullying, but if a generic rant directed at no particular individual and clearly just expressing a general frustration with life is defined as constituting harm, then maybe what we ought to be thinking about is exactly how much cotton wool we want to wrap today’s children in so that they never hear a single thing that they might find unpleasant.
Maybe one of those lessons might be, “Sometimes, with the pressures and the significance placed on sports in schools, people get upset and frustrated and let go with some inappropriate comments. We should recognize those for what they are, and not act like a bunch of Victorian schoolmarms.”
Yes. It’s not at all overreaction. I believe your response is under-reaction and shows how little you understand high school kids and team sports.
Oh, please. I walked the halls of high schools for 25 years, not counting the years I was in school myself. Yes, the language was often just as colorful. Did you really think this was just about profanity?
Agreed. I stand upon my years of experience with teens. You can stand on whatever experience you have. And I’m done.
Agreed. It amazes me how some people think it is no big deal to tell your team to fuck off, and not just in a single moment of haste to your friend, but to blast it, with a picture over social media. It is incredibly disruptive to the team, your school, your coach, and the community that supports the team.
I’m pretty sure that I knew some kids back in high school where that was pretty much 90% of their vocabulary.
Right, I can imagine some things that could be actionable. If it was “Fuck Kayla for making Varsity when I didn’t.” then that’s a much more direct attack. Still don’t quite know if it’s punishment worthy, but definitely worth having a counseling session over.
This is hilarious, given that you were whining, a few posts ago, about how other people were allegedly using their own value judgments in assessing this case.
I complained about judges ruling that the Constitution enacts their own personal value judgments about what is appropriate discipline for a 14 year old cheerleader. It clearly does not. I think if you are a coach and a kid tells you to fuck off, you are free to say that is no big deal, but another coach might just think so…like how different coaches handle things differently without a 5-4 decision mandating how all coaches in the country must handle things.
But they’re not doing that. They’re ruling about whether the students’ Constitutional rights have been violated. Even in schools, the initial presumption regarding speech is that it is Constitutionally protected. The people seeking to restrict the speech have to make a showing about the compelling government interest at stake, and about the least restrictive and most narrowly tailored manner of fulfilling the government interest while still preserving people’s rights. Exactly where the line should be drawn in such cases is always going to be subjective, your caviling notwithstanding.
If this is the case, then maybe the test is wrong. No Justice was selected because of their superior knowledge of coaching a cheer team. They do no better job at that than you or I, and as (I don’t think) we have experience coaching a cheer team, shouldn’t people who have experience at coaching a cheer team be allowed to decide what is a disruption and what isn’t?
If their legal test distills down to “Do I think this causes a disruption to the cheer team?” then they have asked the wrong question and should revisit the legal test involved.
Shorter version: I’m willing to concede that maybe you are right—that I’m just an old fogey holding on to old ideas, that kids just do this stuff nowadays. But maybe you could see that maybe you are wrong and that tighter controls need to be in place.
But in any event, why does the Constitution enact either of our discipline styles? Why are highly educated lawyers on the Supreme Court in the best position to decide that?
Justice Keegan played softball. Maybe just leave the decision to her. (I joke) (or do I?)
The entire point of the justice system is to resolve a conflict between two differing and exclusive points of view. These are the ultimate arbiters of settling those conflicts.
It is the school that decided that they wanted SCOTUS involved. They could have accepted the initial judgement, or that they lost the appeal. They didn’t, so now it is up to the highly educated lawyers on the Supreme Court.
Yes, but according to law, which is what they are trained on. The Constitution speaks of freedom of speech. If they want to say that social media is out of school speech, then that might be based on law. To say that the punishment, after finding that it can be punished consistent with the First Amendment, was wrong or excessive, seems like that of a coach and not a lawyer or judge.
The question is may she be punished at all consistent with the First Amendment. And a test which asks if this really caused disruption in the school, if carried too far, again, puts the Justices in the role of a coach.