word to principals: you are not cops

The drug war has apparently driven an East Hartford, Connecticut administrator to distraction--and resignation.

A middle school assistant principal facing charges related to sending a student to buy drugs in order to catch another student selling them has agreed to resign.

Amy E. Watson, 37, of Ellington, will step down effective Friday, according to school board Chairwoman Mary Alice Dwyer Hughes....

Watson has been on administrative leave pending an investigation into whether she paid a student to buy drugs from a suspected drug dealer March 11.

Edwin Soto, 50, of Suffield, also was arrested in the case. He was the school security officer.

Watson surrendered to police May 8 and was charged with risking injury or impairing the morals of a child and tampering with a witness.

The last time we had a drug-related story this silly, the Supreme Court had to weigh in. Are some principals spending all their free time watching The Shield?



[via Obscure Store]

SCOTUS says no to strip search in school

Last April, when the Supreme Court was hearing oral argument about whether school officials could strip search a student suspected of carrying contraband ibuprofen, I wrote,

No middle school authority figure anywhere should be given the legal authority to strip search a student when looking for prescription-strength ibuprofen. This should not be controversial.

Two months later, the Court has ruled--and they got it right.

Thankfully.

The only unsettled question: whether Savana Redding, the student in question, can hold school officials individually liable. Though I'm no fan of excessive litigation, I hope Redding wins that argument in a lower court. Students keep their rights--and their dignity--when they enter the schoolhouse door.

please, SCOTUS, get the strip search decision right

No middle school authority figure anywhere should be given the legal authority to strip search a student when looking for prescription-strength ibuprofen. This should not be controversial.

Especially not...

• When the suspect has already consented to have her backpack and outer garments searched.
• When the only rationale for the search comes from a dubious informant.
• When a parent is not previously informed of the search, or present during the proceedings.

It's going to take a Supreme Court decision to make legally plain the painfully obvious. If they get this one wrong...

Update: Orin Kerr thinks they'll get it right--for boring legal reasons.

watch those eyebrows

Not your own. Your students'. They might harbor surreptitious gang signs.

Some students at Centennial High School have shaved vertical lines into their eyebrows in a trend recently made popular by hip-hop star Soulja Boy. School officials say the mark looks like a gang symbol.

Centennial administrators are telling students with the lines that they can't return to school until they shave their eyebrows off. Assistant Principal Mark Porterfield said the students are not suspended, but they are not allowed in school until they cooperate.

Four students have been sent home. One returned with a bandage covering the shaved brow.

Life must be pretty good at Centennial High, if they have time to enforce perhaps the pettiest rule in the history of secondary education. (Given that history, no easy feat.)

Sadly, if my administration asked me to monitor my students eyebrow grooming, I'd have to meekly go along with it. RIF lists suck.

no random drug searches for Washington schools

I'm quite pleased that our state's Supreme Court stood up to the feds and upheld our own Constitution, which more strictly safeguards our right to privacy.

The decision involved athletes who sued the Wahkiakum School District in 1999 after the district began requiring students to undergo urine tests if they wanted to participate in sports. If the tests indicated drug or alcohol use, the student was suspended from sports but wasn't reported to police.

At the time, officials in the Southwest Washington school district felt there was a real problem with student drug use, including use among athletes. Public surveys named youth substance abuse as the No. 1 problem there. That's not enough to allow drug testing of a student when there's no reason to suspect he or she is using drugs, the court ruled unanimously.

"The justices concluded, as we had contended, that it violates the state Constitution to require a student to give their urine without any reason to believe they've done anything wrong," said Doug Honig, a spokesman for the ACLU of Washington, which represented the students and their parents.

Students don't deserve random drug testing, especially not the students who are least likely to abuse drugs. Every now and then, law and common sense collide. This is one of those rare times.

SCOTUS protects political speech

Today the Court refused to hear an appeal of a case that would be the first to test the latest free speech ruling. The background:

A seventh-grader from Vermont was suspended for wearing a shirt that bore images of cocaine and a martini glass — but also had messages calling President Bush a lying drunk driver who abused cocaine and marijuana, and the "chicken-hawk-in-chief" who was engaged in a "world domination tour."

After his suspension, Zachary Guiles returned to school with duct tape covering the offending images.

Williamstown Middle School Principal Kathleen Morris-Kortz said the images violated the school dress code, which prohibits clothing that promotes the use of drugs or alcohol.

An appeals court said the school had no right to censor any part of the shirt.

Alito's political speech exception was the controlling ruling. "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is unacceptable, but "Bad Bush Hits Bong" is apparently okay.

Perhaps we pessimists have reason to be a little less pessimistic. (Outright optimism is a stretch.)

sorry, Jesus: no bong hits for you

Joseph Frederick has lost his free speech case.

Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.

His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.

"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."

