# Principal suspends high school students for "Liking" hateful video **URL:** \ **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:** 5
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/81 "2015-05-11T13:31:42Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > You know none of the students who hit like were not criminally charged right? So, all of them were criminally charged? :eek: šŸ˜ƒ ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/82 "2015-05-11T14:33:59Z")
> [@](#): > > That precedent allows speech made off campus to be punished if it meets a standard of disruption. This has been applied to lower court rulings even when the specific actions were determined not to meet that standard I donā€™t understand what this means. The standard allows sanctions against actions that donā€™t meet the standard? > [@](#): > > Bullying of students is disruptive behavior and suitable for admiinstrative punishment Unless it isnā€™t illegal and doesnā€™t happen on school property. Then it isnā€™t any of the administrationā€™s business. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/83 "2015-05-11T15:06:17Z")
> [@Spiritus\_Mundi](#): > > Jeez, at least have the integrity to address teh actual position of people you disagreee with instead of calling them names for not saying what you want them to say. > > Jeez, at least have the intellectual honesty to avoid strawman arguments and assignment of malign motives to people who disagree with you on a question of public policy. > > Jeez, at least have the courtesy to blend the courage of your own convictions with an understanding that agreement with **robertliguori** is not a good litmus test for another human beingā€™s courage or honesty. > > I think I have made my own views clear, but for anyone that has trouble following them in a sequential series of posts - I believe: > [ol] > [li]The first ammendment rights of children in a school setting are not unfettered.[/li][li]Creation of a safe and secure environment in which all students can be educated is a legitimate interest of the state. [/li][li]The Supreme Court established a standard for limiting student free speech in a 1969 ruling that remains the controlling precedent[/li][li]That precedent allows speech made off campus to be punished if it meets a standard of disruption. THis has been applied to lower court rulings even when teh specific actions were determined nt to meet that standard[/li][li]Bullying of students is disruptive behavior and suitable for admiinstrative punishment[/li][li]Public statements in support of bullying contribute to the fear, shame, and ostracism that can make bullying so damaging for the victims[/li][li]The specific punishment in this case, a 3 day suspension from high school, is appropriate to the offense. [/li][/ol] > Thatā€™s it. > > Iā€™m happy to discuss any of my own positions with those who disagree. I am not interested in battling scarecrows or addressing ad hominiem attacks from those who cannot discuss public policy without personal vitriol. I agree with all of your points except the conclusions that hitting ā€œlikeā€ meets the standard of disruption, and that the specific punishment was appropriate to this case. The problem here is simply that the offence is too remote. Hitting ā€˜likeā€™ isnā€™t nearly enough, in my view, to rise to the level I believe ought to be required for ā€˜disruptionā€™. Even assuming it does rise to that level, a three-day suspension is absurdly disproportionate. In general, Iā€™m against all types of ā€˜zero toleranceā€™ disciplining in schools - whether it be for drugs, for violence, for bullying, or whatever. Not, I hasten to add, because Iā€™m in favour of kids indulging in drugs, violence or bullying, but because I think such policies run counter to the just results and to the psychology of high-school kids - who are naturally prone to be resentful of authority, and all the moreso when that authority is handled in such an inflexible manner. Unfortunately, people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum appear to love ā€˜zero toleranceā€™ policies - only, they want them applied to different things. Each side sees the otherā€™s concerns as absurdly overblown. Those on the Right tend to want ā€˜zero toleranceā€™ for drugs, clothes and sexual expression; those on the Left tend to want ā€˜zero toleranceā€™ for bullying and expressions of violence. Both sides base their arguments over concern with ā€˜disruptionā€™; both sides oppose the other sideā€™s causes as paying insufficient attention to studentā€™s legitimate rights. To the students, both tend to appear to be unreasonably nannying. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/84 "2015-05-11T15:16:23Z")
