Ok..what I'm trying to reference is not so much the discipline but expectations that the school district had for the students.

Particularly the sections of Effective Communicator and Responsible Citizen.

That's all, wasn't trying to make it complicated.

Right, but that's all in the context of curriculum. It's not so much behavioral expectations of the students as it is expectations of how the curriculum will equip students. I'll be very surprised if there's not another handbook that outlines what behavior can lead to disciplinary action and what disciplinary action is possible, with appeal rights, etc.

I see what you're getting at, but from a due process standpoint (which is what would matter in this instance), it's pretty irrelevant to a question of whether this conduct falls within the ambit of behavior that the school has said can result in discipline.

The relevance of what you've cited would go to whether the school is achieving its goal in terms of teaching students about responsible citizenship and effective communication, not whether a student can be disciplined.

I have to chime in. Last year, my son got mad at his teacher (who was an idiot btw - that does happen, but no, I never got involved nor backed up my son - I might have if he was my 1st child, but, poor kid - he's the 3rd, and he's pretty much raised himself, we call him the wolf cub ;) but I digress, sorry).

Anywho, he posted on his status page that "Mrs. X (name omitted to protect the idiot) was an idiot", and about 40 kids "agreed". I happened to spot it and demanded that he delete, which thankfully he did and it went unremarked upon by the school.

IF he had been busted for the STUPID act of a then 16 year old, a momentary indiscretion done in our study, in our home. And, if he had been suspended for 5 days, which would go on his permanent record and have to be disclosed on college admissions records, I would probably have pitched a major fit. Thankfully, none of that came to pass.

But, I believe that in many ways the schools are really overstepping the bounds. If the school in question had just contacted the parents and said, "your kid has done something creepy at home and you need to know about it." Then the parents could have punished the kid at home for something he did at home.

My mom pitched a fit when I was suspended my junior year because the principal saw me smoking in the parking lot across the street from the highschool. I wasn't on school property, only within sight of it. Should that suspension have stood?

I don't know, I'm just glad I've got 3 more months of this, then no more worries of this sort.

Exactly!

Thanks!

Hate to go all Wikipedia on you, but really....

Really.

At any rate, it's good for kids to learn that online postings can have serious real world consequences while in high school than when they're applying for jobs, or God forbid, in a court of law.

As a fellow wolf cub, I love this. :D

I think there are two different questions, though:

1. Was the school within its authority to suspend the student?
2. Could the school have handled it better without suspending the student?

From a legal standpoint, the first question is the one that matters. I'm not saying that I think the school handled this the best way possible. Frankly, I don't know about that. I'm just talking about whether the school was within its legal authority, or rather, responding to those who think the school clearly exceeded its authority.

There's no question that just because a school has the legal authority to take certain action doesn't mean its in the school's or the student's best interest to take that action.

I think we have to consider that we are living in the age of 'post-Columbine' (?sp). Ever since that event, high school admins take any threat against the school seriously. Even if it seems 'small' and 'remote'. I think some of the zero-tolerance policies are a little extreme, but this is the world we live in now. :(

THAT'S bullshit. That's like making teenagers go to AA meetings if they get caught with A beer. Anger management classes are there to help people with real issues, not some dude who made a page on Facebook.

Hey...look at it like this, his issue was not properly utilizing conflict resolution to deal with a sitiuation that was detrimental to his learning environment.

Riiiight? Riiiiiiiiight? ;)

On the other hand it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Either one of the choices (suspended for 5 days or anger management) goes onto his permanent record. But one appears a lesser evil of the other.

He exercised his 1st amendment right, now he has to be responsible for his actions.

Exactly. Proving the point. Those classes, as far as I knew, are for people who just can't keep themselves from smacking someone upside the head who annoys them. They're not for a kid who did something stupid. If he's in that class and they have to pussify it for his pussy actions, that hurts the rest of the people who are there actually trying to get some help that they need.

I agree (especially after hearing some of the teacher's comments) that there's more to this than a kid letting off steam. Two were definitely tangoing in this case.

Off the top of my head for related cases, I'll cite Tinker v. Des Moines.

I quote:
In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. As Judge Gewin, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, school officials cannot suppress "expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend."