I've already written elsewhere:

While academics might posit that meaning is a function of the text, or of the author's intent, or of a transaction between author and reader mediated via text, when it comes to this case, school administrators are essentially reader response theorists. What matters isn't what Frederick wrote, so much as what effect it would have on its readers, no matter how nonsensical the message.

Chief Justice John "Stanley Fish" Roberts, writing for the Court, essentially adopted that hermeneutic.

Update: The opinion is here [pdf].

Update II: This is how the Court's thinking has evolved over time: from "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school" (the Tinker standard) to "inconsistent with the school's educational mission" (the ham-fisted administrator standard).

Update III: Law prof Eugene Volokh tries to understand Alito's ruling, which he sees as controlling the case.

a tricky question

The union had another round of School Board candidate questioning today, interviewing Lucy Gentry-Meltzer and Tom Hill, both challenging Carolyn Barclift in the upcoming primary. I don't have much to say yet, other than to note a question we didn't ask: What would you do if high school protesters covered in fake blood crashed a school board meeting?

Gregory Requa: free speech hero?

The video took a teacher's hygiene to task. On YouTube. As a result, Gregory Requa, a student accused of producing it, was given a Noahic sentence: suspended for 40 days. Now, he's suing for his speech rights.

Requa's lawyer, Jeannette Cohen, said the teen didn't produce the video -- taken in an English classroom at Kentridge. But even if he did, his suspension is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, she argued in court.

"What is at stake here is the school district message that if you post things we don't like," you will be punished, Cohen said.

Kent School District lawyer Charles Lind says the suspension had nothing to do with online criticism of the teacher. Rather, it was punishment for the disruption created by the students secreting a video camera into Joyce Mong's class and dancing in a mocking, disrespectful manner while her back was turned.

"It's quite clear that the district is talking about conduct in the classroom and not the videotape," Lind said.

Lind is on shaky ground. If the only crime of Gregory Requa--3rd place, Travel and Tourism, DECA!--was the on-camera dance and mockathon, it would hardly merit a 40-day suspension, unless this is the culmination of a parade of incidents.

Absent the video and the discipline record, this blogger will withhold final judgment. One question, though: how thick is your skin, O teacher? Better be thick enough for YouTube.

Update: The judge agreed with the school, and Requa's suspension stands. A forty day vacation: that'll teach 'im.

Gig Harbor students protest candid camera

This morning, students at the home of the Tides gathered to protest an illegitimate use of their school's security cameras.

One student reporting the demonstration for the school paper, Amber Critchley, said the protesters believe it was an improper use of the surveillance video, which is primarily a security feature.

Classes continued during the disruption, said Principal Greg Schellenberg. He said he congratulated the students on holding a peaceful demonstration. The protesters wore T-shirts that said "free love" and waved peace signs.

Good for them.

(Backstory here.)

HB 1307 no longer applies to high school students

Sad news, as Jeff Nusser reports. Statements from Brian Schraum, Dave Upthegrove, and Kathy Schrier are available on his site.

Nusser, Schraum, and student journalists lobbied the hell out of this issue, and even convinced me to adopt their perspective: that the principal is not a publisher, and that our state law needs to clearly and specifically protect the rights of student journalists, not just in universities.

Nusser writes,

This is a tough day -- a sad day -- but we need to keep fighting. There will continue to be things that we all can do in Washington to fight unjust censorship of student media.

If I can learn what the law really says and abandon false assumptions, maybe others can, too--even nearsighted administrators. If we can't legislate, we can still educate.

Vashon Island student journalists show need for HB 1307

What counts as a substantial disruption to the educational process? In Vashon Island, it takes only a few phone calls.

“I’m very frustrated,” Amanda Zheutlin, one of three co-editors of the Riptide, said in an interview this week. “I don’t think they made the decision because the article was illegal or bad. I think it was controversial and they don’t want controversy.”

The Riptide is a district-supported newspaper and by district policy the principal may review the contents before the paper goes to print. Officials can prohibit publication if there is evidence indicating it could cause a substantial disruption of school, such as a riot or a walkout.

Vashon High School Principal Susan Hanson, in a letter to the student editors written after consulting with district Superintendent Marguerite Walker, said that the newspaper is not “an appropriate vehicle for airing concerns, complaints and criticisms of District staff.”

Hanson also raised concerns about “the fairness and open-mindedness of the article and possible defamation claims.”

Students said they met with Walker and she contended the coach story would disrupt school operations by generating phone calls to her, Hanson and the athletic director.

The article was reviewed by the Student Press Law Center and found to be fair to its subject, despite Hanson's objection. (Defamation can be claimed only if an allegation is false.)

HB 1307 would place liability squarely on the students writing the piece, forcing them to take the utmost caution with inflammatory facts. It would allow the charges to be discussed in an open forum, rather than remaining the stuff of innuendo and rumor. And, mostly, it would respect the right of student journalists to promote truth in the public interest.

once more about the pledge

A teen in Monroe has allegedly caught flack from a teacher for refusing to stand during the pledge.

