Blog

As we have discussed several times on this blog in recent years, there are two cases that addressed issues with off-campus online speech by students that resulted in seemingly conflicting responses by the same court. They potentially have implications for how schools can respond to cyberbullying incidents, so are important to follow. To refresh your memory, Layshock v. Hermitage School District involved Justin Layshock, the 17-year-old Hickory High School senior who in 2005 created a “nonthreatening, non‐obscene parody profile making fun of the school principal” from his grandmother’s home using her computer. The school suspended Layshock for 10 days, which was initially upheld in a 2006 hearing, but later overturned by the judge in the case, saying the school went too far. In February of 2010, a panel of judges from the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in and agreed. In this case it appeared the school failed to effectively argue that Layshock’s actions caused a substantial disruption at school – the standard that was established in the seminal Supreme Court case Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969). According to Tinker, school administrators can discipline students for off-campus behavior if it can be demonstrated that such behavior resulted in a “substantial and material disruption” of the school environment.

In the other case (Blue Mountain School District v. J.S.), a 14-year-old eighth-grade student from Blue Mountain Middle School also created a MySpace profile of the principal which included, among other things, an accusation that he was a “sex-obsessed pedophile.” This student was also suspended for 10 days for violating the school’s discipline code and for using the schools copyrighted material (the principal’s picture from the school’s web site) without permission. The lower court refused to grant the student a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction ruling that schools can in fact discipline students for lewd off-campus behavior, even if such behavior doesn’t cause a substantial disruption. Another, separate panel from the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court in an opinion that seemed inconsistent with the Layshock ruling.

To resolve these disparate views, the Third Circuit agreed to review the cases collectively (“en blanc”) to offer a perspective. In short, there is nothing too surprising about the remarks of the majority opinions released on Monday. The court re-asserted that schools cannot punish students for off-campus behavior or speech without evidence of a substantial disruption at school (or a high likelihood that such a disruption will occur).

In the Layshock case, the school district conceded that the creation of the MySpace parody profile did not cause a disruption at school. So it is clearly outside the boundaries of formal school discipline. The court also listed several cases where schools were allowed to discipline students for the off-campus behavior (J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 807 A.2d 847 (Pa. 2002); Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ. of Weedsport Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2007); and Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008), noting that “each of those cases involved off campus expressive conduct that resulted in a substantial disruption of the school, and the courts allowed the schools to respond to the substantial disruption that the student’s out of school conduct caused.”

In the other case, the Bethlehem Area School District did initially attempt to argue that J.S.’s activities resulted in a significant disruption at school, though neither the District Court nor the Third Circuit Court of Appeals accepted that argument so they backed off. In the original hearing, the District Court supported the disciplinary actions of the school, not because there was evidence of a substantial disruption, but because the content of the off-campus speech was “vulgar, lewd, and potentially illegal.” This was consistent with Supreme Court decisions in Fraser (1986) and Morse (2007). In its review, however, the Third Circuit noted that in both of these cases, the speech was delivered at school (Fraser) or a school sponsored activity (Morse). As such, the vulgarity of the speech was irrelevant and therefore the singular issue is to consider is whether the off-campus speech resulted in a substantial disruption. Therefore, in a divided opinion (8-6) the Third Circuit overturned the District Court, concluding that: “…the school district violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when it suspended her for speech that caused no substantial disruption in school and that could not reasonably have led school officials to forecast substantial disruption in school.”

Judge Jordon noted in a concurring opinion, however, that: “The issue is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker, can be applicable to off-campus speech. I believe it can, and no ruling coming out today is to the contrary.” So students can be punished for off-campus speech or behavior (consistent with Tinker’s disruption clause).

So where does this leave us. Well, the key issue to keep in mind, it seems, is whether a student’s off-campus speech or behavior results, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, a substantial disruption at school. We have little additional clarity regarding what that actually looks like, but we know a bit more about what it isn’t. Staff accessing a harassing profile at school does not constitute a substantial disruption. A student bringing a printed copy of a Web site to school at the request of staff does not cause a substantial disruption. A few students talking in class does not equal substantial disruption.

