# Principal suspends high school students for "Liking" hateful video
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [May 8, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569 "2015-05-08T18:20:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/1 "2015-05-08T18:20:39Z")
Story here: [11 Booker T. Washington students suspended after social media post of vandalism, gay slur](http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/education/booker-t-washington-students-suspended-after-social-media-post-of/article_6e9c87c4-ea2c-5f5b-bcf5-cff83cd88312.html)
The principal of Booker T. Washington High School in Tulsa Oklahoma, (my alma mater of 34 years ago) has suspended 9 students that “Liked” a video of a fellow student vandalizing a poster on school property of an LGBTQ event. The vandal and the videographer have been suspended for at least 10 days. I have absolutely no problem with those 2 suspensions. I am troubled by the suspension of the other 9 students.
BTW, as it is commonly referred to in the Tulsa area, is a public magnet school. Students must apply to get accepted. It strives for a very diverse student body. As a result, it is by far the most liberal school in the Tulsa area. That may not sound like much, but for Tulsa, it really is a liberal environment.
IMHO, the principal overstepped his bounds when he suspended the 9 students. They were expressing support (in a very limited way) for an unpopular idea. This form of speech should remain protected. There is no indication that their actions were performed on school grounds, if that makes any difference.
Also, does simply “Liking” even equal supporting? IME, liking a post on social media can me support or it can also mean recognition. I’ve seen posts on Facebook similar to “I just found out that my mom has cancer.” that receive “likes” and no one expects that the posters are in favor of mom having cancer.
For these 2 reasons, I believe that the principal overstepped his bounds by suspending the 9 students. They should be reinstated and their suspensions removed from their records. BTW is known for producing among the highest achieving students in Oklahoma. Leaving these blemishes on their academic records could severely limit their future college choices.
---
### Author:  [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/2 "2015-05-08T18:31:52Z")
Yeah, I can’t disagree with anything you said. This pretty clearly seems to be a freedom of speech issue. It may be that the 9 other students were bigoted jerks, but they were bigoted jerks on their own time off of school property doing nothing illegal, so it seems to me its none of the schools business.
---
### Author:  [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/3 "2015-05-08T19:16:45Z")
I don’t have a problem with it provided the students were properly informed of the schools cyberbullying policy–which is obviously quite severe. The act of vandalism is clearly an act of bullying. What the other students did was tantamount to cheering. I wouldn’t have a problem with the school punishing kids who were cheering on an actual act of schoolyard bullying. So I don’t have a problem with a school punishing kids caught cheering from the comfort of their homes. The effect is still the same
The sticky area for me is what if the act of vandalism hadn’t happened on school property? What if one student had only tweeted " Don’t tread on me, faggots" apropos of nothing and the other 10 students had “liked” that? I would have a problem with a mass suspension in this case.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/4 "2015-05-08T19:48:15Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#):
>
> Yeah, I can’t disagree with anything you said. This pretty clearly seems to be a freedom of speech issue. It may be that the 9 other students were bigoted jerks, but they were bigoted jerks on their own time off of school property doing nothing illegal, so it seems to me its none of the schools business.
It’s the school’s business because the underlying conduct happened on school property. Still, I tend to agree that suspending the “likers” was inappropriate.
---
### Author:  [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/5 "2015-05-08T20:17:52Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#):
>
> Story here: [11 Booker T. Washington students suspended after social media post of vandalism, gay slur](http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/education/booker-t-washington-students-suspended-after-social-media-post-of/article_6e9c87c4-ea2c-5f5b-bcf5-cff83cd88312.html)
>
> The principal of Booker T. Washington High School in Tulsa Oklahoma, (my alma mater of 34 years ago) has suspended 9 students that “Liked” a video of a fellow student vandalizing a poster on school property of an LGBTQ event. The vandal and the videographer have been suspended for at least 10 days. I have absolutely no problem with those 2 suspensions. I am troubled by the suspension of the other 9 students.
>
> BTW, as it is commonly referred to in the Tulsa area, is a public magnet school. Students must apply to get accepted. It strives for a very diverse student body. As a result, it is by far the most liberal school in the Tulsa area. That may not sound like much, but for Tulsa, it really is a liberal environment.
