Blog

There have been a few high profile cases recently reviewed by the courts, and summarized in the media, where students have sued their schools arguing that discipline they received as a result of improper online speech was a violation of their First Amendment right.  The most recent case involved a former Florida high school student, Katherine Evans, who created a Facebook page called “Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever met!” and encouraged other students to “express [their] feelings of hatred.”  Evans was suspended for three days and removed from her AP classes under a policy prohibiting the bullying and cyberbullying of staff.  With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, the student sued the principal.  Judge Barry Garber ruled in favor of the student, saying the school overstepped its authority in disciplining Evans.

Two other recent cases involved similar facts.  In 2005, 17-year-old Justin Layshock created a “nonthreatening, non‐obscene parody profile making fun of the school principal.”  While the school’s disciplinary action (10 day suspension) was initially upheld in a 2006 hearing, the judge in the case later reversed himself, saying the school went too far.  In February of 2010, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in and agreed.  In 2007, a 14-year-old student from Pennsylvania was disciplined for creating a profile calling her principal “a sex addict and pedophile.”  In this case, the court upheld the actions of the school.  These differing opinions seemingly left everyone wondering what the standard really is.  But in all of these cases, it came down to whether or not the speech resulted in a substantial disruption at school.

Sameer and I discuss the issue of student speech quite often in our workshops for educators, because it is such a tricky matter.  And we hear many examples where students create inappropriate profiles online directed toward other students or staff.  In fact, earlier this week a mother called me to seek my assistance in helping to remove a Facebook page that her son had created disparaging a teacher at his school.

It is important to acknowledge that students certainly do have free speech protections under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  It must be noted, however, that when at school, student speech can be restricted much more than if the student was not physically on campus.  A large body of case law has established that schools can discipline students, and restrict their speech at school, as necessary to maintain an appropriate learning environment (see, for example, Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986 and Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 1988).  To be sure, case law has also focused on limiting the ability of educators to restrict speech to only that which occurs on school grounds (see Thomas v. Board of Education, Granville Central School District, 1979).

That said, technology has once again created gray areas with respect to these principles.  What about student speech that occurs away from school but that clearly has some impact on the school?  For example, what if a student creates a web site, from home, using their own personal computer, where they harass a student or criticize a staff member?  This is off-campus speech that clearly affects the school.  While there has been some inconsistency, the courts have generally ruled that in order for educators to intervene in off-campus incidents, they must demonstrate that the speech or behavior caused, or has a great likelihood of causing, a substantial disruption at school.  Just because a teacher or administrator is upset by student speech that occurs off-campus, it doesn’t give them the authority to formally discipline the student(s) involved.  To be sure, school officials ought to contact the parents of the offending party and explain to them the problems with such speech (and hopefully, the parents will take care of it from there).  Moreover, even though the school’s proverbial hands might be tied, the target of the harassing off-campus content has the ability to pursue civil remedies for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or false light.  The point is that there are other ways to make sure the student responsible will be held accountable.

I have to say that I am concerned by the media attention given to these cases because I am afraid that schools will get the wrong impression and interpret these rulings as evidence that they cannot take actions in any incidents that occur away from school.  And this is simply just not true.  In all cases they have the right to take informal action (calling parents, talking to the students involved, expressing dissatisfaction with the behaviors, an extracurricular sanction such as a temporary ban from participating in a sport or club, or capitalizing on the teachable moment by educating the school body about appropriate discourse).  If they can demonstrate a clear link to a substantial disruption at school, they can definitely take more formal actions.  Schools generally get into trouble when they respond with knee-jerk formal reactions (long-term suspensions or expulsions) without carefully considering all of the facts of the case.

In short, students do have the ability to engage in free speech, but when that speech significantly interferes with the school’s ability to provide a safe and secure learning environment for its students, it falls within the reach of a school’s disciplinary arm.  These issues are discussed in more detail in our book and a paper we have forthcoming in the journal Preventing School Failure.  We also have a fact sheet that details more of the legal and policy implications of these and other rulings.

If you’ve logged into Facebook over the last few hours, you may have noticed an open letter from its founder, Mark Zuckerberg.  The letter discusses forthcoming improvements to better safeguard the experience and participation of users on the site.  We at the Cyberbullying Research Center highly approve of these changes, and believe they will assist in reducing online harassment and youth vulnerability to victimization.

While they will be discussed in greater detail after the rollout, Zuckerberg indicated that regional networks will be eliminated, since many networks have thousands and millions of members and therefore allow more openness and visibility in profiles than may be preferred by some users.  Secondly, they will be consolidating all of the privacy and security settings into a few (or maybe even one?) page.  Currently, they are scattered across numerous screens, and I would say it takes users a solid 15-20 minutes to go through each screen and completely lock down their profile to their preferences. Finally, Facebook will allow us to control who out there sees any and every single individual piece of content (note, picture, video, etc.) you upload or create.  This is fantastic, and has been heavily requested for months now.

Facebook has impressed me with the granular level of control it has historically allowed individuals, and this feature will take social networking security to the next level.  Presumably, their privacy initiatives and mechanisms will also serve as a model for other Web 2.0 sites to emulate.

An interesting controversy has emerged in the last couple of weeks over the word “meep.”  What does meep even mean?  Frankly, it doesn’t really matter.  In fact there are numerous and varied definitions of, and uses for, the word meep.  The most frequent use among adolescents, it seems, is to replace an inappropriate word with meep, as in “What the meep!?!”

So the recent controversy emerged when students at Danvers High School in Massachusetts threatened to disrupt the school environment by muttering, yelling, and collectively spewing the word meep during class time.  Danvers Principal Thomas Murray was tipped off about the planned disruption and preemptively threatened to suspend students who spoke the word or showed up to school with the word printed on clothing.  This, of course, incited folks from around the country to contact Mr. Murray to express their dissatisfaction with this seemingly ludicrous policy.  To be sure, the courts have ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”  That said, school officials do have the right to restrict speech and/or discipline students for speech or behavior that results in (or has a high likelihood of resulting in) a substantial and material disruption of the learning environment.  In this case, I think it is clear that the students involved were in fact planning a substantial disruption.  So, it doesn’t matter that the speech involved wasn’t really even a real word.

When I was in middle school, my classmates and I started humming in English class.  The teacher was getting pretty upset by this and was walking around the classroom trying to identify the offending party.  When he went to one side of the classroom, students in the other side would start humming.  When he moved to the other side, the other students stepped up and continued the humming.  Clearly, the act of humming is not obscene or otherwise generally subject to discipline in any environment outside of the school.  But at school, if it causes or threatens to cause a substantial disruption, it can (and should be) stopped.  In our case, the teacher refused to administer our planned quiz until the humming stopped.  It didn’t, so we all failed the quiz.  To this day I have a hard time identifying prepositions!

This is an important case because as much as I agree with everyone that restricting the use of a nonsensical word is in itself nonsensical, it is necessary that school administrators have the ability to maintain an appropriate, civil, and safe learning environment at school.  Educators need the support of parents and other community members when they take actions to ensure an appropriate school climate.  This is especially true since many forms of relational aggression, including cyberbullying, are often more subtle and therefore may not be automatically identifiable as something warranting intervention.   At the same time, they also need to be held accountable when their policies or practices cross the line of being overly restrictive.  In the case of meep, from what I have seen, I think they were being reasonable in their efforts to prevent a disruption from occurring.  What do you think?  Is Principal Murray going too far with this?

Following up from my last blog post, and after talking to a number of individuals working in various school districts, this is what we know:

1) FERPA allows schools who learn the identity of a cyberbully upon investigation of an incident that affects the climate or environment or values of the school to protect that identity and refuse to share it with a cyberbully victim (or their family).

2) Some states require schools to report behaviors in violation of state law just as they are required to report other criminal acts (e.g., drug use, weapons possession, sexual assault).  For example, here in Florida the scenario depicted in my last post could be classified as a violation of the following criminal law: “Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.”  As such, the school would be obligated to report that to the police.

3) A cyberbullying victim (or their family) may therefore be able to learn the identity of a cyberbully by contacting law enforcement, who would not be bound by FERPA.

I hope this helps us a little.  If you have further insight into this issue, please let us know.

We’ve covered this issue a couple of times before on this blog, but given the interest I thought I would respond to some of the comments that have been posted and provide some insight gained from discussions I have had with folks over the past few months.  Some people have suggested that students have effectively no right to privacy in schools.  On its face, this is patently false – students do in fact have *some* privacy rights in schools.  That said, the rules are different in schools than in other public places.

All Americans are protected against “unreasonable” searches and seizures (4th Amendment), and what can be classified as “reasonable” varies depending on the context.  In schools, educators can generally search student property if (and only if) they have a good reason to believe that evidence exists therein which will reveal a violation of school policy.  If that evidence is found, the offending student may be subject to an administrative sanction by the school (e.g., detention, suspension, etc).  For example, if a credible student tells a principal that another student at school has a phone in the classroom that includes the answers to the algebra exam, then a search may be allowable given these circumstances.

This ability to search can be contrasted with that of law enforcement, who are required to abide by a higher standard.  School (or other) police officers must have probable cause that evidence of a crime exists in order to conduct a search of property.  To be clear, mere suspicion is not enough for law enforcement officers.  They must be able to articulate to a judge that probable cause existed (either before the search is conducted or after at trial).  For example, if a credible student informs a school resource officer (a sworn police officer) that another student has a gun in his or her backpack, clearly the officer would be able to search the backpack.

If we apply these principles to the issue of cell phones in the classroom, we know that educators or law enforcement officers can in fact search a cell phone under some circumstances.  Either way, there has to be some articulable level of knowledge that the cell phone contains evidence of a violation of school policy or criminal law (depending on who is performing the search).  In the opinion of many, simple possession of the phone in the classroom, while in itself a violation of school policy, does not provide license to search that phone by anyone.

Always remember that neither Sameer nor I are attorneys, and so this should not be interpreted as legal advice.  Furthermore, these are very complicated issues that cannot be adequately covered in a short blog posting.  There are many exceptions to the basic principles outlined above.  As always, consult an attorney who specializes in school and/or privacy law.  Even they, however, often disagree as to how these laws and court rulings can or should be interpreted.   Case law and precedent are currently being formed as schools and courts wrestle with these issues.  If you are aware of any incidents that have gone to court related to this topic, please pass them along so that we can analyze and distill what can be learned from them.