Futhermore, facebook is a place for "human expression." It isn't the same as being in school, so it has a higher degree of first amendment protection than if it had actually been said in school. For instance, in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the court ruled in favor of the school only because the newspaper was school funded. If students had put it together out of school, on their own time, it would have had a very different ruling.

Tinker v. Des Moines sucks as a citation here (and trust me, Kevin and MC know all about that particular case, I'm sure) - I'll let them explain fully, but needless to say, when they mention "disruption" to the school day, there's a reason. Also I doubt Tinker applies directly to calling your teacher a fucking asshole - that's not exactly speech the school does not wish to deal with in the same way political expressions of dissent are.

With that said, since the school gets to (within reason) determine what is "disruptive" the rule still kind of sucks, but I don't see much of a way around it, and I doubt the Courts do, either.

The points about how the kid is learning an important lesson about the "real world" are pretty moot in my opinion - while he may be, the school's stated goals should be much loftier than "teach those kids a lesson about speaking out" and I'm not sure the way this was handled has really conveyed that lesson either way. Additionally, the legal standards for an employer and a public school are clearly different, although likely neither matter that much in this case.

Would the school have asked the kid to take down a positive fan page? They probably should, since it has similar disruptive potential - but I doubt it would cause such a stir. I feel like schools are caught with their pants down, with no plan to deal with this sort of phenomena and no real desire to embrace the technology, and instead, this kind of reactionary silliness becomes litigation instead of something useful.

Ksig

How do you think this whole situation should be handled with what we know so far?

I just really wanted to use that Tinker v. Des Moines quote. A case that probably pertains much more to this would be Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri.

Oooh, I almost forgot Frederick v. Morse, or the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. In a 5-4 decision, the court actually ruled in favor of the administration but it is still nonetheless a good read.

Tinker dealt with whether the school could censor political speech that happened to occur on school premises. While it lays out general principles of First Amendment application in the public school setting, it dealt with a very different set of issues from those presented by this situation. These general principles, however, include, as you noted, the principle that a school can prohibit or punish certain speech if it can show "that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," and that the speech in question "'materially and substantially interfere[d] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.'" (Quoting Burnside v. Byars)

I'm not sure I see your point. The First Amendment is inapplicable unless the government is trying to censor speech or punish on the basis of speech.

Actually, the issue in Hazelwood was whether the school had established a forum for free expression or not and thus whether the school could reasonably control the contents of the paper and was required to affirmatively sponsor speech that conflicted with school policy and goals. (The Court said no public forum had been created and the school could reasonably control the contents.) There's nothing in the opinion that I see that draws the "if this had been a private newspaper" distinction.

Pertinent to this discussion, the Court in Hazelwood said:

Students in the public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." They cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises -- whether "in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours," -- unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will "substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students."

We have nonetheless recognized that the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools "are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings," and must be "applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its "basic educational mission," even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. Accordingly, we held in Fraser that a student could be disciplined for having delivered a speech that was "sexually explicit" but not legally obscene at an official school assembly, because the school was entitled to "disassociate itself" from the speech in a manner that would demonstrate to others that such vulgarity is "wholly inconsistent with the 'fundamental values' of public school education." It is in this context that respondents' First Amendment claims must be considered.

To be clear, I am not saying that the school has in fact met this required showing. I am simply refusing to dismiss, based only on the articles we have seen (which never tell the whole story), the possibility that it can meet that showing. And I am refusing to dismiss all possibility that something posted on the web while not at school can be cause for disciplinary action to the same extent it would be if done on school property or during school hours.

It seems to me that analysis of this situation takes two steps: First, if the student had said in class or on school property what he said on facebook, could he be disciplined? If he could, then does it matter that he said what he did in a form of online publication that was (potentially) published at school and could have the same effect at school as if he had said it there. I think that in all likelihood, the answer to the first question is "yes," and I think it is possible that the answer to the second question could be "no, it does not matter."

I find nothing in Tinker or Hazelwood to suggest otherwise. Ditto Papish (in which the Court per curiam reversed the decision allowing the university to take disciplinary action for "violations of conventions of decency") or Frederick.