Your opinion on a school issue.....

[cougarfreak]

The following scenario took place at my school today:

Varsity basketball cuts were made last night. A young man was cut for attitude, he has talent, but was cut last year as well for the same reason. He is a senior this year, and is known to be a "punk". Evidently, he went home and posted "f$#k you (coaches last name, and he posted the actual F word, not the version I posted) to his twitter. Someone brought it to the coach and our administration's attention today. Punish, or not?

[Lathum]

It is a tough one. Oart of me says let it go since he posted on a medium outside the schools influence. The other part says in the real world he could get fired for tweeting omething like that about his boss. That being said doesnt seem like discipline gets through to the kid so whats the point.

I would let his parents know and let them decide punishment.

[PurdueBrad]

Nah, I wouldn't discipline it although I teach in a school where I think they might try.

[Suburban Rhythm]

I'm of the opinion that his feelings about the coach are not a school issue. If he's on the team, and gives attitude to coach, that's a school issue.

[Blackadar]

Nope. None of the business of the school. Free speech and all that.

[stevew]

No, unless he tweeted from school property.

Especially if you don't have a policy.

[JediKooter]

1st Amendment. No way you punish him. If he used school property to post while at a school facility, then you would punish him for abusing that property, but, not for his speech.

The school punishes him, that is definitely a douchey move by the school. Now if he made threats, different story, but, you get the police involved at that point.

[DougW]

I don't find it any more respectful that he did it via a social network, than if he did it to his face. And, I think he should be punished if he said it straight to the coaches face. These days - I don't think social networks are different.

Just because the kid was a coward, and did it at his computer screen, in a lame attempt to show all the school how cool he is - doesn't give him a pass.

He needs to be taught that it isn't OK to publicly blast people, just because things didn't go his way.

I'd suspend him a few days, and be sure to communicate the situation with his parents.

[cougarfreak]

It was tweeted from home. And the student was suspended for two days. I was dumbfounded. I've coached for a long time, and I'm of the opinion, it goes with the territory (not face to face, but out in society). The coach brought it to the administration's attention. I would have cared less had it been me.

[stevew]

That's silly.

[DougW]

Nope. None of the business of the school. Free speech and all that.

Free speech doesn't exist in a school environment, nor should it. Kids are being taught to be respectful and it is flat out against school rules to say certain things. Kids can, and will get punished for what they say.

This really isn't exclusive to school. He could most certainly get in trouble for saying things in the workplace when he gets older. Some people definitely would find themselves in trouble if they went off on a fuck you rant to their boss.

Is it a stretch that he didn't do it in the school ? Maybe, but - IMO, not really. As I said, the social network is a means of communication. It's not like he whispered it in his buddies basement. He screamed it for the whole world to hear.

[Apathetic Lurker]

The following scenario took place at my school today:

Varsity basketball cuts were made last night. A young man was cut for attitude, he has talent, but was cut last year as well for the same reason. He is a senior this year, and is known to be a "punk". Evidently, he went home and posted "f$#k you (coaches last name, and he posted the actual F word, not the version I posted) to his twitter. Someone brought it to the coach and our administration's attention today. Punish, or not?

Why is this even a question?

[RainMaker]

Nope. Seems harmless and a kid letting out his anger. Nothing threatening or else in there and it happened off school grounds.

[Crapshoot]

I don't find it any more respectful that he did it via a social network, than if he did it to his face. And, I think he should be punished if he said it straight to the coaches face. These days - I don't think social networks are different.

Just because the kid was a coward, and did it at his computer screen, in a lame attempt to show all the school how cool he is - doesn't give him a pass.

He needs to be taught that it isn't OK to publicly blast people, just because things didn't go his way.

I'd suspend him a few days, and be sure to communicate the situation with his parents.

Why on earth does that mean suspending him? You don't suspend people for unpopular views. Being a jackass is not a crime.

[Crapshoot]

It was tweeted from home. And the student was suspended for two days. I was dumbfounded. I've coached for a long time, and I'm of the opinion, it goes with the territory (not face to face, but out in society). The coach brought it to the administration's attention. I would have cared less had it been me.

Now I wonder how of the attitude is the coach being a hard ass type. :popcorn:

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I feel he should not have been punished, but having him in for a sit-down to express his displeasure and be informed that the school takes matters associated with the relationship of students & faculty seriously enough that he should consider cooling out a bit... or face possible suspension if further actions are taken by him.

I don't think the coach made a bad move at all. Sounds like he proves time and again that he is unreliable. Not the best way to prove you don't have an attitude problem.

[DougW]

Why on earth does that mean suspending him? You don't suspend people for unpopular views. Being a jackass is not a crime.

I wouldn't suspend him for having an unpopular view.

You don't have to commit a crime to be suspended from school (or later, work).

But, you should get suspended if you looked at a faculty member and mother fucked him. And, as I said, with the popularity of the social media - I see no difference in saying it on twitter, and saying it to directly to his teacher - or coach as it may be. ESPECIALLY - since he directed his tweet square at the coach.

Remember, "FUCK YOU &%COACHES NAME%&" was the tweet.

[Izulde]

It didn't occur on school grounds or school property and is a fairly minor offense, all things considered, so not worth the punishment.

Besides which, punishing him is only going to validate his shitty attitude.

[chadritt]

Dumb kid...shouldve had his tweets set to private so the coach wouldnt see it.

[DougW]

It didn't occur on school grounds or school property
This is very interesting to me, and I spent a couple minutes thinking about this before responding.

I ended up asking myself .. Should it be punishable if the child ran just to the edge of the school property line, and grabbed a loud speaker and cussed him out in front of all the other faculty members and other kids ?

I answered myself (cuz, I roll like that) .. Yes, he should get punished for that. And, in my mind - what he did was the same.


and is a fairly minor offense, all things considered, so not worth the punishment.


Truthfully, I agree with this. But, I'm concerned with the precedent it sets. Other kids are watching. Another kid will take it a little further, and another a little further. Next we'll be hearing long rants with the cursing, racial slurs, etc.

A couple days suspension isn't going to hurt the kid, and it may nip further problems in the bud so to speak.

[stevew]

I wonder of there will be a rash of tattletales who will turn in people for posting stuff about teachers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'd say no. He's a senior, he's months away from being able to say whatever he damned well pleases about the coach(within legal limits such as "fighting words" or slander anyway).

Unless you've got a policy about private student comments OR you're willing to police every single kid's social media, this is gonna be more trouble than it's worth.

And let's be honest, how many students have never said "F Teacher X" or similar at least once? What determines when you police that? If they say it to someone in line at Wendy's is it actionable?

[molson]

I definitely think there's some point where out-of-school speech can warrant school punishment, but here, the coach should just feel validated about his correct decision to cut this kid. I have a feeling life will be punishment enough for him.

[chadritt]

I may have missed it but public or private school? Growing up my private school had fairly specific rules about what students could and could not do off campus.

[EagleFan]

Free speech doesn't exist in a school environment, nor should it. Kids are being taught to be respectful and it is flat out against school rules to say certain things. Kids can, and will get punished for what they say.

This really isn't exclusive to school. He could most certainly get in trouble for saying things in the workplace when he gets older. Some people definitely would find themselves in trouble if they went off on a fuck you rant to their boss.

Is it a stretch that he didn't do it in the school ? Maybe, but - IMO, not really. As I said, the social network is a means of communication. It's not like he whispered it in his buddies basement. He screamed it for the whole world to hear.

+1

[MrBug708]

If he made the team and made the comments, should he be kicked off the team? I mean, free speech and all.

[MrBug708]

Free speech doesn't exist in a school environment, nor should it. Kids are being taught to be respectful and it is flat out against school rules to say certain things. Kids can, and will get punished for what they say.

This really isn't exclusive to school. He could most certainly get in trouble for saying things in the workplace when he gets older. Some people definitely would find themselves in trouble if they went off on a fuck you rant to their boss.

Is it a stretch that he didn't do it in the school ? Maybe, but - IMO, not really. As I said, the social network is a means of communication. It's not like he whispered it in his buddies basement. He screamed it for the whole world to hear.

Teachers have the right to go through students backpacks, something I learned the other day

[Mota]

There's a big difference between saying it to your buddies in private and saying it on Twitter.

It's open disrespect to faculty, if they let it happen then it opens the doors for the next level of abuse, perhaps even more abusive language, or even disrespect in person (since they obviously can't do anything about it).

[Ironhead]

As an institution that, along with parents, helps shape kids to become decent human beings I think the school should have taken some action. That said, suspending the kid doesn't seem like the most "teachable" course of action.

[Sun Tzu]

I don't understand why this even an issue...

1.) Kid gets cut.
2.) Kid is upset.
3.) Kid posts F word (GASP!) on the interwebs.
4.) Nothing.

[tucking fypo]

I definitely think there's some point where out-of-school speech can warrant school punishment, but here, the coach should just feel validated about his correct decision to cut this kid. I have a feeling life will be punishment enough for him.

Exactly how I feel on this issue. About the only rule my high school coach had was: Don't do anything that will embarrass the team or the school. That alleviated alot of problems and I respected/feared him more than anyone else outside of my parents.

But what if the coach doesn't report it to the administration and he goes on more aggressive twitter tirades against students he doesn't like?

[RendeR]

This is a complete non issue.

The kid got cut, therefore the coach has no rights to govern the kid in ANY way, let alone for something done outside the school system.

You don't want people telling you to fuck off and using your name, don't become the target of their ire. You don't like it when someone does so? tough shit, its a free country.

As for the kids attitude, the coach can relax knowing he made a decent decision to keep that attitude off his squad. If he perhaps wanted to talk to the kids parents about the tweet I don't see an issue about that but the school has absolutely NO grounds for enforcing any punishment for the tweet. If they did do something I hope the family sues the living shit out of them.

Its a school, they teach, they advocate respect and fair play in sports, they are NOT an authority for social control.

[molson]

But what if the coach doesn't report it to the administration and he goes on more aggressive twitter tirades against students he doesn't like?

Well, that's different, if the kids goes off on someone else and then commits an unrelated act of violence, then the victims get millions from the school system for "ignoring the warning signs." (I'm not saying the school should punish on that basis, but I'm sure there's general pressure never to let anything go for reasons of liability paranoia.)

[tarcone]

He didnt just say the F word. He said to the coach.
This is what is wrong. You allow this type of disrespect to an authority figure now with no consequences, then what happens later in life?
This is a great teachable moment. You say stupid things in public and something bad will happen.
If he had gotten written up at work, went home and tweeted F you, bosses name. And the the boss finds out, what do you think would happen? I bet he gets fired.

Now he has learned that tweeting disrespectful things to authority figures that deal with you directly everyday, is a bad idea.

He should be suspended.

Now, the coach obviously doesnt like the kid and saw an opportunity to get him. Most coaches probably would have let it roll off their backs. This guy probably went overboard. And had a bone to pick. Its not good to be vengeful in this situation.

This smacks of escalation type of situation.

[Sun Tzu]

...You allow this type of disrespect to an authority figure now with no consequences...


Oh noes! These damn punk kids nowadays. Nobody respects anything anymore!

[Blackadar]

Free speech doesn't exist in a school environment, nor should it. Kids are being taught to be respectful and it is flat out against school rules to say certain things. Kids can, and will get punished for what they say.

This really isn't exclusive to school. He could most certainly get in trouble for saying things in the workplace when he gets older. Some people definitely would find themselves in trouble if they went off on a fuck you rant to their boss.

Is it a stretch that he didn't do it in the school ? Maybe, but - IMO, not really. As I said, the social network is a means of communication. It's not like he whispered it in his buddies basement. He screamed it for the whole world to hear.

The kid wasn't on school, didn't use school property or do this during school time. Therefore, this isn't in a school environment. To me, this is no different than if he saw the coach at the mall and said the same thing. In that respect, IMO it's up to his parents to discipline him (and lest anyone think otherwise, my son would be severely disciplined for such an action). The school has no business doing so.

While I realize that the courts in recent times have the view that kids have zero free speech rights, that's part of the problem with this country. Too many people are interested in taking away personal rights at the expense of anyone and everyone they can take them away from. We're so hell-bent on teaching "responsibility", but we don't give people the rights that go with it.

Oh, and your comparison to a work situation is faulty. Most people are employed at will. It doesn't take any reason to terminate them.

As a parent and a citizen who believes in the 1st Amendment, I think the entire school system deserves a big fuck you.

[EagleFan]

He didnt just say the F word. He said to the coach.
This is what is wrong. You allow this type of disrespect to an authority figure now with no consequences, then what happens later in life?
This is a great teachable moment. You say stupid things in public and something bad will happen.
If he had gotten written up at work, went home and tweeted F you, bosses name. And the the boss finds out, what do you think would happen? I bet he gets fired.

Now he has learned that tweeting disrespectful things to authority figures that deal with you directly everyday, is a bad idea.

He should be suspended.

Now, the coach obviously doesnt like the kid and saw an opportunity to get him. Most coaches probably would have let it roll off their backs. This guy probably went overboard. And had a bone to pick. Its not good to be vengeful in this situation.

This smacks of escalation type of situation.

+1

Respect is no longer something that kids are taught to have. If one of my kids did that they would not see the light of day for quite a while.

Idiots can't even tell the difference between disrespecting someone in a position of authority and disagreeing with someone in authority. He had every right to post that he thought the coach was wrong but he didin't do that, he disrespected him in PUBLIC. Guess what kid, this is an electronic world now. FB, twitter, etc... It's all public knowledge now. If I go on FB and post F*** You (insert boss' name) I fully expect to at the very least be put on notice when I walk into work the next day. Welcome to the real world kid, you can't be a punk all your life.

[vex]

Coach sounds like he deserved the tweet. Tattle-telling on a HS kid's tweet to your superior? Wow.

