Freedom of speech for students was reaffirmed this week by the nation’s highest court.
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled it was acceptable for teens to criticize their high schools, even in an explicit manner, when they are off campus.
As often happens, the defendant waited a long time for resolution (see: the wheels of justice grind slowly and all that). In this case, Brandi Levy of Pennsylvania had already graduated and moved on to college before the ruling was delivered.
Levy was just 14 when she expressed dismay at not making the varsity cheerleading squad by posting an expletive-filled Snapchat rant and a photo of her raised middle finger. The administration punished her by taking away a year’s eligibility to cheer.
A charm-school graduate, Levy isn’t. Nevertheless, it isn’t necessary to agree with a particular sentiment or its means of expression to defend somebody’s right to express it.
Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decision upheld an earlier finding for Levy, even as it narrowed the rationale of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
While the lower court’s contention is that school administrators have no authority to punish students for statements made off campus, the Supreme Court holds that schools still do, but only in certain circumstances.
Those circumstances include “serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers,” wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
Levy did a number of things right with her Snapchat. She didn’t name the school, the coach(es), or other cheerleaders. She posted off campus. She did not use a device owned by the school. Her post, while likely embarrassing to the district, did not disrupt learning or school activities.
If Levy had done any of those things, the Supreme Court could have decided differently.
As it is, the high court’s ruling is correct. Administrators should not control students’ every utterance, especially after school. Like other taxpayer-funded entities, schools are fair game when it comes to public criticism, even — and perhaps especially — from their primary “customers,” the pupils.
The case’s resolution creates teachable moments for my own students this fall. Last year, several of my English classes looked at articles relating to Levy, examining how different news outlets covered the case and debating the proper course of action.
I was surprised when many students came down on the side of the district. A deciding factor for some was Levy’s salty language; the four F-bombs she lobbed were too much for kids who have apparently never sullied their own mouths with the word (he said with an eyeroll and tongue firmly in cheek).
When I explained the default mode of the First Amendment — that people have a right to say most anything, with only very narrow exclusions — my students thought I was saying it backward. In other words, that the government could censor most speech, except in very narrow circumstances. It was a disturbing misinterpretation.
In First Amendment cases, slipping into timeworn aphorisms is inevitable. “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences” is one such, because it’s true. Levy’s case is no exception. The court’s decision didn’t restore her lost year of cheerleading or all the hours spent in legal wrangling. Nor did her choice of language serve to convince most people of the righteousness of her cause, whatever it was, which is also a lesson worth learning.
However, not many teens can say that their “stick-it-to-the-man” moment ended up reaffirming the rights of other students nationwide to do the same. That’s a lasting affirmation for an ephemeral Snapchat post.
chris.schillig@yahoo.com
@cschillig on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment