Free Speech in Schools: Educators Vs Students

Recently, an article appeared on the National Education Association website, entitled "Rights Watch: Mauled on Myspace" (Simpson, 2011). The article laments the rightslessness of educators in today's world by recounting the tales of two teachers whose very careers were put in jeopardy by unscrupulous student attacks online.

From the article:

"Justin Layshock, high school senior, also took to MySpace to belittle his principal, Eric Trosch. He used his grandmother's computer to create a "parody profile" of Trosch, using a photo of the principal he had copied from the school's website. In addition to using vulgar language and homophobic slurs, Layshock accused Trosch of being a "drunk," smoking a "big [marijuana] blunt," using illegal drugs, and shoplifting.

Based on rumors, Trosch called Layshock and his mother in for a chat. Layshock admitted creating the profile and later apologized. His parents grounded him and took away his computer access.

The school district subsequently suspended Layshock for 10 days, transferred him to an "alternative" high school, banned him from all extracurricular activities, and prohibited him from participating in the graduation ceremony."
(Simpson, 2011)

The student sued the school district - and won. Shocked? Horrified? The author, Michael Simpson, from the NEA Office of General Counsel, certainly was: "How is that possible? Are school officials powerless to punish this type of vulgar, demeaning, and wildly disrespectful speech posted by students on the Internet?" (Simpson, 2011).

Before you answer, consider this - Suppose a police officer pulled you over and gave you a ticket. Suppose, angry, you bad-mouthed the officer. Should he or she be able to use police powers, such as tasing or jailing you, in retribution?

Hundreds of reader comments on Simpson's article show that educators across the country are outraged that students can act with impunity; that educators, blocked from taking official action against such transgressions, have no recourse. Simpson's article leads readers in the wrong direction. It paints the picture that this is an issue of educators' rights to defend themselves. It poses the false dilemma that we, as a society, must choose between our students' rights to free speech and our schools' ability to correct and discipline incredibly inappropriate and potentially destructive behavior.

But there is more to the matter than meets the eye. While both of those are significant matters, neither of them is actually in play here.

Simpson asks what will become of our society if children are taught the lessons that their actions have no consequences, and that the 'authorities' have no power over them. In this, his article misses an important point - the point - the cases aren't saying the behavior of these children is "ok", just that the particular course of punishment chosen by the officials involved was inappropriate.

If the courts ruled that a 10-year prison sentence was inappropriate for trespassing, no one would take that to mean that trespassing had suddenly become legal. Just because one method of redress is eliminated does not mean that the behavior can go on without consequences.

Another principle mentioned in the article, James McGonigle, filed a libel suit against the student responsible for a similar attack. As when a child is responsible for the destruction of property, the parents are liable to pay, so too is it likely that this child's parents will end up being financially penalized for their child's misdeeds. While maybe not as quick as administrative discipline, that is the same remedy the rest of society must use to deal with slander/libel, as with most civil complaints.

Indeed, the courts are correct in these cases: the use of official power to deal with a personal, civil problem is not acceptable - even if the problem only came about because of one's official position. The kids in these cases do need to learn that their actions have serious consequences (and their parents as well), but allowing the use of official power to deal with a personal matter would also send a destructive message to the whole of society, not just kids.

This is not a free speech issue: no one has the right to slander or libel another person. However, this is a nation of law, and the remedies for these offenses are prescribed. We do not get to make up our own. The President cannot order Seal Team 6 to take out someone for calling him names; a police officer cannot throw a person in jail for unfairly harming his or her reputation; those would be abuses of power. All the courts are saying is that it not acceptable for educators to abuse the power invested in them, in the same kind of way - not that the behavior of these kids is "ok".

As adults, everything we do sets an example for kids - and that goes double for educators. Showing them that the personal use of official power is "ok" also sends a message. Showing them that it is "ok" to react like a child with hurt feelings by lashing out with the biggest stick at hand, instead of responding like a responsible, law-abiding adult, sends a message too.

It seems to me that, General Counsel or not, Mr. Simpson's outrage is pointed entirely in the wrong direction. How can we expect our children to grow up to become responsible fair-minded adults when we refuse to do the same?

Reference: Simpson, M. (2011). Rights watch: Mauled on Myspace; National Education Association. Retrieved August 18, 2011, from http://www.nea.org/home/46469.htm