It also appears that vulgarities directed toward school officials from an off-campus location are not automatically subject to school discipline. Now, if that speech substantially and/or materially disrupts the learning at school, it may be fair game for sanction. It is interesting that free speech advocates are touting this as a victory for students, suggesting these opinions are evidence that there are no conditions under which schools can discipline students for their off-campus speech. This is clearly an incorrect interpretation of the facts. We have long known that students have free speech rights. We also know that those rights are constrained a bit while at school and where the speech substantially disrupts the school environment. That hasn’t changed.

It is important to also point out that both of these cases involved students who were targeting staff. I would be very interested to see if the opinions changed if all players involved were students. If a student creates a Facebook parody profile about another student, could the target’s ability to learn at school be substantially disrupted? It sure seems so. But it remains to be seen whether the higher courts would agree with this rationale.

I encourage you all to read the full versions of the opinions (over 100 pages in total). Layshock is available here and Blue Mountain is here. And feel free to weigh in with your thoughts.

The state of Virginia has recently proposed guidelines for public schools in order to prevent sexual (and other forms of) misconduct between educators and students. Justin and I have blogged about this issue here and here in the past – and it continues to be a topic of strong interest and controversy as we work with administrators across the nation.

First, I really like the fact that Virginia’s Board of Education has attempted to tackle the issue, as so many states and school districts are not being proactive enough to formally hash out this issue.  Seemingly, this was prompted by the fact that 120 of the 169 actions taken against educators’ licenses since 2000 had to do with some type of misconduct involving students.

Also important to mention is that at least 46 educators have been arrested due to this problem, with half of those cases involving problematic computer or cell phone communications. I don’t have the statistics yet, but it is possible that these trends are mirrored in other states across the nation, as I don’t think Virginia is alone in its struggle to address inappropriate interactions between school personnel and students.

First, let me bring your attention to their model policy for electronic communications with students:

• Teachers and other school board employees must restrict electronic communications with students to accounts, systems and platforms provided by the school division.

• Teachers and other employees may not use personal wireless communications devices to “text” students and are prohibited from interacting with students through online social-networking sites.

• Teachers and other school board employees must decline or disregard invitations from students to interact through texting and social-networking sites.

• Teachers and other school board employees may not knowingly engage in online gaming with students.

• School board policy on electronic communications with students also applies to teachers and other employees of virtual school programs and other vendors providing instructional services to students.

Overall, the state’s Department of Education states that communications should be transparent, accessible to supervisors (I don’t see how this differs from “transparency” – someone let me know…), and professional in tone.

They also specify guidelines for in-person communications with students:

• Conversations with students should focus on matters related to instruction and school activities.

• School board employees and volunteers should not initiate discussions about their private lives or the intimate details of the private lives of unrelated students.

• Conversation by school board employees and volunteers with students that could be interpreted as flirtatious, romantic or sexual is prohibited.

• The sharing of sexually explicit or obscene jokes and verbal “kidding” of a sexual nature between school board employees, volunteers and students is prohibited.

• Private, one-on-one conversations with students should take place within the potential view, but out of the earshot of other adults — such as in a classroom with the hallway door open. This policy also applies to conversations between volunteers and unrelated students.

• School board employees may not conduct an ongoing series of one-on-one meetings with a student without the knowledge of the principal and without written permission of a parent or guardian.

• The school board’s policy on in-person communications with students also applies to teachers and other employees of virtual school programs and other vendors providing instructional services to students.

Obviously, interacting via technology allows for personal thoughts, emotional content, and private feelings to be shared more readily than in person – and of course allows for one-on-one conversation outside of the purview of other adults, removing accountability and perhaps increasing notions of undetectability. The vast majority of educators will not abuse this – but some will. I feel that the work that VDOE has done in this area is pioneering, and I look forward to seeing what feedback is received to refine these guidelines before they are codified.