[Sun Tzu]

I'm seeing a lot of folks here that subscribe to the archaic belief that anyone in a position of authority should be respected without question. Now, I'm in no way advocating F-bombs toward anyone, but saying someone absolutely must be respected just because of a position they hold career-wise goes against every logical bone in my body.

Again, I don't particularly like F-bombs, and I think most curse words are useless trash that people use when they don't have the intelligence to put what they're really feeling into words. Still, the reasoning behind some folks here saying he shouldn't have done it is just...odd to me.

[Blackadar]

+1

Respect is no longer something that kids are taught to have. If one of my kids did that they would not see the light of day for quite a while.

Idiots can't even tell the difference between disrespecting someone in a position of authority and disagreeing with someone in authority. He had every right to post that he thought the coach was wrong but he didin't do that, he disrespected him in PUBLIC. Guess what kid, this is an electronic world now. FB, twitter, etc... It's all public knowledge now. If I go on FB and post F*** You (insert boss' name) I fully expect to at the very least be put on notice when I walk into work the next day. Welcome to the real world kid, you can't be a punk all your life.

Again work =/= school. Shitty comparison.

[Crapshoot]

+1

Respect is no longer something that kids are taught to have. If one of my kids did that they would not see the light of day for quite a while.

Idiots can't even tell the difference between disrespecting someone in a position of authority and disagreeing with someone in authority. He had every right to post that he thought the coach was wrong but he didin't do that, he disrespected him in PUBLIC. Guess what kid, this is an electronic world now. FB, twitter, etc... It's all public knowledge now. If I go on FB and post F*** You (insert boss' name) I fully expect to at the very least be put on notice when I walk into work the next day. Welcome to the real world kid, you can't be a punk all your life.

Oh christ, don't become one of thos "BACK IN MY DAY MEN WERE MEN AND WE WALKED 6 MILES UPHILL IN THE SNOW" people.

The kid was out of line, but being a jerk or being rude is not a crime; it is for his parents to enforce, not the school.

[gstelmack]

Oh christ, don't become one of thos "BACK IN MY DAY MEN WERE MEN AND WE WALKED 6 MILES UPHILL IN THE SNOW" people.

Once upon a time kids competed for the right to play sports for their school. About 2 - 3 decades ago they started asking what the school would give them in return for doing it. Now kids demand a spot and get all pissy when the school doesn't kow-tow to them.

And you're okay with this trend?

[lungs]

Behavior of kids and young adults has been a sign of the imminent collapse of civilization since the dawn of time.

[tarcone]

Again work =/= school. Shitty comparison.

Wrong. School is teaching children to deal with real life. School is a childs job. In school children need to learn how to function in situations where you work in teams, or alone, or with people that have authority over them. Just like in the work place.

[Lathum]

Wrong. School is teaching children to deal with real life. School is a childs job. In school children need to learn how to function in situations where you work in teams, or alone, or with people that have authority over them. Just like in the work place.

Exactly. I don't like everything my boss says or does, but if I went off about it all the time I would either lose my job or not advance very much.

You don't have to respect authority figures but you better learn to at least act like you do if you want to get somewhere.

[JonInMiddleGA]

He didnt just say the F word. He said to the coach.

I thought he said it in reference to the coach, not to the coach.

[Crapshoot]

Once upon a time kids competed for the right to play sports for their school. About 2 - 3 decades ago they started asking what the school would give them in return for doing it. Now kids demand a spot and get all pissy when the school doesn't kow-tow to them.

And you're okay with this trend?

Do you really believe this? Seriously? Don't older people always bitch about how things were better than were younger when people were respectful? Show me real data, not "GET OF MY LAWN" type things. :D

[CU Tiger]

If the kid had bumped into the coach at WalMart and said, "Hey F%$^ You Coach X you cut the skilled ballzer eva" should he be suspended?

To me, the answer in both instances is no. It is not a school matter if it happens off school grounds.

[RedKingGold]

My question: Should a school punish a teacher if he or she post negative comments about a student on social media?

[Dutch]

My question: Should a school punish a teacher if he or she post negative comments about a student on social media?

A search shows that at least some are.

[Izulde]

My question: Should a school punish a teacher if he or she post negative comments about a student on social media?

That's a different situation because of the authority teachers have over students' grades, which presumably can impact their future.

At the very least, it'd open up grounds for a kid to appeal any grade they get, alleging instructor bias, I'd think.

[Solecismic]

It depends on the intent of the kid. Did he use hashtags, was he trying to publish the statement to others in the school? If not, it's nowhere near as confrontational as if he approached the coach in a mall and said it.

Without the intent to publish, it seems more like ringing his doorbell, tape recorder in hand, and asking him, "so what do you think of the coach, now that he's cut you from the team?"

I don't think it's worth a suspension either way, but if he didn't even use tags, then I question why the coach should care. Or why this is even a discussion.

School is not a kid's job. It's compulsory. If a kid is determined to fuck up his future, that's his right and it's between him and his parents. If he's violent or constantly disruptive, that's what suspensions and expulsions are for.

[DanGarion]

He shouldn't have been suspended. End of story.

This has nothing to do with privilege or back in the day. The coach decided not to be the kids authority figure when the coach decided he wasn't good enough for the team. He has no reason to get his panties in a bunch just because the kid cussed him out on Twitter.

I wish I had the opportunity to have done something like this when I was in high school and I found out that the varsity baseball coach wasn't going to let me play ball my Junior year because his nephew (who played at my school) didn't like me and was bullying me.

[Izulde]

On another somewhat related topic -- most schools have policies that kids can be disciplined for drinking or doing drugs during season. Some even go so far as to say they can be punished for these events 365 days a year if they get caught -- even if it's not at a school event. Is that acceptable since it's not on school grounds?


Again, that's different. One (the bitching out the coach) is not a criminal activity. The other (drinking and drugs) *is* a criminal activity, and thus, supersedes any on/off school property distinction.

[Lathum]

School is not a kid's job. It's compulsory. If a kid is determined to fuck up his future, that's his right and it's between him and his parents. If he's violent or constantly disruptive, that's what suspensions and expulsions are for.

Disagree.

The whole point of school is to prepare kids for there future. Kids that age have no concept of the big picture of their life. It is still up to parents AND school to steer them in the right direction. Otherwise, what is the point of school at all other than a taxpayer funded daycare?

[Sun Tzu]

School is a kid's job, and prepares kids for their future? That's a joke, especially if you're talking about the public school system in this country. School isn't a choice if you're a kid. School is mandatory, and choosing otherwise leads to being picked up by truant officers/labelled a loser.

I know high school dropouts that are more intelligent and successful than 90% of the people on this board.

I know people who have gotten their masters, that are dumber than a doorknob and couldn't hold down a decent job to save their lives.

School gives kids the opportunity to develop social skills, and figure out one or two things that they may have an interest in. If you're going to make the argument that knowing who won the Battle of 1812 is preparing a kid for their future, then I can't help but laugh.

