High School student expelled for swearing in a tweet

[Keske]

I love America sometimes, putting such emphasis on completly irrelevant things. I love how this ties in with another story from the states how they have problems controlling bullies. So if a bully beats me up he'll get a 3 day suspension but if I say "Ouch that fucking hurts" I'll get expelled. Makes perfect sense to me.

---------- Post added 2012-03-30 at 02:42 PM ----------

"If a white kid repeatedly said the "N" word to African-American students, you'd deem that free speech and acceptable?"

It's not the word that would get punished, it would be the incitement to racial hatred. Get a grip.

[Zhangfei]

I love America sometimes, putting such emphasis on completly irrelevant things. I love how this ties in with another story from the states how they have problems controlling bullies. So if a bully beats me up he'll get a 3 day suspension but if I say "Ouch that fucking hurts" I'll get expelled. Makes perfect sense to me.

School administrators tend to be nice enough to take that sort of thing into consideration. I know I do!

[Keske]

School administrators tend to be nice enough to take that sort of thing into consideration. I know I do!

So you think it's worse to swear than to beat someone up?

[Delvian]

If the student were actually threatening somebody I'd see it as an issue. Kids curse IN school without consequence. Let the parents deal with Twitter as they see fit.

[Zhangfei]

So you think it's worse to swear than to beat someone up?

Not at all. But it is situational - if a white kid on stage at school assembly said "n" people should be slaves again" while a black kid reacted badly and punched him on the arm later, I'd say it's the other way around.

[Deleted]

Internet = public property. Schools have every right to respond to public acts by students. If a student threatened to harm a teacher/fellow student on Facebook, they cannot hide behind the "I did it at home" excuse. No, you did it in public. If you said it in your house by yourself, nobody would hear it.

That's an actual threat of physical violence, and a different ballgame in and of itself.

Well I agree, but the school in question thought it could or imply the student would be. It is their call to make, they have the responsibility to keep a safe, healthy environment for learning. Swearing publicly counters this.

The school is simply wrong and I hope half the students in retaliation (the article hinted at a protest) post something on twitter or facebook akin to "I am Spartacus! -insert expletives-."

I am not talking about adults as much, but once again Facebook is not private. If you add your boss and 3 months later call him insulting names in a status update, then it is not a private matter.

Correct, but some places of employment might disown you if your political and/or religious affiliations cause too much outrage, offense, whatever. How do you draw the line here?

If you value free speech, don't post stuff online tied to you that you wouldn't want to get back to your job/school. They have the right to complain too.

Uh, shouldn't that be if you value free speech - don't hide behind conformity. The whole point of free speech is that it is about free expression, and not hidden behind proxies, anonymous identities etc. There is little difference, other than scale and result of someone in the USA having to hide behind an online alias to advance their opinions to avoid the attention of their company/educational establishment and someone in Saudi Arabia having to hide behind a different name to avoid the government's (read: clerics) attention.

Now "what" you are saying is different - if a student wrote on FB "Mr. Zhangfei doesn't do the things in class I like to do" then that's their right.

Well, that could rather depend on the school I fear.

But I still think businesses and schools have the right to see your free speech and react to it in ways they deem appropriate. Just like countries like America always has done.

I don't. At all. Entirely because of the implications to minority and extreme opinions across the board. People would be effectively silenced or risk losing their livelihood. Only the mainstream would be successfully advanced.

If a white kid repeatedly said the "N" word to African-American students, you'd deem that free speech and acceptable?

On school property, the school can punish him.

What if a school student regularly visited in their own time and contributed racial jokes and memes to 4chan and was uncovered somehow?

My school probably wouldn't, but I don't know the district or circumstances. And while he was physically at home, what he said was in public. In public means as good as saying it in a crowded cafeteria in the American system.

The conflation is massively flawed. Public it may be (as in accessible) it is not the same as saying it out loud in a cafeteria.

Amendments don't have "strength" in America. Why is the 2nd amendment not as valuable as the 1st?

I'm not American, I'm just saying the issue of holding firearms is different than free speech.

So if the student came to school and acted out again, the school could be sued for not taking action. Great. Rock and hard place, schools will nearly always choose to protect themselves.

No, I'm saying the school can take action. Student is being disruptive. It happens on school property, during school time and during class.

PUBLIC property. Like PUBLIC speech. You seem to want to ignore the 2nd and 4th Amendments but defend the 1st. Either all rights are modified (all relevant ones are for public school) or none should be.

Just because the school has the right to search your property on their premises, does not mean they should have the right to negate your free speech outside of said premises. After all, I'm not entirely sure a teacher can go to one of their students on a weekend and insist to see what's in their backpack despite both of them being on public property at the time.