>
> IMHO, the principal overstepped his bounds when he suspended the 9 students. They were expressing support (in a very limited way) for an unpopular idea. This form of speech should remain protected. There is no indication that their actions were performed on school grounds, if that makes any difference.
>
> Also, does simply “Liking” even equal supporting? IME, liking a post on social media can me support or it can also mean recognition. I’ve seen posts on Facebook similar to “I just found out that my mom has cancer.” that receive “likes” and no one expects that the posters are in favor of mom having cancer.
>
> For these 2 reasons, I believe that the principal overstepped his bounds by suspending the 9 students. They should be reinstated and their suspensions removed from their records. BTW is known for producing among the highest achieving students in Oklahoma. Leaving these blemishes on their academic records could severely limit their future college choices.
(Spittake) I graduated from there in 1982.
---
### Author:  [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/6 "2015-05-08T20:31:06Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#):
>
> (Spittake) I graduated from there in 1982.
I was class of '81. What do you think about the suspensions?
---
### Author:  [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/7 "2015-05-08T20:37:38Z")
> [@monstro](#):
>
> I don’t have a problem with it provided the students were properly informed of the schools cyberbullying policy–which is obviously quite severe. The act of vandalism is clearly an act of bullying. What the other students did was tantamount to cheering. I wouldn’t have a problem with the school punishing kids who were cheering on an actual act of schoolyard bullying. So I don’t have a problem with a school punishing kids caught cheering from the comfort of their homes. The effect is still the same
Well said (written?)
Ambiguity about whether “liking” really means liking is a red herring. The students expressed support for a hateful act committed on school grounds. I have sympathy for their surprise that online expression can have real world consequences. But it is a fine lesson to learn in high school. I support the principal for this action.
---
### Author:  [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/8 "2015-05-08T20:37:56Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#):
>
> I was class of '81. What do you think about the suspensions?
Difficult call on the ‘likes’. I’m not familiar with the Phhhoto website, but it seems to me that ‘liking’ something on that is a little different than ‘likes’ on Facebook.
What else could it mean if you hit ‘like’ on a picture that says “Don’t tread on me faggots” without any type of commentary.
Also, I think those students can appeal, so they can bring up any mitigating circumstances.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/9 "2015-05-08T20:44:49Z")
“I thought it meant bundles of sticks!”
---
### Author:  [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/10 "2015-05-08T20:47:20Z")
I would be rather worried that the principal of a high school spent any time on Facebook at all.
---
### Author:  [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/11 "2015-05-08T20:47:22Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> It’s the school’s business because the underlying conduct happened on school property. Still, I tend to agree that suspending the “likers” was inappropriate.
I was only referring to the likers being off school property. I think everyone here agrees that the people who actually defaced the poster could be suspended.
---
### Author:  [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/12 "2015-05-08T21:12:02Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#):
>
> Difficult call on the ‘likes’. I’m not familiar with the Phhhoto website, but it seems to me that ‘liking’ something on that is a little different than ‘likes’ on Facebook.
>
> What else could it mean if you hit ‘like’ on a picture that says “Don’t tread on me faggots” without any type of commentary.
>
> Also, I think those students can appeal, so they can bring up any mitigating circumstances.
I’m not familiar with Phhhoto either and in fact, I’ve never even heard of it so I don’t know what the convention is for “liking”. It might mean something, it might not. It could be a simple act of recognition. At any rate, I don’t believe that a school should be policing students Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Phhhoto, etc accounts to see what they like, dislike, favorite, retweet. IMO, it is all speech and unless the school policy is extremely explicit in detail as to what constitutes impermissible cyber bullying, it should be ignored.
I hope the 9 appeal.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/13 "2015-05-08T21:18:41Z")
> [@monstro](#):
>
> I don’t have a problem with it provided the students were properly informed of the schools cyberbullying policy–which is obviously quite severe. The act of vandalism is clearly an act of bullying. What the other students did was tantamount to cheering. I wouldn’t have a problem with the school punishing kids who were cheering on an actual act of schoolyard bullying. So I don’t have a problem with a school punishing kids caught cheering from the comfort of their homes. The effect is still the same
>
> The sticky area for me is what if the act of vandalism hadn’t happened on school property? What if one student had only tweeted " Don’t tread on me, faggots" apropos of nothing and the other 10 students had “liked” that? I would have a problem with a mass suspension in this case.