[Ben E Lou]

Nope. I'd say no./thread

[Lathum]

School is a kid's job, and prepares kids for their future? That's a joke, especially if you're talking about the public school system in this country. School isn't a choice if you're a kid. School is mandatory, and choosing otherwise leads to being picked up by truant officers/labelled a loser.

I know high school dropouts that are more intelligent and successful than 90% of the people on this board.

I know people who have gotten their masters, that are dumber than a doorknob and couldn't hold down a decent job to save their lives.

School gives kids the opportunity to develop social skills, and figure out one or two things that they may have an interest in. If you're going to make the argument that knowing who won the Battle of 1812 is preparing a kid for their future, then I can't help but laugh.

You may not like the way out society operates but the examples you listed are the exception, not the rule.

The reality is if you go to to school, get good grades, get into a good college and do well then you are likely to get a good job, live in a nice home, more opportunity for your children etc...

You drop out of high school or do poorly, don't go to college or do well in college, drop out, etc...then you get a crappy job, struggle your whole life, and put your family at a disadvantage.


the numbers are out there and they don't lie.

[cougarfreak]

Courts typically rule that anything that can disrupt the educational atmosphere of a school can be punished -- even if it's outside of school. So the question is, do these comments disrupt the educational atmosphere by attacking the authority figures and diminishing the atmosphere needed by the school to educate? I would say yes. They go beyond simple grumbling about a teacher. I know had this happened at our school, the student would have been suspended. Had he said something to the effect of "got cut again...thanks a lot coach" I would say he would not have been.

On another somewhat related topic -- most schools have policies that kids can be disciplined for drinking or doing drugs during season. Some even go so far as to say they can be punished for these events 365 days a year if they get caught -- even if it's not at a school event. Is that acceptable since it's not on school grounds?

See to me, posting it on twitter does not do the above. I think it was silly for the coach to report it. I'm of the opinion, "who the fuck cares". On your other point, when I was a coach, I would discipline a kid if he was caught drinking, or using drugs, during season. And I made that clear in the player's handbook. To me, baseball was an extracurricular activity, and if you wanted to participate, you would do so and follow the team rules.

[rowech]

See to me, posting it on twitter does not do the above. I think it was silly for the coach to report it. I'm of the opinion, "who the fuck cares". On your other point, when I was a coach, I would discipline a kid if he was caught drinking, or using drugs, during season. And I made that clear in the player's handbook. To me, baseball was an extracurricular activity, and if you wanted to participate, you would do so and follow the team rules.

What if the coach is a teacher? How does that not undermine authority?

[cougarfreak]

What if the coach is a teacher? How does that not undermine authority?

I am a teacher. I could give a shit less what student's post about twitter about me. As a teacher, or as a coach. As a coach I'm going to make daily decisions that piss people off. That's part of coaching. I'm not going to go trolling on twitter to see who likes it, and who doesn't. I'm secure in my abilities to perform my duties.

[DougW]

This is a fascinating read. I am getting the impression that more folks than I suspected hold school in a different light than I. I believe a schools' goal is to (should) be - a lesser partner to parents in molding our children to become well behaved, productive, and of course educated adults. I believe it's their responsibility. And I believe it extends past A's, B's & C's. I believe behavior & respect is a major part of a childs education. Using the Walmart example, if my kid was acting inappropriately somewhere, and one of his teachers saw him - I'd hope the teacher would call him out.

I wouldn't think it OK, if every kid that didn't score as well on every math test as they wanted to was allowed to pick up the phone, and mother fucker the math teacher. Or yell it over a bull horn for all the other faculty and students to hear. Or in this case, the internet.

I also am thinking a large part of this is peoples fear of not having complete internet freedom. Like, the interwebz are like talking to a priest or lawyer - and untouchable. Which is bull. Internet or not, people are still accountable for their actions, or in fantasy internet world .. their words.

And, in my book - saying "Fuck You Lombardi" loud enough for him to hear, as well as every student & all other faculty members is completely disrespectful, and "bad". And should be punished.

[Mota]

If the kid should be allowed to openly disrespect school faculty on social media, then shouldn't faculty have the ability to do the same?

What would happen if the teacher responded back to this tweet and said "No, F you kid!" he'd get fired or suspended instantly. You can guarantee the kid's parents would be all over the school board. They'd be going to the media and it would be a huge vendetta to get people canned for that type of remark.

Freedom of speech does not equal anarchy. You have sets of standards and both faculty and students have to adhere to it, otherwise you lose control and the system fails.

[DaddyTorgo]

Freedom of speech also doesn't protect you from having to face repercussions for that speech. Common misconception.

[RendeR]

Disagree.

The whole point of school is to prepare kids for there future. Kids that age have no concept of the big picture of their life. It is still up to parents AND school to steer them in the right direction. Otherwise, what is the point of school at all other than a taxpayer funded daycare?


School is there for education, mot moral control. The school's authority ends when the child leaves school property, whether by walking off the grounds or stepping off the bus.

The school has no authority in this case. Period.

[RendeR]

If the kid should be allowed to openly disrespect school faculty on social media, then shouldn't faculty have the ability to do the same?

What would happen if the teacher responded back to this tweet and said "No, F you kid!" he'd get fired or suspended instantly. You can guarantee the kid's parents would be all over the school board. They'd be going to the media and it would be a huge vendetta to get people canned for that type of remark.

Freedom of speech does not equal anarchy. You have sets of standards and both faculty and students have to adhere to it, otherwise you lose control and the system fails.


Absolutely, teachers and coaches have a level to live up to as examples for the students. If the coach responded in kind he should be fired. He would have shown himself to be a horrible role model.

The only people responsible or with the authority to punish this kid for his tweet are his parents. No one else has a right to do jack shit beyond letting those parents know what he's done.

[kcchief19]

If this story gets very far out in the public, this sounds like an attractive legal case for someone looking to make a name for themselves and establish law in social media.

I don't see how you can suspend the kid. If schools are going to crack down on kids who run down their coaches and teachers for talking about them on social media, we're not going to have any kids in the classroom. If you're threatened by a kid saying that on Twitter, you need to toughen up or find a new line of work. Comes with the territory.

There's a huge difference between criticizing your boss on Twitter vs. criticizing a teacher on Twitter. First, it's the government vs. a private entity and First Amendment issues. Second, I work at the pleasure of my boss, but school is an obligation both ways. You can't fire someone from school.

Yes, I do think there are different rules between if the kid said this to the teacher at school vs. on Twitter. If the kid said this at the mall on Saturday with his friends and the coach overheard it, should the kid be suspended?

[kcchief19]

One last thing ... the only slight defense I could see the school having is if they have it in the student handbook/guidelines that this is not permitted and the kid and/or his parents signed to play under that rule. I still think a civil rights lawyer would love to take this case.

[stevew]

If the kid was making mention of his twitter feed in school and how people should check it, does that crossover enough to warrant a suspension?

How did the coach find out about all of this?