> [@](#): > > I donā€™t understand what this means. The standard allows sanctions against actions that donā€™t meet the standard? It means that the facts of the case were judged against the standard. In some cases, the facts were found not to meet the standard. and an administrative action was ruled improper (or a case sent back to lower couts for additional action.) For example [a case where a student recorded and posted a rap song with lyrics charging inappropriate behavior by school coaches](http://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2015/03/24/ed_law_briefly_students_rap_song_first_amendment_1176.html). The song was found not to be disruptive or meet the standard of a serious threat to the coaches, so First Ammendment protections were upheld. But the court did not rule simply that because the speech occured off campus it necessarily could not be sanctioned. > [@](#): > > Unless it isnā€™t illegal. Illegal is the wrong standard. Nobody was charged with a crime. > [@](#): > > doesnā€™t happen on school property. Then it isnā€™t any of the administrationā€™s business I disagree. So has every circuit court that has addressed the issue recently (that I can find). So does the Supreme Court, by implication, since they have declined to hear any appeals from those lower court rulings. You can certainly disagree that the standard established by the courts is correct, but when questioning the actions of the principal in this particular case it seems unfair to criticize him for following the law as it stands today. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/85 "2015-05-11T15:39:25Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Thatā€™s an outrage. For that sort of thought crime they should be expelled. You think youā€™re just being funny, but my first reaction was ā€œ3 days? Thatā€™s some milquetoast bullshit right thereā€. Iā€™d be happy if they were expelled. I would cackle and crow. And itā€™s not a ā€œthought crimeā€ - unless they clicked the ā€œlikeā€ button on the hate speech with their mutant brain powersā€¦ ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/86 "2015-05-11T16:01:11Z")
> [@Spiritus\_Mundi](#): > > It means that the facts of the case were judged against the standard. In some cases, the facts were found not to meet the standard. and an administrative action was ruled improper (or a case sent back to lower couts for additional action.) For example [a case where a student recorded and posted a rap song with lyrics charging inappropriate behavior by school coaches](http://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2015/03/24/ed_law_briefly_students_rap_song_first_amendment_1176.html). The song was found not to be disruptive or meet the standard of a serious threat to the coaches, so First Ammendment protections were upheld. Then it sounds like the standard is applied - the rap song that did not disrupt was not subject to sanction under the standard. > [@](#): > > Illegal is the wrong standard. Nobody was charged with a crime. No one is saying they were charged with a crime. The point is that they were sanctioned even though they committed no crime. Therefore ISTM that the school needs to show one of the other elements necessary under _Tinker_ that establishes the schoolā€™s right to sanction legal behavior - namely that hitting 'Like" on an offensive video disrupts the school in some way, even though it did not happen on school property, did not use any school equipment, and involved the school acting against its students for expressing an opinion. > [@](#): > > You can certainly disagree that the standard established by the courts is correct, but when questioning the actions of the principal in this particular case it seems unfair to criticize him for following the law as it stands today. He wasnā€™t following the law. The law requires him to show how the students disrupted the educational mission of the school. I have seen nothing of the sort shown. Simply labelling it as ā€œbullyingā€ is meaningless. One has to show real and direct effects - ā€œyou hurt my feelings on Facebookā€ doesnā€™t cut it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/87 "2015-05-11T16:10:10Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The point is that they were sanctioned even though they committed no crime. Therefore ISTM that the school needs to show one of the other elements necessary under _Tinker_ that establishes the schoolā€™s right to sanction legal behavior - namely that hitting 'Like" on an offensive video disrupts the school in some way, even though it did not happen on school property, did not use any school equipment, and involved the school acting against its students for expressing an opinion. Arenā€™t the vast majority of school disciplinary sanctions imposed on students for actions that are perfectly legal? ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/88 "2015-05-11T16:38:20Z")
> [@](#): > > I agree with all of your points except the conclusions that hitting ā€œlikeā€ meets the standard of disruption, and that the specific punishment was appropriate to this case. Thanks. Reasonable people can disagree on such things. > [@](#): > > Hitting ā€˜likeā€™ isnā€™t nearly enough, in my view, to rise to the level I believe ought to be required for ā€˜disruptionā€™. Bullying and cyber bullying are disruptive. Would you agree with that statement? I am asking because I want to know whether area of dispute is specifically whether ā€œlikingā€ an action of bullying contributes to the bullying. > [@](#): > > In general, Iā€™m against all types of ā€˜zero toleranceā€™ disciplining in schools I;m not sure that is pertinent. I haven;t seen any facts of this case that indicate a zero tolerance policy was behind the