If speech according to you is only free if it is private by which no-one hears it and no-one can hear it then there is no free speech at all. That's like saying "You can say what you like about X but only if no-one hears you, or no-one reports you." It is tantamount to still making it illegal.

[Razorice]

Seriously?
World is getting worse and worse day by day.

[Sealbinder]

Isn't this the same country where some School was watching kids at home through their webcams or something? Watching teens in their bedrooms through laptop webcams? LAND OF THE FREE!

lol.....wtf?

Lower Merion School District (unless there are others). This is the district I went to back in the day. This is still in court. The school says it should not have been on. The camera monitoring program was designed to turn on if the laptop was reported as stolen. This way it could get an image of the thief. There has been a lot of back and forth on it, and I am not sure how it is going to end. Honestly if it was a program glitch should not be held against the school. If it was a program to monitor how students used the school's laptops at home it is more of a gray area (still really creepy and potentially exposes school to charges of underage pornography if students were undressing near computer).

[Conbot]

Well, this is Indiana. Freedom is situational.

Freedom means: "Do what we do, say what we say, and act the way we want you to."

[KryptoX]

Only in America...

[Zhangfei]

That's an actual threat of physical violence, and a different ballgame in and of itself.

Threat of disruption is the same here.

The school is simply wrong and I hope half the students in retaliation (the article hinted at a protest) post something on twitter or facebook akin to "I am Spartacus! -insert expletives-."

Frankly, I might support this. It is a draconian act. But we need to distinguish that it deserved to be punished and what the punishment should be. I'd have given him a detention where he wrote how to distinguish a private from a public act.

Correct, but some places of employment might disown you if your political and/or religious affiliations cause too much outrage, offense, whatever. How do you draw the line here?

Well it depends on the company. If you work for a charity affiliated with a church, being disrespectful of religion is your right but it is their right to release you. If you work for Microsoft and you complain about Romney, that is unjustifiable if you are let go.

I draw the line at the company's officially stated MO. That is it. If it doesn't mention a specific party/religion, then they have no grounds to drop you. If you are causing outrage in the workplace by being a pain, though, that's a different story.

But let's not keep confusing adult with student rights - I think we're similar in terms of adult rights and the primacy of free speech.

Uh, shouldn't that be if you value free speech - don't hide behind conformity. The whole point of free speech is that it is about free expression, and not hidden behind proxies, anonymous identities etc. There is little difference, other than scale and result of someone in the USA having to hide behind an online alias to advance their opinions to avoid the attention of their company/educational establishment and someone in Saudi Arabia having to hide behind a different name to avoid the government's (read: clerics) attention.

What I'm saying is if you say it publicly it can be traced back to you; if it can and it is punishable, then who's to blame? Take personal responsibility here - learn the rules.

Well, that could rather depend on the school I fear.

No district I've ever read the rules for - but obviously I only really know two or three - has denied freedom of speech on those grounds. You can't swear, you can't deny other people's right to an education and you can't threaten or bully. Not hard to follow.

I don't. At all. Entirely because of the implications to minority and extreme opinions across the board. People would be effectively silenced or risk losing their livelihood. Only the mainstream would be successfully advanced.

Right - the State already does this to teachers. My free speech ends where my religious and political ideologies begin. You're making freedom of speech more important than other rights to me, and I simply don't agree. A freedom to an education in a safe environment is the single, primary goal of a school. Extreme opinions expressed correctly does have a place but flaunting the rules does not. The rules are there for a reason.

On school property, the school can punish him.

Public property. Public actions. School = public. Public = school. You keep ignoring this fundamental fact of American society.

What if a school student regularly visited in their own time and contributed racial jokes and memes to 4chan and was uncovered somehow?

If the evidence was overt, they could easily be punished. They probably would be. Still a public forum.

The conflation is massively flawed. Public it may be (as in accessible) it is not the same as saying it out loud in a cafeteria.

Public is public is public. Public begins off private property and ends when you step back on it. The internet is public space. If you wouldn't say it in a cafeteria then don't say it online next to your name. I consider it exactly the same.

I'm not American, I'm just saying the issue of holding firearms is different than free speech.

But this happened in America; I respect your opinion but the reasoning has to be based on the place it took place, surely?

No, I'm saying the school can take action. Student is being disruptive. It happens on school property, during school time and during class.

But if the warnings signs were there then the school can be sued by the parents of students who were disrupted. It's why schools pull the trigger so easily. Expletives in public are a warning sign to this school.