[Barkeep49]

Freedom of speech also doesn't protect you from having to face repercussions for that speech. Common misconception.
No but by definition it does protect you from government repercussions to that speech. As a public school is very clearly a way that the government imposes its will upon children, students should have 1st Amendment rights. That said, I think the Supreme Court recognition of those rights must be balanced against a school's need for order is a good test.

In my mind I think the suspension is grossly disproportionate response. A conversation should be had with the student, perhaps even some consequences if there's a history of this thing, but a student should be able to blow off steam, even in a way that lets the Coach know his feelings, without being suspended.

[cougarfreak]

If the kid was making mention of his twitter feed in school and how people should check it, does that crossover enough to warrant a suspension?

How did the coach find out about all of this?

An asst. coach, who has a son on the team, brought it to the head coach's attention. The head coach told the administration.

[DougW]

If the kid was making mention of his twitter feed in school and how people should check it, does that crossover enough to warrant a suspension?



Good question.

[Subby]

Fuck that coach,. What an asshole.

[MrBug708]

School is there for education, mot moral control. The school's authority ends when the child leaves school property, whether by walking off the grounds or stepping off the bus.

The school has no authority in this case. Period.

Not true.

[Lathum]

School is there for education, mot moral control. The school's authority ends when the child leaves school property, whether by walking off the grounds or stepping off the bus.

The school has no authority in this case. Period.

So by your logic teachers shouldn't care about bullying, fights on the playground, smoking in the bathrooms, or any of the other myriad of things that happen in every school as long as they are teaching the curriculum in the classroom?

[cougarfreak]

So by your logic teachers shouldn't care about bullying, fights on the playground, smoking in the bathrooms, or any of the other myriad of things that happen in every school as long as they are teaching the curriculum in the classroom?


No, I think clearly that's what he's not saying. He's saying that the school shouldn't get into these kinds of things, because it didn't happen at school. All of the above did happen at school. What if I'm a teacher, and I walk into the grocery story and some kid walks by me and says "Fuck you so and so"? Is that a school issue?

[Lathum]

No, I think clearly that's what he's not saying. He's saying that the school shouldn't get into these kinds of things, because it didn't happen at school. All of the above did happen at school. What if I'm a teacher, and I walk into the grocery story and some kid walks by me and says "Fuck you so and so"? Is that a school issue?

To me that is exactly what he is saying. How can you misinterpret his statement that school is not there for moral control, it is there for education.

[JediKooter]

Saying schools prepare kids for 'real life' is like saying prisons actually rehabilitate inmates so they are productive members of society.

At best, schools give students the bare minimum on how to get ready for 'real life'. Some schools even go as far as to try and prepare students for college, but, real life? I don't think so.

[Blackadar]

To me that is exactly what he is saying.

It's just you then, because no one else is grossly misinterpreting it in that way. Everything he said pertained to stuff off-hours and off school grounds, every example you gave was during school hours and on school property.

[Blackadar]

For those who are saying "yes, ban the kid", how far do you take it? If the coach isn't his teacher, what does it matter? What if he tweeted about his French teacher from last year? Or a teacher at another school? What if this was during summer break? Where do you draw the line?

True story - I was in HS at the time and playing golf during a teacher workday. The course was pretty damn empty. On the 13th, I hit a massive drive with a massive slice towards the 12th fairway. I noticed another solo golfer walking down the 12th, so I yelled "FORE"! The ball landed about 10 feet from the other golfer - pretty damn close. Whoops. So I sheepishly trudge down to the 12th to play my ball (wasn't OOB). As I get close, I noticed that the other golfer was my former 5th grade teacher, Mrs. Harper, who I detested. Just as the look of recognition spread across her face and she went to open her mouth, I looked at her and simply said, "damn, I missed." I walked over to my ball, hit an awesome 3 iron into the green and walked off. Not another word was said and I never saw Mrs. Harper again.

Should I have been suspended? :D

[JediKooter]

You didn't tweet it. Or maybe teachers these days are just a little on the hyper sensitive side?

[Mota]

No, I think clearly that's what he's not saying. He's saying that the school shouldn't get into these kinds of things, because it didn't happen at school. All of the above did happen at school. What if I'm a teacher, and I walk into the grocery story and some kid walks by me and says "Fuck you so and so"? Is that a school issue?

I think I want my son to go to a school where they protect their teachers, and maintain some semblance of order. I wouldn't want him going to a school where you can stand one foot out of school property, one minute after school is over and abuse and bully the faculty. That's not a good environment for learning.

[RendeR]

I think I want my son to go to a school where they protect their teachers, and maintain some semblance of order. I wouldn't want him going to a school where you can stand one foot out of school property, one minute after school is over and abuse and bully the faculty. That's not a good environment for learning.


And this student did not abuse or bully anyone, he said fuck you or fuck off or something similar, neither is abusive nor is it bullying.

The issue ehre seems to be that people think teachers or coaches are some sort of protected species. If they do something that pisses someone off they are just as liable to deal with the fallout as anyone else.

If a student is on school property DURING SCHOOL HOURS *this is important* then there is a decorum that must be kept because the faculty has to maintain order.

After school hours and/or outside school property the faculty has no responsibility and ZERO authority to maintain that decorum.



Case in point: during 8th grade I was in an intramural soccer league. The schools AD was running it and officiating it. He made some really horrible calls and when the games were done and everyone was leaving the school grounds we were walking near one another to go to our respective rides. I told him straight out "You made some seriously pathetic fucking calls"

His response to me: "You can talk to me like that right now because we're done and its not a school issue right now, but if you ever talk to me like that during school hours I will bust your ass. Go home."

I later came to respect the man and we were even friendly before I left that school.

Teachers and coaches have every right to maintain a respect level during school activities and hours, but outside of those things they are just normal people like everyone else and have to deal with people normally. They are not a protected class.



Lathum: That was not at all what I was saying, my comments were ENTIRELY related to after school times/off school property. bad correlation.

[DougW]

This is as close to a case I could find on a google search.

Lander v Seaver tells us the school was in bounds.

Following info from Here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jeapressrights.org%2F2008documents%2F2008ResponsibleJ%2F2008principle1policies%2FLander%2520v.%2520Seaver.ppt&ei=ijKGUIHjJcPlyAH8kIGACw&usg=AFQjCNEcc3uu-4lc6FZQiFsyFrpDZTO_Pw&cad=rja)



Landers (STUDENT) offense was the use of "saucy and disrespectful language" towards Seaver (TEACHER) after the close of school, but in the presence of other students.

Seaver said such languange degraded him in the presence of other students.

Landers offense occurred after the close of school. After returned home, he was driving his father's cow past Seavers' house.

In the presence of other students, he called his teacher "Old Jack Seaver."

The next morning, after school convened, Seaver reprimanded Lander for his language and whipped him with a small rawhide.

The court ruled that when an offense has a direct and immediate tendency to injure the school and bring the masters authority into contempt when done in the presence of other students, and with a design to insult him, the the teacher has a right to punish the student for some acts if he comes again to school.


