So, all of them were criminally charged? :eek: 
I don’t understand what this means. The standard allows sanctions against actions that don’t meet the standard?
Unless it isn’t illegal and doesn’t happen on school property. Then it isn’t any of the administration’s business.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree with all of your points except the conclusions that hitting “like” 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 ‘like’ isn’t nearly enough, in my view, to rise to the level I believe ought to be required for ‘disruption’. Even assuming it does rise to that level, a three-day suspension is absurdly disproportionate.
In general, I’m against all types of ‘zero tolerance’ disciplining in schools - whether it be for drugs, for violence, for bullying, or whatever. Not, I hasten to add, because I’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 ‘zero tolerance’ policies - only, they want them applied to different things. Each side sees the other’s concerns as absurdly overblown. Those on the Right tend to want ‘zero tolerance’ for drugs, clothes and sexual expression; those on the Left tend to want ‘zero tolerance’ for bullying and expressions of violence. Both sides base their arguments over concern with ‘disruption’; both sides oppose the other side’s causes as paying insufficient attention to student’s legitimate rights.
To the students, both tend to appear to be unreasonably nannying.
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. 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.
Illegal is the wrong standard. Nobody was charged with a crime.
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.
You think you’re just being funny, but my first reaction was “3 days? That’s some milquetoast bullshit right there”. I’d be happy if they were expelled. I would cackle and crow.
And it’s not a “thought crime” - unless they clicked the “like” button on the hate speech with their mutant brain powers…
Then it sounds like the standard is applied - the rap song that did not disrupt was not subject to sanction under the standard.
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 school’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.
He wasn’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 “bullying” is meaningless. One has to show real and direct effects - “you hurt my feelings on Facebook” doesn’t cut it.
Regards,
Shodan
Aren’t the vast majority of school disciplinary sanctions imposed on students for actions that are perfectly legal?
Thanks. Reasonable people can disagree on such things.
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 “liking” an action of bullying contributes to the bullying.
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?
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 lists many infractions for which a short term suspension may be part of the “Behavior Response Plan”. 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. directly pertinent to this case:
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?
Then stop saying “lega/illegal” as if it had any importance to this discussion, please. It simply clouds the facts.
Thyet are called regulations and policies. Every public school has them.
210:10-1-20. Implementation of policies prohibiting bullying. As I posted above. I didn’t bother to check whether the specific school district has a regulation pertinent, but the state of Oklahoma does.
Yes, he was. You should really do your research before making such pronouncements.
I don’t know - are they?
How many disciplinary sanctions are imposed for actions that are legal, don’t disrupt the school’s educational process, and don’t occur on school grounds or involve any school-sponsored activity?
Regards,
Shodan
And if they violate the right of students, they need to be changed.
Hitting Like on a video is not bullying, especially when it doesn’t take place on school grounds or during school-sponsored activities.
No, he wasn’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
No prob.
Absolutely. However, such matters vary in signifcance and severity.
The area of dispute is not whether “bullying and cyber bullying” are, per se, proper subjects of school discipline, but whether the action of signifuying “like” is significant enough, in itself, to be subject to school discipline.
No, I think a “first offence” 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 ‘the same as’ allowing more significant offences … which is the exact logic behind ‘zero tollerance’ policies.
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 “like” button on a website is a trivial action and cannot justfy any disciplinary action. It is only by defining it as “bullying” or suchlike that one can attempt to justify it … but of course that begs the question.
Again, I have no beef with the policy, merely its application to these facts.
Not many, I’d hope, but at least two of your descriptors don’t apply to this situation.
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 “not following the law” 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 “like” 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. I’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 “extreme”.
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 don’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.
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.
I don’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
I note your insertion of “contribute”.
A lot of things could, arguably, “contribute” 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 “disruption” 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 one’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 don’t think that any evidence has been alleged that would demomstrate that hitting the “like” button is probably (or even potentially) likely to disrupt classes.
As for “tragic consequences” - this again goes to the notion that all things that can be defined as “bullying” (or courld be defined as “contributing” to bullying) ought to be treated the same. Some forms of bullying have tragic consequences, indeed. I am not convinced hitting a “like” button is likely to rise to that level.
You aren’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 “spectrum of responses” ranging from a “Parent/guardian conference” through fuch things as “detention”, and including “short suspention” for most (but not all: ‘smoking’ and ‘skipping class’ are not eligible for suspention - see p. 24-25).
However, if you look at the code, you will see this note under “Tier II” on page 30:
Here’s the definition of “bullying” from the code:
In summary, if hitting “like” consitutes “bullying” (which I assume is your argument), an out of school suspention may only be imposed “If the behavior constitutes a health or safety risk” - according to the Code which you have cited; and even then, it is discretionary.
Can you reasonably argue that hitting a “like” 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 “Tier II”, but because the behavior constitutes a “health or safety risk”. Otherwise, a lesser form of discipline is mandated.
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. That’s why we have a judicial branch.
I agree with this assessment. But like some others here, I disagree with your conclusion. But I think we can agree that arguments about “free speech” and constitutional rights when it comes to any organization’s code of conduct against bullying or anything else are arguments that are bullshit and completely miss the point.
Yes, I can. This is the crux of your argument and I think it’s completely wrong. What is the implied message in the “like”? It’s pretty clearly a message of approval – that is, “I approve of vandalizing school property to show that I hate gays”. Think about how any minority seeing such a message directed against them would feel – 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 – it collectively creates an environment of hostility that eats away at a person’s dignity and sense of self-worth, which is why bullying has been so associated with teen suicides – 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 “bureaucratic laziness”, but a recognition that a person’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.
I haven’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