Neither social media or the classroom are private so it is comical in either application.
If the student affected had overheard the conversation at the mall, it would not have made any difference. That is a matter for the parents to address, not the school. It did not take place on school property.
If it took place on school property, then the school should address it. Off property, no.
I don’t like the idea that a school acts in loco parentis when the kids are not at school.
I hope some kids key the pricipal’s car, on school grounds, tape it, post it, and get 200 likes from students, posting off school grounds. And I want them, ALL 200 of them, suspended.
Then I want all you people who support the principal now, to tell me how you still support the principal for the 200 suspensions. And how “liking” such a “despicable act” makes the 200 “complicit” in the keying of the car. And how “strong action” is “necessary” for faculty and administration to have a “safe” and “harassment-free” work environment.
We all know this is a free speech question and the kids are being punished for having unpopular views, not because they violated any school rule.
Except that’s not an analogis situation. That act my be despicable but it does not rise to the level of bullying a part of the schools demographic. If they decided to carve ‘kike’ or ‘nigger’ into the car we’d have something more equivalent. In which case unless the school is a haven of bigotry I doubt you could get 200+ students to like such a thing.
You don’t think supporting hate speech and criminal acts is a violation of school policy? It’s just an unpopular view?
As I said earlier a suspension for a single like is a rather harsh punishment, I think the school should have just notified the parents and spelled out the schools policies on such things. Action beyond that should require more then hitting a button on Facebook.
Why stop here?
Why not go a step further and scan Facebook to see if any students have criticized the administration’s decision to suspend those who clicked “like,” and then suspend them, too? After all, by criticizing the school’s decision, they are indirectly endorsing homophobia.
(sarcasm)
Imagine if a speaker at a school assembly said something racist and a few students (out of a crowd of hundreds) cheered. Now imagine an administrator then ordered school officials to use video and audio technology (assuming that was present on the scene) to track down which students had emitted the cheers, “so that we can track them down one by one and suspend them.” We’d probably exclaim, “What is this, a police state?”
Full disclosure: I think the principal did the right thing disciplining all the students, although I think suspension for a first offence like that, possibly the first offence of that kind punished, is too harsh.
But what’s with the straw men from those of you setting free speech first? Are you that unaware of how social media and cyber bullying works? By all means, stand up for your principles and declare this a case where free speech should overrule other concerns, but you’re not really impressing anyone with the quality of your analogies.
Like Velocity’s latest hyperbole, which it’s not even worth it pointing out how flawed is, as anyone can just move to “well okay, that was flawed, but the likes where an offence committed off school property, so neener-neener”.
There are times where I feel like I’m just old. I mean, do people really not remember what it was like 20 to 25 years ago? Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and all that jazz? Do people really not get that they’re using the exact same justifications about things like consequences that people used to sanction pro-LGBT speech then?
Jeez, at least have the courage of your convictions people. Just come out and say “The kids engaged in protected free speech for views I find abhorrent! Free speech clearly wasn’t meant for views I personally disagree with!” Yeah, suspend the vandal, but you really don’t want to go down the road suspending people for Likes leads.
(I didn’t see your post before, thus the late response)
The real crime of the perpetrators was the defacing of school property, and violating the rules on school grounds. The supporters didn’t actually commit a crime, as far as I know. We have a long standing tradition that one is allowed to be a douche. And I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that use of a slur rises to the level of threat.
Schools do (IMO) have a right to declare certain language off-limits within the bounds of the school, so they can (and should) prohibit calling names, but I suspect that rule extends across the bad word spectrum, from simple swearing to slurs and epithets.
I sincerely hope that people don’t get the idea that I support this behavior. You’ll just have to take my word for it that I am very much opposed to maltreatment of others, that I think LGBT should be a protected class, and I hold lots of other happy, progressive views.
To me there are two issues here that I have a problem with. One is the schools overstepping their bounds. The other is the idea that a government institution should be enforcing a way of thought.
Presumably, the kids that posted the video were the ones that perpetrated the actual act and it was the act itself that got them suspended, not the post. I think that is what OldOlds was saying.
Miller, would you support the suspension of any students that posted a +1 to any of posts disagreeing with the actions of the principal in this thread?
I don’t have that conviction. I think there’s an obvious difference between not being allowed to tell people you’re gay, and not being allowed to tell gay people they’re untermenschen, and I think that while both are protected speech, the latter should have school administered consequences for kids.