Just because the school has the right to search your property on their premises, does not mean they should have the right to negate your free speech outside of said premises. After all, I'm not entirely sure a teacher can go to one of their students on a weekend and insist to see what's in their backpack despite both of them being on public property at the time.

If speech according to you is only free if it is private by which no-one hears it and no-one can hear it then there is no free speech at all. That's like saying "You can say what you like about X but only if no-one hears you, or no-one reports you." It is tantamount to still making it illegal.

4th Amendment rights exist off school grounds (that was a court case in the 1980s) but 1st amendment rights do not. That is the law and the rule. Even 18 year old adults are considered minors if they attend state education.

And when I say "no-one" I mean anyone in the physical proximity of your house. You and your friends can complain and swear but you can't do it online in public. I don't get how people don't understand this. Physical property (your body, your house) = private. Not your physical property (everywhere else, online) = public.

[Deleted]

Threat of disruption is the same here.

A student swearing on a tweet causes as much disruption to a school as a direct threat towards a teacher does? Is that what you meant to say? Not sure.

Moreover, as pertaining the OP I would say that being so absurd as to expel someone for a tweet of this nature causes more disruption... as the news article and negative publicity they've generated demonstrates.

Also: What's your opinion on Ahlquist vs. Cranston. Does the school have the right to expel her for being disruptive?

Frankly, I might support this. It is a draconian act. But we need to distinguish that it deserved to be punished and what the punishment should be. I'd have given him a detention where he wrote how to distinguish a private from a public act.

Then you teach him that so far as voicing his opinion for others to hear that he is impaired.

But let's not keep confusing adult with student rights - I think we're similar in terms of adult rights and the primacy of free speech.

Okay.

What I'm saying is if you say it publicly it can be traced back to you; if it can and it is punishable, then who's to blame? Take personal responsibility here - learn the rules.

You're blaming the victim here, to me. My point is that such draconian measures are unjust in and of themselves, regardless if there is a mechanism to punish people for it.

Right - the State already does this to teachers. My free speech ends where my religious and political ideologies begin. You're making freedom of speech more important than other rights to me, and I simply don't agree. A freedom to an education in a safe environment is the single, primary goal of a school. Extreme opinions expressed correctly does have a place but flaunting the rules does not. The rules are there for a reason.

You ought have the right to privately express your beliefs to your students and colleagues in private. The school, or your governing bodies have the right to legislate that you ought not preach your beliefs to your students during lessons, or official events and outside of school for you, to me, you have the right to express your opinions as much as you please.

Public property. Public actions. School = public. Public = school. You keep ignoring this fundamental fact of American society.

I addressed this conflation further down.

If the evidence was overt, they could easily be punished. They probably would be. Still a public forum.

Then your system is shameful, frankly. I say no more than that. I imagine the pseudo-free speech laws here would also do that.

Public is public is public. Public begins off private property and ends when you step back on it. The internet is public space. If you wouldn't say it in a cafeteria then don't say it online next to your name. I consider it exactly the same.

Then you're simply wrong. The format of the internet is different. They are both public in the sense they can be observed by anyone but they are two different formats.

But this happened in America; I respect your opinion but the reasoning has to be based on the place it took place, surely?

Not for me. I don't give the slightest about Saudi Arabian civil law, for example. It is all completely unjust to me. I'm not sure what gun rights in the USA or anywhere have to do with defending free speech.

But if the warnings signs were there then the school can be sued by the parents of students who were disrupted. It's why schools pull the trigger so easily. Expletives in public are a warning sign to this school.

This all rather depends on how the teacher, when provoked by an unruly student reacts.

And when I say "no-one" I mean anyone in the physical proximity of your house. You and your friends can complain and swear but you can't do it online in public. I don't get how people don't understand this. Physical property (your body, your house) = private. Not your physical property (everywhere else, online) = public.

Right, so basically you can only say your actual opinion in the confines of your own property. You can't broadcast it to anyone on any format because of the fear that someone, somewhere might be upset and contact where you are and have you punished for it. That's where your system leads to.

[DeltrusDisc]

Amazed people are still debating this. Honestly students often swear IN school, but to flip over a swear in a tweet? Give me a break.

[capitano666]

"The principal at Garrett High School claims their system tracks all the tweets on Twitter when a student logs in"

dafaq?

[Zhangfei]

A student swearing on a tweet causes as much disruption to a school as a direct threat towards a teacher does? Is that what you meant to say? Not sure.

Moreover, as pertaining the OP I would say that being so absurd as to expel someone for a tweet of this nature causes more disruption... as the news article and negative publicity they've generated demonstrates.

Also: What's your opinion on Ahlquist vs. Cranston. Does the school have the right to expel her for being disruptive?

