Students & The Law

TIM STELLMACHERDAN MCCREA

NATHAN JAEGERKRIS DEBRUINE

What do you do?

Student created an extremely derogatory “Top Ten List” about the Athletic Director

Website was created from the student’s home

List was brought to campus by another student

Objectives

1.  Be able to apply any of the 3 seminal cases to a free speech issue involving the internet

2.  Be able to apply a format “additional tests” from subsequent case law to a practical example

3.  As a Business Manager, be better prepared to take the first steps if an issue occurs in your district

Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)

SITUATION: Students suspended for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War

“First Amendment rights…are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to free speech at the schoolhouse gate.”

7-2 decision clearly indicated that a student has a right to freedom of expression to social, political and economic issues in junior and senior high schools

Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)

BUT student expression can be restricted if it disrupts school activities or affects the rights of other students

No tests for the definition of “disruptive” were defined by the decision

Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)

Fraser gave a speech referring to the student he was endorsing "in terms of an elaborate, graphic and explicit sexual metaphor.”

Speech was given at a school assembly

Lewd and offensive language was used

Courts ruled to limit student’s rights to use lewd, sexual, and profane speech

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Principal chose to remove two articles from the school newspaper regarding pregnancy and divorce

Courts ruled in favor of the school district citing: School newspaper constitutes “school-sponsored

speech” The school newspaper in not a public forum

Mahaffey v. Aldrich (2002)

Student was suspended for contributing to a non-obscene website that was created off campus

Boy added to the website from an on campus computer during his free time

Substantial

Disruption

Lewd, Sexual, or Profane

Language

School-Sponsored

Speech

Occur on School

Grounds

Yes

No

Mahaffey v. Aldrich cont.

Website Created

On-Campus

Website Disseminate

d On Campus

Substantial

Disruption

Nature of Expression was Vulgar

Yes

No

Decision: for the student

J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District (2000)

Student created a web-site with “derogatory, profane, offensive and threatening comments” about a teacher

It was determined that a significant disruption occurred

“There is a sufficient nexus between the web site and the school campus to consider the speech as on campus”

“where speech that is aimed at a specific school and/or its personnel [and] is brought onto the school campus or accessed at school by its originator, the speech will be considered on-campus speech.”

J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District Cont.

Substantial

Disruption

Lewd, Sexual, or Profane

Language

School-Sponsored

Speech

Occur on School

Grounds

Yes

No

J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District Cont.

Website Created

On-Campus

Website Disseminate

d On Campus

Substantial

Disruption

Nature of Expression was Vulgar

Yes

No

* important to note the presence of a “threat” in this particular case

Decision: for the School District

Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District (1998)

Student created a web page criticizing his high school

Site used vulgar language in reference to teachers, the principal, and other aspects of the school

Substantial

Disruption

Lewd, Sexual, or Profane

Language

School-Sponsored

Speech

Occur on School

Grounds

Yes

No

Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District (1998)

Website Created

On-Campus

Website Disseminate

d On Campus

Substantial

Disruption

Nature of Expression was Vulgar

Yes

No

Decision: for the student

An unhappy student created a extremely derogatory “Top Ten List” about the Athletic Director from home

List was brought to campus but not by the unhappy student

The student was suspended for 10 days for verbal abuse of a staff member

Parents took case to court

Killion v. Franklin Regional School District (2001)

What would you do?

Substantial

Disruption

Lewd, Sexual, or Profane

Language

School-Sponsored

Speech

Occur on School

Grounds

Yes

No

Killion v. Franklin Regional School District (2001)

Killion v. Franklin Regional School District Cont.

Website Created

On-Campus

Website Disseminate

d On Campus

Substantial

Disruption

Nature of Expression was Vulgar

Yes

No

Threats

A true threat is “a statement that would cause a reasonable person to regard the statement as showing an immediate, unequivocal attempt to cause harm”

True threats are not protected speech under the First Amendment

Tinker, Fraser, and Kuhlmeier cases do NOT apply

Location at which a threat is made is also irrelevant

Tinker v DMSD (1969)

Bethel v Frasier (1986)

Hazelwood SD v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Beussink v. Woodland R-IV SD (1998)

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

Killion v. Franklin Regional School District

(2001)

1986

1969

1988

1998

20002001

2007

J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District (2000)

J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District (2007)

Requa v. Kent School District (2007)

Layshock v. Hermitage School District (2007)

Timeline of Landmark Cases

2002

Mahaffey v. Aldrich (2002)

Policy Considerations

The policy puzzle

District StudentsStaff

IT

On Campus

Off Campus

Policy Considerations

Technology Policy (300 Policy Series – Instruction) Internet E-Mail Social Networking Classroom Applications District Applications

Bullying Policy (400 Policy Series – Students) Harassment – Physical, Social & Emotional

Staff & Student Relations (500 Policy Series – Personnel)

Harassment – Physical, Social & Emotional Off Campus Student & Staff Communications

General Policy Considerations

Does the policy have a legitimate educational purpose and meet the community’s needs?

Is the policy consistent with relevant state and federal laws, CBA’s and other district policies?

Is the policy reasonably clear and specific?

Can the policy be implemented using available staff and resources?Source: WASB Policy Service

Policy Resources

Staff Student Relations School District of Waukesha St. Francis School District Franklin Public Schools

Staff Use of IT & Communication Resources Elmbrook School Staff Use of IT & Communication

ResourcesStudent Use of Technology

Cedarburg School DistrictWASB

What do your policies look

like?

Thank You!