I really don’t want to go down the road that declaring “likes” to be universally protected free speech leads, since we’ve already seen the consequences of bullying campaigns online and know how easy it would be to change that first sharing of the “Mary is a worthless retard” pic to an anonymous post and we know that the effect is in how many likes that picture gets.
Honestly i am a bit torn about the actions of the principal. I am wondering if reactions would be the same if instead of an LGBT poster, it had been a poster of a fellow student – i don’t know, maybe a girl running for class president.
I wouldn’t.
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 being’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]
That’s it.
I’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.
It’s not like things on Facebook stay on Facebook and high schoolers are incredibly petty. Would you be as sanguine about their free speech if your child’s classroom time is interrupted because of an altercation stemming from the video?
I agree, the supporters have not broken any law. But perfectly legal behavior is often subject to school discipline. I can call Joe Smith a dickhead without facing legal repercussions. But if Joe Smith happens to be my chem teacher, I’m probably facing some detention if I do it.
Do you think that one student calling another an asshole, should be treated the same as one student calling another a nigger? I think the later should rightly be punished more harshly than the other.
As to “within the bounds of the school,” the problem with social media is that it’s difficult to pin down an exact time and place where the interaction between two people occurs. If I post, “Jimmy Jones is a fag,” on his Facebook page at home, but he first sees on his phone when he’s at school, exactly where has the insult taken place? It’s tempting to say, “It was posted at home, so it took place off campus,” because that’s simplest. But is that a materially different situation from me standing just off campus, and yelling, “You’re a fag!” to Jimmy, who is on campus?
We still teach civics in schools, right? Hasn’t one of the explicit purposes of public education always been teaching good citizenship?
No. It’s possible to think a particular punishment is inappropriate or too harsh, without endorsing the act that’s being punished - as this very thread demonstrates.
I think another important thing in this case is… Does the school have a clear policy on such matters and are the students informed of what that policy is? If not, then I think the school is on a thin ice as they are essentially making up rules as they go along.
How would you guys like it if the moderators did that here? 
It is absolutely analogous: the bullied demographic is the adults who park at school, who now have to fear for the safety of their property. Hate “speech” is not necessary because you already have hate “actions”: the felonious vandalism of private property. But if you like, amend the analogy; a black principal has “nigger” keyed into his car, 200 kids like it, etc.
That’s not free speech? Those “likers” should be disciplined because their action of “liking” it contributed, ex post facto, to the keying occurring? Now all parkers, or black people, are being bullied? That’s crazy.
I like this analogy even better because the keying of the car might get 200 likes, even if many of the “likers” don’t endorse the racial slur, but do endorse the vandalism, or they endorse the ballsiness of posting it, or they just hit “like” because it’s a way to “share” the video, which they found pretty shocking.
But no, the principal can make windows into the kids’ souls and he KNOWS that every “like” is an implicit threat and those kids deserve suspension and no First Amendment protection for something they did at home. Outrageous.
[quote=“Spiritus_Mundi, post:54, topic:719569”]
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 being’s courage or honesty.
[quote]
Dude (or dudette) what?
I mean, you don’t even disagree with me. Right below, you say, free speech should be fettered when you decide that it’s for the right reason. As it turns out, I agree with you that this particular instance of free speech sucks, and that nobody should like it, but it sucks less than suspending people because they do.
Mmm. Again, I invite you to remember that all it takes is people to decide that homosexuality harms kids, and you’re back to supporting the status quo we had 25 years ago. This is a bad argument, with a bad pedigree; the fact that it can be used for good in the current political climate does not change this.
I mean, let’s extend it out. If Liking someone graffiti-ing is worthy of suspension, showing support for death threats should be right out, even if it’s happening off school grounds? Well, OK, let’s suspend all students who go to church or synagogue over that whole Leviticus thing. If kids don’t have first-amendment rights, they don’t have first-amendment rights; they totally should be able to be punished for their worship if we can tie it back to fear, shame, and ostracism, right?
You weaken your case with such reductions to the absurd. “Bully” has a meaning, and that meaning is not “any criminal”.
Again with the excessive hyperbole. Are you able to make an argument without it? I can’t think of any other situation in which we expect a controlling authority (judge, principal, jury, etc.) to lok into a persons soul and KNOW the darkness that lies within. The Shadow was pulp fiction, not a standard for jurisprudence.
Indeed.