In this story, as high school student photographs his principal smoking on school grounds (in front of an open door no less). So, it appears he posted it to his own website along with commentary and now he’s suspended. What’s up with that? The principal claims the student harrassed and slandered the principal. I can’t comment on harrassment, but slander? She’s clearly smoking in those pictures!
I’m not always a big ACLU fan but I’ve got to agree with this:
“I think that he has raised legitimate issues about his first amendment rights to be able to, on his own time, with his own materials, put up a Web site that addresses issues that are of concern to him about the school,” said Steven Brown of American Civil Liberties Union. “That is something that we think he has a right to do and he’s also raised some legitimate issues about the way that the suspension occurred.”
I think it’s stupid that he’s been suspended. It’s his website, done on his own time. If it is indeed “extremely disruptive of teaching and learning,” as the Principal suggests (and which i doubt), then that’s not really his problem.
This whole thing sounds like something of a vendetta against the student. The fact that the Deputy Principal is also a State Respresntative makes it somehow even more troubling, although there’s no real reason why it should. Dickheads come in all shapes and sizes.
The Principal herself is, no doubt, most pissed off by this:
Sounds like the kid did the school a service.
** bugmenot login: dan@mailinator.com password: dandan
Perhaps it is just here in CA, but isn’t smoking on middle school/high school campuses really, really illegal?
I’ll agree the kid shouldn’t have posted fliers and such. I can see where fliers would be considered disruptive to the school, but the kid had every right to maintain that website. Does this boy have the ACLU on his side? If so, he’ll be fine.
My story was from my local news (for me it’s a local story) and it didn’t say anything about the fliers. Even then, I think he should have the right to free speech in this matter.
He should probably tone down the claims that she’s prejudiced against hispanics unless he has some solid proof, but he caught her dead to rights with that cigarette and he should be allowed to tell and show people.
A principal breaks a school rule and punishs a student for catching her. It’s still early in the year, but I think we’ve got a strong contender for this year’s “Worst Mishandling of a School Disciplinary Situation” prize.
I really don’t see how his website is “disruptive of teaching and learning”, unless you mean teaching them that authority figures are above the law and learning how to buckle under pressure.
Principals are not uncommonly little dictators. This one got embarassed and turned to harassment, for which a brief suspension should be considered.*
If the student was passing out flyers advertising the website in school, he was being somewhat of an ass and could legitimately have been told to cut it out, and that should have ended it.
The only thing nuttier than school administrator behavior is school board behavior.
*or alternately, having students serenade the principal with "Smokin’ In The Boys’ Room’ featuring alternate lyrics.
If the principle can’t handle being mocked by teens, arrogant little bastards or otherwise, he REALLY needs to think about aother profession. Just wait till he starts having to deal with parents.
This principal and this dean show, indeed, that everyone rises to their own level of incompetence. And when I’m your POTUS in 2008, that will be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.
I must agree and I think he needs to cool that. It’s probably true though even if he can’t prove it.
After reading that one kid’s e-mail on the website, I think it would be safe to say, though, that Central High School doesn’t exactly produce the world’s greatest grammarians.
How much do I love that our young man send back the letter from the school with corrections though. He’s my kind of kid.
In the case of shutting down the website, I see the makings of a successful lawsuit by the student/ACLU if 1) the principal was in a public place and 2) the student who photographed the principal did so in a public place. If this is true, then it’s a First Amendment case. The principal cannot order the student to shut down the website. It’s outside the scope of her duties. She would have to file a cease and desist order with the court, which would have to have very compelling reasons to issue one (and odds are they would laugh her out of court). Or, if the school administration were craftier as is the case of some chicken-hearted ISP owners, threatening the website provider with a libel suit. My wife worked as a journalist and had it been her son–she would have ripped the principal a couple of new ones. She’s had people threaten her in course of her career over these issues, but each time, it occurred only once; lawyer’s for newspapers love this kind of stuff and know that it’s win-win for them. The school administration clearly is going to get gut-shot with gaw-faws if it goes to trial. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is settled out of court in the student’s favor.
In regards to the flyers, this is a little more clear-cut. For one thing, being government-funded institution implies more restrictions. A student attending a public school (although a University/College has more freedom–there still can be restrictions; see below) is governed under the federal, state, school board and district rules. Hence, what flyers would be placed on campus falls under those rules. Flyers that pertain directly or indirectly to the schools mission would be most likely allowed (“Come to the Chess Club meeting”) whereas those that don’t (“Come to the Night Train Drinking Festival” or “Lessons in Sexual Seduction for Young Teens”) could be banned without prejudice. And that would include the student’s flyers in question. There are other more legitimate channels available for the student to confront the principle in regards to her hypocrisy. If I recall the court cases from the 70’s and 80’s correctly, students do not have an absolute right to print and post anything they want on campus. Hence, the principal had the right to seize the flyers on the grounds that it would interfere with the schools mission. I saw this happen even in college on a more profound level. The campus newspaper had endorsed Jimmy Carter for president in 1980 and had printed the edition for distribution the next morning. The University’s lawyer got wind of this and informed the campus president that this could cause legal problems since the campus newspaper was partially government funded and hence couldn’t indulge in political endorsements. So the president ixnayed the edition and the newspaper staff contracted the ACLU to help them fight this. They responded that case wasn’t big enough for them to litigate. (this was told to me by the campus’s newspaper editor whom I was casually acquainted with.). So they collected all 2000 issues and sent them to the Great Recycling Bin in the Sky.
LionelHutz405, I can’t quite see this as true “slander”. From what I’ve seen, verbal defamation of character has to be an outright lie with very little wiggle room. He can claim being “Hispanic” was the reason that she went after him and present that opinion in the court if this is the scope of his charge. It would be a weak-ass position, but the court can’t compel him to change his mind about beliefs rightly or wrongly. Of course it would be better if he could demonstrate that other Hispanics had been discriminated against, but I don’t believe the court would really want to waste it’s time on the charge–because it’s essentially one persons opinion against another’s. On the other hand, if he verbally claim (as oppose to allege) that she was having sex with the students under her charge, he would be required to show evidence that such a thing happened; failing that, charges of slander could be filed. Further complicating the issue is whether or not the principle is “public figure” or not. If the former, slander becomes even harder to prove. I’ve seen plenty of public officials charged with all sorts of deeds that would be slanderous (“President Clinton is a whore-monger”, “Tom Delay is a Nazi”, “Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Liar”). Should anyone of them decide to sue, they’re better off playing the lottery in terms of a favorable outcome. I would guess that the principle is a “public figure” by virtue of the office she holds; but I confess, I don’t know what the test for this is.
Obviously this student is guilty of a serious breach of the cardinal rule of today’s educational system: Don’t diss the guys in charge. He should learn to properly respect his betters, instead of running around spreading scurrilous rumors about those whom God has ordained to look over him.