enforcement or the specific penalty. Surely you are not saying that a first offense should never be sanctioned or punished in a school setting? Are you? > [@](#): > > a three-day suspension is absurdly disproportionate We have a very different understanding of the severity of a 3 day suspension, then. It is neither a slap on the wrist nor an academic death sentence. The [Student and Family Guide to Success for Tulsa Public Schools](https://www.tulsaschools.org/3_Parents/_documents/pdf/ParentGuide.pdf) lists many infractions for which a short term suspension may be part of the ā€œBehavior Response Planā€. These include: Inappropriate useof technology/computers, bullying, smoking or using e-cigarettes, participation in prohibited clubs, possission of stolen property, et al. Those are all Tier II of their classification. Suspension is not deemed appropriate only for Tier III or Tier IV behaviors. So I do not find a 3 day suspension to be outrageously harh, and it does not appear that the Tulsa school systems views it as such, either. I also not that the state of Oklahoma appears to have a specific [Regulation: 210:10-1-20. Implementation of policies prohibiting bullying.](http://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/discipline-compendium/Oklahoma%20School%20Discipline%20Laws%20and%20Regulations.pdf) directly pertinent to this case: > [@](#): > > (1) Specifically prohibit threatening behavior, harassment, intimidation, and bullying by students at > school and by electronic communication. Electronic communication shall be prohibited whether or not > such communication originated at school or with school equipment, if the communication is specifically > directed at students or school personnel and concerns harassment, intimidation, or bullying at school. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/89 "2015-05-11T16:49:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Then it sounds like the standard is applied - the rap song that did not disrupt was not subject to sanction under the standard. Correct. Yu expressed confusion about what I meant by the standard being applied even when the facts of the case were judged to fall short of the standard needed for sanction. Do we have any disagreement here? > [@](#): > > No one is saying they were charged with a crime. Then stop saying ā€œlega/illegalā€ as if it had any importance to this discussion, please. It simply clouds the facts. > [@](#): > > Therefore ISTM that the school needs to show one of the other elements necessary under _Tinker_ that establishes the schoolā€™s right to sanction legal behavior Thyet are called regulations and policies. Every public school has them. > [@](#): > > namely that hitting 'Like" on an offensive video disrupts the school in some way, even though it did not happen on school property, did not use any school equipment, and involved the school acting against its students for expressing an opinion. 210:10-1-20. Implementation of policies prohibiting bullying. As I posted above. I didnā€™t bother to check whether the specific school district has a regulation pertinent, but the state of Oklahoma does. > [@](#): > > He wasnā€™t following the law. Yes, he was. You should really do your research before making such pronouncements. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/90 "2015-05-11T17:49:20Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Arenā€™t the vast majority of school disciplinary sanctions imposed on students for actions that are perfectly legal? I donā€™t know - are they? How many disciplinary sanctions are imposed for actions that are legal, donā€™t disrupt the schoolā€™s educational process, and donā€™t occur on school grounds or involve any school-sponsored activity? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/91 "2015-05-11T17:53:53Z")
> [@Spiritus\_Mundi](#): > > Thyet are called regulations and policies. Every public school has them. And if they violate the right of students, they need to be changed. > [@](#): > > 210:10-1-20. Implementation of policies prohibiting bullying. As I posted above. I didnā€™t bother to check whether the specific school district has a regulation pertinent, but the state of Oklahoma does. Hitting Like on a video is not bullying, especially when it doesnā€™t take place on school grounds or during school-sponsored activities. > [@](#): > > Yes, he was. You should really do your research before making such pronouncements. No, he wasnā€™t. the _Tinker_ decision says that schools may not sanction their students for exercising their free speech rights unless it disrupts the educational mission of the school. No such disruption has occurred or been demonstrated. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/92 "2015-05-11T17:56:58Z")