If they were logged onto computers in the school library, the “likers” would deserve suspension. But outside of school property? No, that’s not right. Supposing the principal had overheard a conversation at the local mall where two students were saying “that was really cool”. Should the students be subject to suspension?
---
### Author:  [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/14 "2015-05-08T21:18:45Z")
> [@Spiritus\_Mundi](#):
>
> Well said (written?)
>
> Ambiguity about whether “liking” really means liking is a red herring. The students expressed support for a hateful act committed on school grounds. I have sympathy for their surprise that online expression can have real world consequences. But it is a fine lesson to learn in high school. I support the principal for this action.
Even if this lesson could keep them out of the college of their choice? If I were the principal, I would want to be absolutely certain of the motivation of each student before I imposed such a penalty. Actually, even then I wouldn’t do it. As the saying goes, “Popular speech doesn’t need protection.”
---
### Author:  [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/15 "2015-05-08T21:34:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> If they were logged onto computers in the school library, the “likers” would deserve suspension. But outside of school property? No, that’s not right. Supposing the principal had overheard a conversation at the local mall where two students were saying “that was really cool”. Should the students be subject to suspension?
This. At some point the private activities of students is none of the school’s business.
---
### Author:  [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/16 "2015-05-08T21:34:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> If they were logged onto computers in the school library, the “likers” would deserve suspension. But outside of school property? No, that’s not right. Supposing the principal had overheard a conversation at the local mall where two students were saying “that was really cool”. Should the students be subject to suspension?
But that’s not analogous to cheering as the act is being committed, with the victims overhearing.
Do you agree with me that if the students had been “cheering” spectators present when and where the vandalism had occurred, the principal would have had grounds to suspend them? If so, why should “cheering” spectators enjoy immunity as long as they observe remotely? That just compells bullies to set up a webcam so that none of their friends will get in trouble.
---
### Author:  [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/17 "2015-05-08T21:52:03Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#):
>
> Even if this lesson could keep them out of the college of their choice? If I were the principal, I would want to be absolutely certain of the motivation of each student before I imposed such a penalty. Actually, even then I wouldn’t do it. As the saying goes, “Popular speech doesn’t need protection.”
Yep.
Nobody is ever absolutely certain o the motivation for anyone else - or even ourselves, arguably, but that drives us into deep epistemological waters. Keeping it to practical levels, one can never be certain why a person took an action. One can only express confidence in a hypothesis and deterine an appropriate response. Vandalism on school property targeted against a minority group that has and continues to face bigotry and violence provides a strong measure of confidence in assessing motives. Making a tangible and public statement in support of same also supports a confident conclusion.
Nobody is guaranteed admission to the college of their choice. Each college uses its own criteria to determine who they will invite. If that criteria includes evaluating such things as disciplinary events in high schol, then I assume a student with such aspirations would make every effort to explain their behavior, remorse (or reasons), lessons learned, etc. in order to most completely convey why they would be a good addition to the student body of their desire.
But it isn’t the principal’s job to protect the college aspirations of a student fromthe consequences of that students actions or public statements. It is the principal’s job to protect the students in his school from harrassment and intimidation.
The free speech angle is misapplied. Schools have long been recognized as having the right to impose punishment upon a student based upon verbal or written statements.
---
### Author:  [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/18 "2015-05-08T21:57:24Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Supposing the principal had overheard a conversation at the local mall where two students were saying “that was really cool”. Should the students be subject to suspension?
A private conversation overheard is not the same thing as a public statement of support. **Monstro’s** cheering analogy is more apt, but there is a better comparison. The Internet is a public forum with an element of permancence and intent for broad reach. It is more analagous to posting bills or handing out leaflets than it is to a private conersation unfortunately overheard.
---
### Author:  [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/19 "2015-05-08T22:01:34Z")
> [@Spiritus\_Mundi](#):
>
> The free speech angle is misapplied. Schools have long been recognized as having the right to impose punishment upon a student based upon verbal or written statements.
Cite that this “right” extends to arguably political (albeit abhorrent) statements made off campus?
---
### Author:  [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2015, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/20 "2015-05-08T22:17:05Z")
This is a terrible situation but that doesn’t mean the schools should become the children police in all matters.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569.md?page=2)