The first question presented is, Has a school-master the right to punish his pupil for acts of misbehavior committed after the school has been dismissed, and the pupil has returned home and is engaged in his father's service?

Again the court said : (a little more detail of the courts finding than the above summary) : This misbehavior, it is especially to be observed, has a direct and immediate tendency to injure the school, to subvert the master's authority, and to beget disorder and insubordination. It is not misbehavior generally, or towards other persons, or even towards the master in matters in no way connected with or affecting the school; for as to such misconduct, committed by the child after his return home from school, we think the parents, and they alone, have the power of punishment.

But where the offense has a direct and immediate tendency to injure the school and bring the master's authority into contempt, as in this case, when done in the presence of other scholars and of the master, and with a design to insult him, we think he has the right to punish the scholar for such acts if he comes again to school.


The second is the corporal punishment aspect. Which, isn't what this topic is about.

I'm sure there are some pretty funny "driving his dads cow" jokes, or some "the school shoulda whipped him with rawhide instead of suspending him" jokes ... But, aside from all of that. I'm pretty sure the corporal punishment aspect of this case has changed, but I haven't found anything that says the arms length of the school has changed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is as close to a case I could find on a google search. Lander v Seaver tells us the school was in bounds.

But Tinker vs Des Moines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District)suggests the opposite, and came over a century later than the 1859 case you cited.

While Tinker refers to conduct on school property, the standard for restricting student speech has to meet a certain level, which seems to be causing disruption to the learning environment (and even then, the ruling mentioned that speech was still protected so long as normal school functions are not ‘unreasonably disrupted’.).

Surely the standard that schools have to meet in restricting speech isn't lower when the speech occurs off-property rather than on-property.

Even the more recent Morse v Frederick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick) ruling, which did allow schools to censor speech off-property but at a school sponsored function was very narrowly crafted to limit the school's ability to a specific instance (the promotion of illegal drug use).

While private schools have been given considerably more leeway in regulating many aspects of student behavior, I honestly can't imagine how a public school could win a suit brought on this case unless they were able to prove substantial disruption to the learning environment. In this instance, the school seems likely to be its own worst enemy in that regard by making a mountain out of an ant hill.

[DougW]

i actually saw those 2 cases as I was "webbing" around, and truthfully almost had my mind changed until I saw LvS. Then, I felt the case I cited more closely reflected the topic.

From what I read the "Tinker test" is the big deal for school authority, but given it was in school ... and didn't contain any direct disrespect for a faculty members person, I didn't think it was as relevant.

Same with MvF, although I'll admit - once I read it was about promoting drug use, I saw it as a far away relative and didn't read much about it.

Edit : Add :

It seems most the debate here is whether the school has the authority to reach out past its bell to bell operation. From what I have read, at a minimum, if a students action (outside of school) is reasonably disruptive - then they are within their rights to punish out of school activity. This appears fact.

The second part is whether or not a particular action is "disruptive enough" to warrant school interference. An argument could be made that allowing every student to "to subvert the master's authority, and to beget disorder and insubordination" could qualify. That, if you let one student - you have to let them all .. and that level of disrespect to faculty members would be disruptive, and set a tone that wouldn't be productive if it were to be allowed. However, I'm not completely sold that this particular case would fall into this #2 area. It'd be a very interesting case to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

and that level of disrespect to faculty members would be disruptive, and set a tone that wouldn't be productive if it were to be allowed.

Except that it hasn't occurred (as far we know anyway). The standard the Court seemed to set, at least as I read it, was "disruptive", not "potentially disruptive".

Seems like "no harm, no foul" would have been the wiser choice, at least in terms of the likelihood of getting their butts sued off.

[DougW]

Except that it hasn't occurred (as far we know anyway). The standard the Court seemed to set, at least as I read it, was "disruptive", not "potentially disruptive".

Seems like "no harm, no foul" would have been the wiser choice, at least in terms of the likelihood of getting their butts sued off.

But, you're assuming the "Tinker test" would be applied to this case. I'm not positive it does. "Old Jack Seaver" addresses direct disrespect to a faculty member, while Tinker addresses 1st Amendment in general.

Tinker also doesn't fully address what is/isn't acceptable language. BethelvFraser 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fraser) showed that Tinker wasn't the be-all end-all, when a student was suspended for making a speech full of sexual double entendres - while not outright swearing or being vulgar. The supreme court found the school was within it's rights. The Court affirmed that the school board of a public school has the authority to decide when and to what extent profanity and other obscene language may be punished without violating a student’s First Amendment rights.

Other cases (such as the MvF you (JiMG) mentioned) show Tinker to not be complete.

cougarfreak .. Any way you can talk this kids parents into suing the school haha ? I'd really like to see how it plays out !

[Drake]

When I was in my precocious youth and a senior in high school, I ran an underground newspaper at my school. Because our principal was a wily veteran, he deduced what we were up to before the first issue went to press.

So he called me down to his office.

He presented the scenario of a pirate newspaper -- which might have to potential, however inadvertantly, step over the line of respect and decorum due to inexperienced editorial control -- to me as a thought experiment. He said he was grappling with the issue because he would hate to have to suspend kids for something getting out of control, when what he would rather do was applaud them showing some initiative.

What he suggested to me was that if such a thought experiment happened in reality, he'd be bound by the obligations of his office to shut the operation down if the papers were distributed on school grounds during school hours.

However, the strip of grass that ran right along the driveway to the school was a public bit of ground (I forget the legal term), and he wouldn't be able to stop anyone from standing on that bit of ground and passing out copies of theoretical newspapers to cars as they passed by.

I doubt the way he chose to handle things has any legal bearing on this discussion, and probably had quite a bit to do with the fact that he was retiring in a year. What I do know is that in four years, I'd never spoken to the man, but in the half-hour I met with him, I came to respect him and the way he handled his job more than I can adequately express.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The Court affirmed that the school board of a public school has the authority to decide when and to what extent profanity and other obscene language may be punished without violating a student’s First Amendment rights.

But did that ruling extend beyond the campus? After all, Morse v Frederick was exceptionally narrow, identifying one specific topic that could be addressed by the school in an off-site venue IF the speech took place at a school-sponsored event.

[DougW]

But did that ruling extend beyond the campus? After all, Morse v Frederick was exceptionally narrow, identifying one specific topic that could be addressed by the school in an off-site venue IF the speech took place at a school-sponsored event.

No, but I think it helps to add information. It piles on that the Tinker test isn't the only test for restricting a students speech.

Really, still the only case we've (I've) come across with the same main variables (significant time away from school & faculty disrespect) is Landers v Seaver.

The others have shown us :


The school has to meet certain criteria to disregard basic 1st amendment rights. But, upon meeting that criteria - those rights can be taken away. (Tinker)
The Tinker criteria being : causing disruption to the learning environment
That the Tinker test isn't absolute. In both cases (Morse v Frederick, BethelvFraser) there was no student riot or major disruption, yet both cases sided with the school, allowing them to restrict & even punish speech.