> [@Spiritus\_Mundi](#): > > Thanks. Reasonable people can disagree on such things. No prob. > [@](#): > > Bullying and cyber bullying are disruptive. Would you agree with that statement? I am asking because I want to know whether area of dispute is specifically whether ā€œlikingā€ an action of bullying contributes to the bullying. Absolutely. However, such matters vary in signifcance and severity. The area of dispute is not whether ā€œbullying and cyber bullyingā€ are, per se, proper subjects of school discipline, but whether the action of signifuying ā€œlikeā€ is significant enough, in itself, to be subject to school discipline. > [@](#): > > I;m not sure that is pertinent. I haven;t seen any facts of this case that indicate a zero tolerance policy was behind the enforcement or the specific penalty. Surely you are not saying that a first offense should never be sanctioned or punished in a school setting? Are you? No, I think a ā€œfirst offenceā€ can be sanctioned with discipline - depending on the facts. To my mind, punishing students for trivially minor offences can only be justified by the sort of slippery-slope arguments one sees in this thread - that is, if you allow trivially minor offences, it is ā€˜the same asā€™ allowing more significant offences ā€¦ which is the exact logic behind ā€˜zero tolleranceā€™ policies. > [@](#): > > We have a very different understanding of the severity of a 3 day suspension, then. It is neither a slap on the wrist nor an academic death sentence. The [Student and Family Guide to Success for Tulsa Public Schools](https://www.tulsaschools.org/3_Parents/_documents/pdf/ParentGuide.pdf) lists many infractions for which a short term suspension may be part of the ā€œBehavior Response Planā€. These include: Inappropriate useof technology/computers, bullying, smoking or using e-cigarettes, participation in prohibited clubs, possission of stolen property, et al. > > Those are all Tier II of their classification. Suspension is not deemed appropriate only for Tier III or Tier IV behaviors. So I do not find a 3 day suspension to be outrageously harh, and it does not appear that the Tulsa school systems views it as such, either. I agree that the school system in this case did not find such a punishment to be overly harsh - as they imposed it. They are, however, wrong in that - or at least, so I am alleging. Hitting a ā€œlikeā€ button on a website is a trivial action and cannot justfy _any_ disciplinary action. It is only by defining it as ā€œbullyingā€ or suchlike that one can attempt to justify it ā€¦ but of course that begs the question. > [@](#): > > I also not that the state of Oklahoma appears to have a specific [Regulation: 210:10-1-20. Implementation of policies prohibiting bullying.](http://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/discipline-compendium/Oklahoma%20School%20Discipline%20Laws%20and%20Regulations.pdf) directly pertinent to this case: Again, I have no beef with the policy, merely its application to these facts. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/93 "2015-05-11T18:32:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I donā€™t know - are they? > > How many disciplinary sanctions are imposed for actions that are legal, donā€™t disrupt the schoolā€™s educational process, and donā€™t occur on school grounds or involve any school-sponsored activity? > > Regards, > Shodan Not many, Iā€™d hope, but at least two of your descriptors donā€™t apply to this situation. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/94 "2015-05-11T18:34:25Z")
Heading to aiport, so just a couple of short replies: **Shodan** The regulation specifically addresses electronic communication not using school property. Perhaps you would like to respond to that point. Saying teh regulation is wrong and should be changed is one thing. Declaring that the principal was ā€œnot following the lawā€ because he applied an existing regulation is another. Which is your position? You seem to be arguing both simultaneously. **Malthus** So on the acts of the case we disagree only upon whether a ā€œlikeā€ on social media is sufficient to contribute to cullying. I don;t think either will conince the other, but I will note that bullying through social media and online derision has had real world consequences in several tragic cases. It is certainly an area that is frought with conflicting priorities. Black and white rules are unlikely to get it right 100% (or even a large majority) of the time, so I think allowing the adinistrators closest to the situation to act within established boundaries makes sense. On the 3 day suspension. I think you issed my point. As only a Tier II (out of IV) categorization in the Tulsa code I am saying that the school system is declaring that a short suspension is not a seer disciplinary action. Not just for this offense, but for any offense in that class of behaviors. Iā€™m actually surprised at how many people feel being barred from attending classes and extracuricular actiites for 3 days is extreme and draconian. It appears to me, and apparently to the citizens of Tulsa, to be a relatively moderate punishment appropriate to a variety of offenses that few pwople would categorize as ā€œextremeā€. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/95 "2015-05-11T19:00:45Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > To my mind, punishing students for trivially minor offences can only be justified by the sort of slippery-slope arguments one sees in this thread - that is, if you allow trivially minor offences, it is ā€˜the same asā€™ allowing more significant offences ā€¦ which is the exact logic behind ā€˜zero tolleranceā€™ policies. Actually I think the logic behind zero tolerance policies is a mixture of bureaucratic laziness mixed with a large amount of cover your ass. First, anything less than zero tolerance implies that you tolerate the activity in question which opens you up to criticism. Second, if you have a zero tolerance policy you donā€™t have to craft a more nuanced policy that would recognize the difference between advocating criminal activity vs playing of cops a robbers. Third, if there is some wiggle room in the policy then you will get people on both sides coming at you as to where exactly the boundaries, while if you a zero tolerance policy (even a stupid one) at least you can simply declare that it is out of your hands. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/96 "2015-05-11T19:16:20Z")
