Bypassing the registration for those of us feeling a little lazy... and ps Mitch - I wish I were this witty!
Student policy overreaches
By Mitchell Sommers
Whenever any governmental policy starts out by stating that it "respects the right of [fill in the blank] to express themselves in word or symbol," I recommend reading further, since it's almost certain that the First Amendment is about to be the victim of a drive-by shooting. That's my conclusion after learning of the new policy by the Central Columbia School District, near Bloomsburg.
The district decided last month to limit what its students can say or do on their own time and in their own homes, a policy that may be soon coming to a school district near you.
On Aug. 17, Central Columbia's school board voted 5-3 to adopt new procedures relating to student expression, or, perhaps, non-expression. It is a policy that ought to worry not only students, but parents, too. Here's what it says:
"Off-campus or after-hours [student] expression is governed... if the student expression involved constitutes unprotected expression as stated in this policy and provided the off-campus or after hours expression does or is likely to materially and substantially interfere with school activities, school work, or discipline and order on school property or at school functions."
Off-campus. After hours. In other words, a governmental body is seeking the right to discipline students for things they do any time, any place, anywhere. And what constitutes "unprotected expression"? That's defined pretty broadly.
Here are some of the things students can't do on their own time:
Libel any specific person. So I guess you can't call the superintendent a poopy-head on your Web site.
Advocate the use of any substance that may reasonably be believed to constitute a danger to the health and welfare of students. Join local chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, get kicked out of band.
Use obscene, lewd, vulgar or profane language. In other words, don't recite rap lyrics.
Urge violation of federal, state or municipal law. I'm glad that Martin Luther King didn't go to Central Columbia schools.
According to Deborah Creasy, one of the three board members who voted against the proposal, School Superintendent Harry Mathias learned of the draft policy from the Pennsylvania School Boards Association and brought it to the school board's attention. Although one board member, Joseph Petruncio, contended that the policy was needed based on the harassment and beating of a former student who ended up avoiding graduation, Creasy felt that the proposed policy was excessive and illegal. For a student being assaulted off school property, she suggested, there is a simple remedy: Call the police.
Creasy is outraged at the breadth of the policy. "They can take action even if a student is doing something at home with a parent's knowledge," she said. "The school district is doing things that the government can't even do without a warrant."
When asked about the possibility of lawsuits at a board meeting, Petruncio answered, "I say, 'Bring 'em on.' "
If he ever gets his wish, he may regret it. A week after this policy was adopted, a federal judge in Pittsburgh ordered a Beaver County school district to reverse its suspension of a student who wrote violent and profane rap lyrics at home and posted them online. Although the student's songs contained "violent imagery," they were protected speech under the First Amendment. As they should be. And despite the attempts by school districts such as Central Columbia to call the things students do in their own homes and on their own computers "unprotected student expression," school policy doesn't trump the Constitution.
But leave the Constitution out of it for a moment. Let me ask Superintendent Mathias and the school board a question that Creasy asked the night the policy passed:
If this policy is so good, should it apply to teachers? To administrators? To administrators?
Creasy said that Superintendent Mathias answered only that including teachers and administrators wasn't included in the policy provided by the PSBA. And supporting school board members said nothing.
But it's a question worth asking any school board that wants to overreach this dramatically. If this policy is so worthy, and if the First Amendment is such an inconvenience to school discipline, why shouldn't the officials who institute it live under it themselves? Aren't adults supposed to set the example for children?
1 comment:
Bypassing the registration for those of us feeling a little lazy... and ps Mitch - I wish I were this witty!
Student policy overreaches
By Mitchell Sommers
Whenever any governmental policy starts out by stating that it "respects the right of [fill in the blank] to express themselves in word or symbol," I recommend reading further, since it's almost certain that the First Amendment is about to be the victim of a drive-by shooting. That's my conclusion after learning of the new policy by the Central Columbia School District, near Bloomsburg.
The district decided last month to limit what its students can say or do on their own time and in their own homes, a policy that may be soon coming to a school district near you.
On Aug. 17, Central Columbia's school board voted 5-3 to adopt new procedures relating to student expression, or, perhaps, non-expression. It is a policy that ought to worry not only students, but parents, too. Here's what it says:
"Off-campus or after-hours [student] expression is governed... if the student expression involved constitutes unprotected expression as stated in this policy and provided the off-campus or after hours expression does or is likely to materially and substantially interfere with school activities, school work, or discipline and order on school property or at school functions."
Off-campus. After hours. In other words, a governmental body is seeking the right to discipline students for things they do any time, any place, anywhere. And what constitutes "unprotected expression"? That's defined pretty broadly.
Here are some of the things students can't do on their own time:
Libel any specific person. So I guess you can't call the superintendent a poopy-head on your Web site.
Advocate the use of any substance that may reasonably be believed to constitute a danger to the health and welfare of students. Join local chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, get kicked out of band.
Use obscene, lewd, vulgar or profane language. In other words, don't recite rap lyrics.
Urge violation of federal, state or municipal law. I'm glad that Martin Luther King didn't go to Central Columbia schools.
According to Deborah Creasy, one of the three board members who voted against the proposal, School Superintendent Harry Mathias learned of the draft policy from the Pennsylvania School Boards Association and brought it to the school board's attention. Although one board member, Joseph Petruncio, contended that the policy was needed based on the harassment and beating of a former student who ended up avoiding graduation, Creasy felt that the proposed policy was excessive and illegal. For a student being assaulted off school property, she suggested, there is a simple remedy: Call the police.
Creasy is outraged at the breadth of the policy. "They can take action even if a student is doing something at home with a parent's knowledge," she said. "The school district is doing things that the government can't even do without a warrant."
When asked about the possibility of lawsuits at a board meeting, Petruncio answered, "I say, 'Bring 'em on.' "
If he ever gets his wish, he may regret it. A week after this policy was adopted, a federal judge in Pittsburgh ordered a Beaver County school district to reverse its suspension of a student who wrote violent and profane rap lyrics at home and posted them online. Although the student's songs contained "violent imagery," they were protected speech under the First Amendment. As they should be. And despite the attempts by school districts such as Central Columbia to call the things students do in their own homes and on their own computers "unprotected student expression," school policy doesn't trump the Constitution.
But leave the Constitution out of it for a moment. Let me ask Superintendent Mathias and the school board a question that Creasy asked the night the policy passed:
If this policy is so good, should it apply to teachers? To administrators? To administrators?
Creasy said that Superintendent Mathias answered only that including teachers and administrators wasn't included in the policy provided by the PSBA. And supporting school board members said nothing.
But it's a question worth asking any school board that wants to overreach this dramatically. If this policy is so worthy, and if the First Amendment is such an inconvenience to school discipline, why shouldn't the officials who institute it live under it themselves? Aren't adults supposed to set the example for children?
Post a Comment