In whole, what I've learned regarding this is :


I've found the school is NOT allowed to restrict political speech (or otherwise harmless, yet controversial material) as long as it isn't disruptive.
I've found NO case that says (as many here have said) the school has NO authority after the afternoon bell rings.
I've found NO case that says a student is allowed to tell a teacher "Fuck You" (or any other disrespectful & publicly witnessed speech) - whether in or out of school.
I've found a case where the school is allowed to punish a student for disrespect outside of the school grounds & time.
I've found the school absolutely has the authority to restrict certain speech. (Disruptive, promoting drug use, sexually explicit material, faculty disrespect - & there may be more).


I really think the suspension would stand up. Basically, I've found evidence that those same specifics held up in court in the past - and NO evidence that those same specifics sided with the student.

And, my gut tells me the school system couldn't maintain a proper educating environment if every 5th grader in the country was allowed to go home and M'Fer their teacher via Twitter every day. And I think the court would have to consider that. What's good for Johnny is good for Sarah. What's good for them is good for Lee Roy, etc, etc.

[Blackadar]

I guess we'll find out. The ACLU is suing a school system for punishing a 12 year old for saying a hall monitor was "mean" and that she "hated" her.

As for cases that support the student's position? Here's probably the most applicable:

Layshock vs. Hermitage Schools: A kid created a parody facebook page of his principal and was suspended 10 days. The full 3rd Court of Appeals heard the case and ruled in favor of the student. The Supreme Court refused to take the case. The same appeals court ruled in favor of J.S. vs. Blue Mountain Schools in a very similar case.

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/studentsuspendedforinterne.htm

Given that ruling, it's quite unlikely the punishment handed down by the school system is permissible.

[JediKooter]

Referencing a case from the 1850s isn't quite the persuasive argument I'd be using. It's weak at best.

I guess teachers are special little snowflakes that need to be protected from big bad words like 'fuck' and 'you'. If you are threatened or feel threatened by someone saying 'fuck you' on twitter, you've (the ubiquitous you) got far bigger and deeper problems in my opinion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That the Tinker test isn't absolute. In both cases (Morse v Frederick, BethelvFraser) there was no student riot or major disruption, yet both cases sided with the school, allowing them to restrict & even punish speech.[/LIST]

But in considering Morse you're omitting a very critical detail: the "speech" (actually a sign, for those who didn't read the case summary) was at a school-sponsored activity. Likewise for Fraser, the speech took place at a school assembly.

The distinction here, which might require the Court to rule specifically once again (presuming a hypothetical case were even brought), is whether the school has the right to punish obscene/vulgar speech that does not take place on school grounds.


[quote]And, my gut tells me the school system couldn't maintain a proper educating environment if every 5th grader in the country was allowed to go home and M'Fer their teacher via Twitter every day.

And yet somehow they've managed, because surely you don't believe that no student has ever FU'ed a teacher on Twitter, Facebook or MySpace.

This also seems to beg the question of just how far the schools could go with it. If the potential audience of the internet/social media is a factor, then where is that line drawn? 12 people in the food court at the mall?
5 people at a table at Burger King? Is an audience of one sufficient? Does the makeup of that audience matter? Do family members at a restaurant represent a different audience than classmates at the same restaurant?

What about the speech itself? Is it the MF that makes it actionable? What about a non-expletive version of the same sentiment? Or what if it's simply an uncomplimentary opinion. I mean, our HS FB coach was the subject of considerable discussion once upon a time, as being the one of the worst offensive minds ever witnessed ... is that off-limits for student discussion outside the classroom as well?

All of this is, of course, slippery slope stuff. But that's exactly what you have when you exempt a governmental entity (or its representative) from Constitutional requirements.

Let me also note here however that this seems to be a clear Constitutional question. If other laws apply I have no problem with those being brought to bear. For example, under Georgia law (http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-11-39.html) this could be construed as ground for a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, as it seems well within the bounds of "fighting words" (words which as a matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person´s presence, naturally tend to provoke violent resentment). If the teacher wanted to pursue that route, I've got no gripe with that decision (subject to the limitations of the law, which also requires the speech to be unprovoked)

[Drake]

Referencing a case from the 1850s isn't quite the persuasive argument I'd be using. It's weak at best.

Perhaps true, but it was still my favorite post in this entire thread. What an interesting look at how the education system has changed in the last 150 years!

[JediKooter]

Perhaps true, but it was still my favorite post in this entire thread. What an interesting look at how the education system has changed in the last 150 years!

Don't get me wrong, I love history. Yes it has changed a ridiculous amount in the last 150 years. Shoot, in the last 20 years it has changed in my opinion.

This actually my favorite line from it: "Landers (STUDENT) offense was the use of "saucy and disrespectful language" :)

[RendeR]

Also citing a 150+ year old ruling from before the era of public schools and government funded education systems in general is faulty at best due to the simple fact that 150 years ago it wasn't an institutionalized system, it was usually one person trying to maintaining order for themselves and as education was paramount back then the courts gave far more leeway to the teachers as authority figures.

Today, not so much.

[DougW]

This discussion has led me to believe that we are going to see it happen in the near future. It being the courts being asked to step in and draw some lines in the sand in regards to students, teachers, and cyber-space. I'd venture to guess it'll come about with some pretty serious student on teacher cyber-bullying. And, would definitely take more than some jokes or parody as the Layshock vs. Hermitage Schools case that Blackadar found.

[stevew]

I guess we'll find out. The ACLU is suing a school system for punishing a 12 year old for saying a hall monitor was "mean" and that she "hated" her.

As for cases that support the student's position? Here's probably the most applicable:

Layshock vs. Hermitage Schools: A kid created a parody facebook page of his principal and was suspended 10 days. The full 3rd Court of Appeals heard the case and ruled in favor of the student. The Supreme Court refused to take the case. The same appeals court ruled in favor of J.S. vs. Blue Mountain Schools in a very similar case.

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/studentsuspendedforinterne.htm



Given that ruling, it's quite unlikely the punishment handed down by the school system is permissible.

This is the district that my kids go to.

[stevew]

dola-
I don't get the local newspaper, so I didn't hear about this at all.

[Drake]

This discussion has led me to believe that we are going to see it happen in the near future. It being the courts being asked to step in and draw some lines in the sand in regards to students, teachers, and cyber-space. I'd venture to guess it'll come about with some pretty serious student on teacher cyber-bullying. And, would definitely take more than some jokes or parody as the Layshock vs. Hermitage Schools case that Blackadar found.

I think you're right, and I think that's actually a good thing. The courts should start drawing some lines so that students, parents and school administrations will all know going in what the acceptable bounds are.

I mean, if a student can be held responsible for something they tweet on their own time and away from school property, why not let the schools monitor their Facebook feeds, blogs and other social media? When a student blogs something that violates the school's code of conduct, then the school can discipline them. (The truth is, we already see this in the "real people" world, right? When you apply for a job, you should expect that anything public-facing in your FB profile is going to be scrutinized. They're going to look at your photos and photos you've been tagged in. As adults, we accept this possibility as a side effect of at-will employment.)