Blue Mountain School District v. J.S. and Layshock v. Hermitage School District. These are two cases that we have discussed quite frequently on this blog.  We have been waiting a long time to receive clarification from a high court regarding the circumstances under which schools can discipline students for their off-campus online speech and we thought these two cases would provide that guidance.  As we’ve noted before, the default standard has generally been that school administrators can discipline students for off-campus behavior if it can be demonstrated that such behavior resulted in a “substantial and material disruption” of the school environment (Tinker vs. Des Moines, 1969).  One problem is this issue has never really been addressed in the digital age.  Another problem is, what constitutes a disruption of a ‘substantial’ caliber is clearly in the eyes of the beholder.

Take the example of Justin Layshock, the 17-year-old Hickory High School senior who in 2005 created a “nonthreatening, non‐obscene parody profile making fun of the school principal” from his grandmother’s home using her computer.  The school suspended Layshock for 10 days, which was initially upheld in a 2006 hearing, but later overturned by the judge in the case, saying the school went too far.  Last February, a panel of judges from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in and agreed.  In this specific case it appeared the school failed to effectively argue that Layshock’s actions caused a substantial disruption at school.

In the related case, a 14-year-old eighth-grade student from Blue Mountain Middle School also created a MySpace profile of the principal which included, among other things, an accusation that he was a “sex-obsessed pedophile.”  This student was also suspended for 10 days for violating the school’s discipline code and for using the schools copyrighted material (the principal’s picture from the school’s web site) without permission. The lower court refused to grant the student a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction ruling that schools can in fact discipline students for lewd off-campus behavior, even if such behavior doesn’t cause a substantial disruption.  Another, separate panel from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court in an opinion that seemed inconsistent with the Layshock ruling.

In an effort to resolve these two conflicting perspectives, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is now revisiting both cases, by employing a 15-judge panel instead of the original separate smaller panels.  Oral arguments started today and we’ll be sure to update this post when a decision is reached.  What do you think the judges will decide?  At what point can schools take action?  At what point must they take action?

Our colleague Anne Collier from NetFamilyNews made us aware of an email that Anthony Orsini, a middle school principal from New Jersey, sent to parents a couple of weeks ago imploring them to prohibit their children from participating in social networking sites. As reported on CBS and elsewhere, the letter Orsini sent to parents included the following text:

“Please do the following: sit down with your child (and they are just children still) and tell them that they are not allowed to be a member of any social networking site. Today! … There is absolutely no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site! Let me repeat that – there is absolutely, positively no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site! None.”

Sameer and I have been exploring adolescent social networking for almost 5 years and even though we see the worst of the worst in terms of behaviors, we also agree that such examples represent the exception, not the rule.   In general, we believe the benefits of social networking outweigh the negatives and potential risks, if youth learn to use the sites responsibly. It is certainly a very good idea for parents to talk to their kids about what they are doing online, though simply banning access to technology, without just cause, is a big mistake. For one thing, it is literally impossible for parents to completely prevent their children from participating in social networking. If they really want to be on social networking sites, they will find a way to get on: they will go to a friend’s house or log on at the library or pursue underground social networking sites that are less well known or regulated.

It is a much better strategy for parents to carefully express their concerns about these environments and teach youth how to be responsible online. Tell them that it isn’t a good idea to accept as friends those who they do not know and trust in real life. Demonstrate the dangers of posting too much personal information online. Show them how to use the privacy settings. Provide them with examples from the media where teens have gotten into trouble for misusing social networks. Our research suggests that teens are listening and improving social networking practices! Print this out and give it to them. Odds are they will be just fine if they abide by these commonsense guidelines.