First, it's not as extreme but it is still disruptive. Second, It is other people causing problems. A school kicking a student out for gangfighting may generate coverage, it doesn't mean it's wrong. Third, that is a legally valid case as part of the right to education. There is no similar right for swearing.

Then you teach him that so far as voicing his opinion for others to hear that he is impaired.

The manner of his "opinion" was expressed incorrectly, offensively and against school policy. He broke the rules. His right to free speech ends where the right to an education is more important and the only people who can accurately judge that are the school administrators and teachers.

You're blaming the victim here, to me. My point is that such draconian measures are unjust in and of themselves, regardless if there is a mechanism to punish people for it.

I'm saying two wrongs don't make a right. The kid made a mistake and so did the school - the kid is not in the right in any way but the punishment does not fit the crime.

You ought have the right to privately express your beliefs to your students and colleagues in private. The school, or your governing bodies have the right to legislate that you ought not preach your beliefs to your students during lessons, or official events and outside of school for you, to me, you have the right to express your opinions as much as you please.

I do not have those things. I am a teacher both in school and out. I cannot socialise with students or express my private beliefs without breaking the ethics' codes of the school. Freedom of speech and protecting it works both ways; if students say things I strictly disagree with then their right is I do not hold it against them. Likewise, I cannot persuade them of my personal beliefs. There isn't a magical wall where students forget things and it could be considered an abuse of authority to reject it.

After hearing some teachers' beliefs, I whole-heartedly agree with this divide. I would not want their personal beliefs pushed onto my children.

Then your system is shameful, frankly. I say no more than that. I imagine the pseudo-free speech laws here would also do that.

I don't think you understand how rights work. You have the freedom of speech until it infringes onto other rights. It does not trump them and you do not have the right to ignore my rights to further your own. Same thing here; the student pushed his freedom of speech too far and got punished.

Then you're simply wrong. The format of the internet is different. They are both public in the sense they can be observed by anyone but they are two different formats.

Legally, I am right. I don't know what grounds you are considering them different (abstract and physical I assume?) but legally - and this is all legality - to the American school system they are the same.

Not for me. I don't give the slightest about Saudi Arabian civil law, for example. It is all completely unjust to me. I'm not sure what gun rights in the USA or anywhere have to do with defending free speech.

You are arguing for one constitutional law that is being infringed when others are being infringed that you consider as acceptable. If rights are equal, then you are being a hypocrite. You either acknowledge the unique place the school has and the rights IT has over the treatment of its students, or you just think no rules should be different. I dislike inconsistency.

This all rather depends on how the teacher, when provoked by an unruly student reacts.

Correct. It is the best way of dealing with it. Teachers sometimes see more of students than their own parents do.

Right, so basically you can only say your actual opinion in the confines of your own property. You can't broadcast it to anyone on any format because of the fear that someone, somewhere might be upset and contact where you are and have you punished for it. That's where your system leads to.

I'm saying if you break the rules you break the rules. This is about a right to education and a learning environment. It trumps a kid's right to free speech. It's utilitarian but then it has to be.

In my state it is illegal for a student to disrupt the class. If the kids cannot stop discussing a tweet or follow his example, then the original student has disrupted the class. That is illegal. Simple as.

[vindicatorx]

"If my account is on my own personal account, I don't think the school or anybody should be looking at it. Because it's my own personal stuff and it's none of their business,” said Carroll.
He clearly isn't very smart if he thinks twitter is personal stuff...
I personally don't think what he said is that bad, I've said much worse in high school than that. But if the school has a strict policy against it than it's the kids fault.

Edit: the principle said that they have a computer set up to track students tweets, it's clearly a big deal to them.

Not defending the expulsion but my highschool had bomb threats e-mailed in from school computers this is my guess as to why the thing tracks stuff like this.

[casuallyhardcore]

Weird, the teachers in the high school I went to all swore daily, so it was normal to swear publicly. It was a pretty decent public school too (top 10 in the nation).

Nevertheless, I do agree that students that say anything on a social network is equivalent to saying anything in the middle of the school loudly. The officials and teachers seem to be actively involved on social networks nowadays, reading whatever they can about the students. Hell, two students got suspended from my high school for discussing a question on a standardized test on Facebook.

I agree to a point, but their are other questions to ask before you should say "yep, he deserved it". Has the student had any earlier issues? Did anyone put in a formal complaint? Are they firing teachers for swearing after one offense as well? Do they have a list of "language" that is usable or not usable displayed so each student has a fair understanding of what is allowed? Even if it was a school computer I could see a suspension but expelled seems pretty harsh to me , even if he swears frequently on social media.