Bottom line here is that if that's acceptable for schools to do, kids have a right to know what the terms of engagement are. So do parents. Everyone knows the rules and can use an appropriate level of discretion in what they put out there. Social rules and legal precedent have taught us how this works as part of the social contract for face-to-face and written communication -- ex., if this student had taken out a billboard saying "FU, Coach Douche", everyone would have expected some repercussions. Figuring out which of those rules apply in digital, online, social media and interwebz communications is a worthy goal.

Next up: Does/Should the school have the right to monitor kids' e-mail communications if the e-mail system is administered by the school? My employer can do it, should schools have the right to do it as well? Do they have the right to suspend a kid based on the content of e-mails between the student and a parent or the student and another adult?

Not arguing either way...just thinking that some precedent clarification on this whole question would benefit everyone involved.

[cougarfreak]

I think you're right, and I think that's actually a good thing. The courts should start drawing some lines so that students, parents and school administrations will all know going in what the acceptable bounds are.

I mean, if a student can be held responsible for something they tweet on their own time and away from school property, why not let the schools monitor their Facebook feeds, blogs and other social media? When a student blogs something that violates the school's code of conduct, then the school can discipline them. (The truth is, we already see this in the "real people" world, right? When you apply for a job, you should expect that anything public-facing in your FB profile is going to be scrutinized. They're going to look at your photos and photos you've been tagged in. As adults, we accept this possibility as a side effect of at-will employment.)

Bottom line here is that if that's acceptable for schools to do, kids have a right to know what the terms of engagement are. So do parents. Everyone knows the rules and can use an appropriate level of discretion in what they put out there. Social rules and legal precedent have taught us how this works as part of the social contract for face-to-face and written communication -- ex., if this student had taken out a billboard saying "FU, Coach Douche", everyone would have expected some repercussions. Figuring out which of those rules apply in digital, online, social media and interwebz communications is a worthy goal.

Next up: Does/Should the school have the right to monitor kids' e-mail communications if the e-mail system is administered by the school? My employer can do it, should schools have the right to do it as well? Do they have the right to suspend a kid based on the content of e-mails between the student and a parent or the student and another adult?

Not arguing either way...just thinking that some precedent clarification on this whole question would benefit everyone involved.

And see, that's is where huge problems are going to happen. With the school's legal obligations on bullying, drinking, drugs, abuse, etc., its oing to turn into a "my son was being abused, and was posting about it on Facebook, and the school did nothing. Yet, when he posted something about his teacher, you suspended him." That is why I don't want the school to go down that road as a teacher.

[Drake]

In theory, the courts drawing lines is a good thing for the schools as well as the parents/kids, because then everybody knows where the lines are and what should be reasonable expectations on both sides.

But I think your point is astute: if the school takes action because a kid was bad-mouthing a coach, it creates a reasonable expectation that if a student reports that they're being bullied on FB by other students, the school *must* step in and levy penalties against the perpetrators because they've set that precedent and voluntarily staked out that territory as something under their purview. If you're going to stake out a territory, you have to own it all. You don't get to pick and choose.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

And see, that's is where huge problems are going to happen. With the school's legal obligations on bullying, drinking, drugs, abuse, etc., its oing to turn into a "my son was being abused, and was posting about it on Facebook, and the school did nothing. Yet, when he posted something about his teacher, you suspended him." That is why I don't want the school to go down that road as a teacher.

Great point here. Really needs to remain a parent issue. We'd be a whole lot better off if more parents took care of their responsibility as a parent and didn't rely on others to teach their kids how to act and live. Or worse yet, look for people to blame when their kid does something wrong.

[DougW]

....We'd be a whole lot better off if more parents took care of their responsibility as a parent ...........

A lot of good points here I think. But, the above quote sent my brain in a spin. On one hand, absolutely - no doubt about it - more parents need to be more involved. On the other hand, a solid percentage of them don't. A pretty decent portion of our parental society are little more than sperm/egg donors, clueless as to their responsibility to guide and raise their offspring. Often times they're too self-absorbed to get past what they want to do, to help their kids with homework - much less be patient enough to properly raise them .. (ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT YOU CAN PLAY WITH THE SCISSORS JUST STOP CRYING AND SHUT THE EFF UP SO MOMMY CAN WATCH HER SHOW !!).

But, the flip side is even worse. Once upon a time we used to say "It takes a village to raise a child". Which, in theory, would be perfect. Imagine parents, teachers, family, police, neighbors, religious leaders, etc .. all working in harmony to properly raise our young. To educate them, to watch over them, to teach them to behave properly. It's really the ideal situation. You'd feel comfortable letting your kid go out to eat with his friends, because you know "Bobby the restaurant manager" would be there.

But, it isn't like that. I'm not sure if it ever really was, or all the "bad" was just less known. But nonetheless, now days, you have to be careful - Uncle Gus, neighbor Clyde, or Mrs. Evans - his 4th grade teacher - just may be raping them. Parents are left with protection issues, and must develop the attitude of "Uh, no .. thank you very much .. but I'll take full responsibility for everything - I'd rather you not even be alone with him".

We're left with a community of people that are afraid to go the extra mile to help our children, and parents afraid that they will - and that's the parents that care. We're also left with a good chunk of kids barely being raised at all.

No, I really don't have a point .. except to say, it's all really sad.

[tarcone]

In Granite City, IL 10 students suspended 5-10 days for inappropriate tweets or retweets.

http://www.kmov.com/home/Granite-City-HS-suspends-10-students-over-inappropriate-tweets-176022181.html

Students said they were having fun and feel that the school invaded their privacy. Students felt they did nothing wrong.

[chadritt]

One was a bomb threat, thats a whole new ballgame. Though again, why do these kids not have their accounts set to private if theyre going to do this stuff?

[IlliniCub]

As someone who works in education (with troubled kids) the kid will love it if he's disciplined, if I gave a big reaction every time I heard F#%$ you or any other insult I wouldn't have a job. Sometimes less is more in these situations don't give him the reaction and attention he hoped for in posting it.

[Barkeep49]

So here's what I get to deal with first thing in the morning. Have a 5th grader who took a picture of other 5th graders on a field trip (teachers had given OK to take pictures), posted the pictures to Instagram, where other students then proceeded to rip on these 5th graders. I'm not sure where the line between school action and not is on this one. I am glad about one thing: nearly all of the students who had been at our school for more than a year had set their accounts to private. Clearly some messages, though not the ones about not being on Instagram, have been heard.

[DanGarion]

This is sort of in the same vein.

Today, twenty students at our local high school got in trouble for wearing shirts promoting gay rights because of the political issue. Yet, they host a pro-life club and allow them to wear shirts. What backwards things have your schools done that made about zero sense? : AskReddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/12c74k/today_twenty_students_at_our_local_high_school/)