> [@Spiritus\_Mundi](#): > > **Shodan** The regulation specifically addresses electronic communication not using school property. Perhaps you would like to respond to that point. Saying teh regulation is wrong and should be changed is one thing. Declaring that the principal was ā€œnot following the lawā€ because he applied an existing regulation is another. Which is your position? You seem to be arguing both simultaneously. Both apply simultaneously. The law in this case is the US Constitution. The Supreme Court is the interpreter of that law. Therefore the _Tinker_ decision is the law of the land. The regulation you mentioned violates the _Tinker_ decision and is thus illegal. School regulations do not have the force of law. Since the principal was following the regulation instead of the law, he was not following the law - he was following the regulation. The regulation is wrong and should be changed, but that does not alter the fact that the principal was in violation of the US Constitution by interfering with free speech under circumstances that did not satisfy the requirements of _Tinker_. If the law and a school regulation are in conflict and you follow the regulation, you are not following the law. > [@Miller](#): > > Not many, Iā€™d hope, but at least two of your descriptors donā€™t apply to this situation. I donā€™t know which two you are talking about. This was legal, did not disrupt the educational mission of the school, and did not happen on school grounds, use school equipment, or take place as part of any school-sponsored activity. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/97 "2015-05-11T22:02:55Z")
> [@Spiritus\_Mundi](#): > > **Malthus** So on the acts of the case we disagree only upon whether a ā€œlikeā€ on social media is sufficient to contribute to cullying. I don;t think either will conince the other, but I will note that bullying through social media and online derision has had real world consequences in several tragic cases. It is certainly an area that is frought with conflicting priorities. Black and white rules are unlikely to get it right 100% (or even a large majority) of the time, so I think allowing the adinistrators closest to the situation to act within established boundaries makes sense. I note your insertion of ā€œcontributeā€. A lot of things could, arguably, ā€œcontributeā€ to bullying - whether online or otherwise. Some line has to be drawn as to what is too de minimus to discipline for (or, looking at it another way, what is significant enough to require discipline). This is particularly so where what the school is dealing with is behaviour outside of the school itself. To my mind, that line should be drawn based on a demonstration of actual ā€œdisruptionā€ in class. Not of whether some expression indicates moral bankruptcy on the part of the person making the expression. Otherwise, what one gets is judgments based, not on any actual pedogogic rationale, but on oneā€™s sense of moral outrage. This of course differs from person to person. I happen to agree that expressions of homophobia are morally outrageous, but I donā€™t think that any evidence has been alleged that would demomstrate that hitting the ā€œlikeā€ button is probably (or even potentially) likely to disrupt classes. As for ā€œtragic consequencesā€ - this again goes to the notion that all things that can be defined as ā€œbullyingā€ (or courld be defined as ā€œcontributingā€ to bullying) ought to be treated the same. _Some_ forms of bullying have tragic consequences, indeed. I am not convinced hitting a ā€œlikeā€ button is likely to rise to that level. > [@](#): > > 3 day suspension. I think you issed my point. As only a Tier II (out of IV) categorization in the Tulsa code I am saying that the school system is declaring that a short suspension is not a seer disciplinary action. Not just for this offense, but for any offense in that class of behaviors. Iā€™m actually surprised at how many people feel being barred from attending classes and extracuricular actiites for 3 days is extreme and draconian. It appears to me, and apparently to the citizens of Tulsa, to be a relatively moderate punishment appropriate to a variety of offenses that few pwople would categorize as ā€œextremeā€. You arenā€™t reading the Code correctly. Not all Tier II offences qualify for a suspention. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion. Each offence has a ā€œspectrum of responsesā€ ranging from a ā€œParent/guardian conferenceā€ through fuch things as ā€œdetentionā€, and including ā€œshort suspentionā€ for most (but not all: ā€˜smokingā€™ and ā€˜skipping classā€™ are not eligible for suspention - see p. 24-25). However, if you look at the code, you will see this note under ā€œTier IIā€ on page 30: > [@](#): > > If the behavior constitutes a health or safety risk, then an out-of-school suspension may be imposed. Hereā€™s the definition of ā€œbullyingā€ from the code: > [@](#): > > 202 ā€” Bullying: Any pattern of harassment, intimidation, threatening behavior, physical acts, verbal or electronic communication directed > toward a student or group of students that results in or is reasonably perceived as being done with intent to cause negative educational or > physical results for the targeted individual or group and is communicated in such a way as to disrupt or interfere with the schoolā€™s education > mission or the education of any student. In summary, if hitting ā€œlikeā€ consitutes ā€œbullyingā€ (which I assume is your argument), an out of school suspention may only be imposed ā€œIf the behavior constitutes a health or safety riskā€ - according to the Code which you have cited; and even then, it is discretionary. Can you reasonably argue that hitting a ā€œlikeā€ button actually risks the health or safety of anyone? That seems like a very big stretch. If not, imposing a 3 day suspention fails to fall within the published Code. The Tulsa Code considers offences worthy of the extraordinary punishment of a suspention, not because they are ā€œTier IIā€, but because the behavior constitutes a ā€œhealth or safety riskā€. Otherwise, a lesser form of discipline is mandated. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/98 "2015-05-11T22:10:34Z")
Shodan - your reading of Tinker is incompatible with how multiple circuit courts have read it and since the Supreme Court has declined to clarify further the law of the land is not, in fact, that students have unfettered free speech rights when not on campus. At least not if the land in question is the United States of America. Things may be different in \*\*Shodan-land \*\*, but neither I nor any of the parties in this incident live there. The principal is not obligated to follow your interpretation of the Constitution. Thatā€™s why we have a judicial branch. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/99 "2015-05-11T22:58:03Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The area of dispute is not whether ā€œbullying and cyber bullyingā€ are, per se, proper subjects of school discipline, but whether the action of signifuying ā€œlikeā€ is significant enough, in itself, to be subject to school discipline. I agree with this assessment. But like some others here, I disagree with your conclusion. But I think we can agree that arguments about ā€œfree speechā€ and constitutional rights when it comes to any organizationā€™s code of conduct against bullying or anything else are arguments that are bullshit and completely miss the point. > [@Malthus](#): > > ā€¦ As for ā€œtragic consequencesā€ - this again goes to the notion that all things that can be defined as ā€œbullyingā€ (or courld be defined as ā€œcontributingā€ to bullying) ought to be treated the same. _Some_ forms of bullying have tragic consequences, indeed. I am not convinced hitting a ā€œlikeā€ button is likely to rise to that level ā€¦ > > ā€¦ Can you reasonably argue that hitting a ā€œlikeā€ button actually risks the health or safety of anyone? That seems like a very big stretch. Yes, I can. This is the crux of your argument and I think itā€™s completely wrong. What is the implied message in the ā€œlikeā€? Itā€™s pretty clearly a message of approval ā€“ that is, ā€œI approve of vandalizing school property to show that I hate gaysā€. Think about how any minority seeing such a message directed against them would feel ā€“ that they are outcasts, they are hated, that they might even feel threatened because people apparently are willing to condone criminal acts against them. That there are more brutal and more egregious forms of hate possible is irrelevant because all of it, together, adds up ā€“ it collectively creates an environment of hostility that eats away at a personā€™s dignity and sense of self-worth, which is why bullying has been so associated with teen suicides ā€“ not just in the case of gays, but also for those victimized for other reasons like being unattractive or unpopular. Zero-tolerance policies are not, as someone tried to claim, the result of ā€œbureaucratic lazinessā€, but a recognition that a personā€™s environment and the self-image that it engenders is the result of a great many things, small and large, and _ **all of them matter** _. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569/100 "2015-05-11T23:12:42Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. I havenā€™t read this thread yet, but I hope nobody runs with the mistaken argument about how liberals are somehow hypocrites for not forcing themselves to accept everyone. Tolerance does not mean you have to accept everyone [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principal-suspends-high-school-students-for-liking-hateful-video/719569.md?page=6)