Then, have your kids help you set up a Facebook page and tell them that they need to be your friend. That way you can see everything they are doing on the site and you can remind them about what you talked about if they slip up. And you can send them gifts on Farmville.

It is very important that parents and others work to instill responsible practices in youth at a relatively early age – when they will still listen. Banning access is a short-term solution that will likely create additional problems in the future when teens eventually do go online and don’t have the skills necessary to responsibly navigate the World Wide Web.

By the way, as Anne points out on her blog, the same week that the New Jersey principal distributed the email encouraging parents to ban participation in Facebook, the Boston Globe reported that Obama’s pick for Teacher of the Year regularly uses Facebook in her classes. As you know, we have discussed the issue of teachers interacting with teens online in multiple posts on this blog. While I am not sure that we have come to any definitive conclusion, it is interesting to see examples from both sides of the issue come up in the news recently. What do you think: prohibit or promote the use of online social networking?

Let’s return to our multi-post (here, here, and here) discussion of student and teacher interaction on social networking sites or in other online venues. Social networks such as Facebook and MySpace are primarily for socializing. “Socializing” involves interacting for social purposes, and “social purposes” are those marked by friendly companionship with others. It seems, therefore, that school staff should avoid socializing with students in these environments, because educators and students arguably should not be engaged in friendly companionship.

There are some significant concerns with the possibility of students and teachers having this kind of interaction, including the issue that students flirt. If a student were to send a flirtatious message to a staff member, that staff member may be in serious trouble. If the teacher responds to the message warmly, he or she faces the accusation of sexual solicitation. If the teacher turns the student down, he or she faces the possibility of revenge.

Another concern is that the staff member participating on a social networking site will become a “guarantor” of all friends, meaning that if a teacher “friends” some students but not others, it could create a perception that those specific students are favored and may receive preferential treatment (such as a better grade than the others). Relatedly, anything performed online by a public school employee – including information and images posted on social networking sites – will be used to judge the character of that individual. There is also the concern that the friends of the staff member may post unflattering information or tag inappropriate images of them which will quickly be used to prompt one major question: “Is this the kind of person we trust to be responsible for our children?”

Ian Defeo, a substitute teacher in Cape May, New Jersey was judged by online content after giving one of his students a sticker with his band’s logo which also had the address to his MySpace page. The student then visited the teacher’s MySpace page which contained his band’s music videos containing explicit lyrics and one video that contained a brief moment where a woman was exposing herself. The school deemed this content inappropriate and therefore fired him, confirming that school employees can be disciplined for off-duty conduct if the school district can show that the conduct may have had an adverse impact on the school. Non-tenured teachers, like Ian, have even fewer protections.

All of this said, I believe school staff should be able to communicate with students regarding class work and school activities through a school-based Web 2.0 environment and district email system (sometimes also termed a “walled garden” approach). These are school-related communications in which distinctions of status are professional maintained and not socially blurred or distorted. Most communication through school-based means are monitored (for example, all communications are CC’d to an administrator or stored in an accessible database for review and archival) and provide a safer means of interaction between teachers and students. My hope is that more and more of these approaches will be implemented and, more importantly, gain visibility, traction, and usage among teachers and youth.

Referring back to the article in Education Week that I wrote about in my earlier post, Terri Miller, the president of the group Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct, and Exploitation, says “policy makers should not enact reactionary legislation regarding contact between teachers and students. What they really need to focus on is training in proper boundaries.” Overall, the message to school staff members should be: Think before you act/post. Never send or post, or allow others to send or post any material online that will raise questions about your character or values. Another wise practice that seems critical to implement is to always communicate with students in a professional manner, even if you are using privacy protection features on social networking sites (as privacy protections will not necessarily prevent disclosure of the existence and content of these interactions).

Always exercise extreme care when communicating online with students and if at all possible, avoid socializing. These measures, along with district policy that preempts the possibility of inappropriate relationships developing online between staff and students, seems the best way to go.