When the rest of his classmates stood during fifth period for the Pledge of Allegiance, King stayed seated. A few teachers questioned him, he said, but until this year, none challenged his right to sit quietly.

But recently, King said, a music teacher told him he was required to stand with the other students. He said the teacher, in front of a class of about 30 students, also challenged his patriotism, his loyalty and his religious beliefs.

Now the Monroe School District is investigating whether the teacher exceeded her authority in insisting that he stand for the daily flag salute.

"It's never right to call a student out for their beliefs. That's not what public school is about," said Rosemary O'Neil, spokeswoman for the Monroe schools.

The teacher, Katie Lenoue, said she'd be in "a lot of trouble with the district" if she commented.

I'll wait for all the facts before rushing to judge Lenoue. I would like to point out, though, that O'Neil is only partly right: students who sit during the pledge are visually "called out" by their refusal to stand. There's already enough social pressure to rise and mumble with the rest of the class. A teacher who goes further and publicly dresses down a student is a boor, and ignorant, too.

HB 1307 passes, overcomes major hurdle

So points out Jeff Nusser. It's not over, though:

The bill still must be passed by the state Senate and signed into law by Gov. Christine Gregoire before it will take effect....

What next? The process starts all over again. You can contact your legislative district's senator and urge them to support the bill. It will need to go through another pair of committees before potentially coming up for another vote. Also, a number of student publications have written editorials supporting the bill, another excellent form of showing support for the bill -- especially when clipped and sent to your senator.

Find your legislator here. You can also urge support of this bill through the legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000.

Congrats to Nusser and to all who have strongly and consistently advocated for student rights. They even convinced me that first amendment issues were clear, and that fears of blowback were exaggerated. I regret only that it took me so long to leave the dark side.

Rep. Rodne: don't amend HB 1307

Jeff Nusser sends word of an amendment that would exempt high schools from respecting full speech rights for high school journalists. At a time when student expression of all kinds is increasingly under attack, HB 1307 is all the more important. If you have the time, encourage Rodne to keep it relevant and drop the amendment excluding high school journalists.

principal without principle: another free speech case

Via Ed Brayton, word of another principal on a power trip:

A student editorial in the Woodlan Junior-Senior High School newspaper calling for more tolerance for gays and lesbians sparked the principal to seek approval of each edition before it goes to print and issue a written warning against the journalism teacher....

Sophomore Megan Chase wrote an opinion piece – her first for the newspaper – that appeared in the Jan. 19 issue of the Woodlan Tomahawk that questioned people who believe it’s wrong to be gay or lesbian. Chase said she wrote the piece after a friend disclosed to her he was gay.

“I can only imagine how hard it would be to come out as homosexual in today’s society,” Chase wrote. “I think it is so wrong to look down on those people, or to make fun of them, just because they have a different sexuality than you. There is nothing wrong with them or their brain; they’re just different than you.”

Principal Edwin Yoder wrote a letter to the newspaper staff and journalism teacher Amy Sorrell insisting he sign off on every issue. Sorrell and the students contacted the Student Press Law Center, an advocacy group for student newspapers, which advised them to appeal the decision.

Last week, Yoder issued Sorrell a written warning for insubordination and not carrying out her responsibilities as a teacher. He accused her of exposing Woodlan students, who are in grades seven through 12, to inappropriate material and said if she did not comply with his orders she could be fired.

Yoder would not comment for this story, but Melin, who said he hasn’t read the editorial, said school officials do not have an issue with the topic but with the lack of balance and thoroughness in the opinion piece. Sorrell also should have consulted with Yoder before the article was printed, Melin said...

Melin said EACS has had a policy since 2003 that states principals have the authority to review each issue of a student publication before it goes to print. It’s up to the individual principal how he or she wants to enforce it, Melin said.

This is why Bruce Ramsey has it exactly backward: the issue of student censorship isn't about power-hungry English teachers, but about power-drunk principals who want to personally control the school paper. The more I think about it, the more I see just how badly we need HB 1307.

USA Today supports student journalists and HB 1307

Reader Nuss points us to a USA Today op-ed supporting HB 1307, the speech-rights-for-journalism bill. The gist:

The legislation pending in Washington state would give principals the right to see student publications before they go to press, but prohibit censorship or stopping of publication unless material is obscene, libelous or slanderous.

A major function of schools is to prepare students for life in a democracy. And one of the cornerstones of democracy is the free exchange of ideas. Lessons in bowing to life under censorship shouldn't be part of the curriculum.

As for the bill in question, it's sitting in the Rules Committee awaiting a second reading. With Democrats in charge, it seems likely to move into the House fairly quickly.

Update: I should add that Mr. Nuss has created a blog to keep track of the issue. It, and his personal blog, will soon be added to the roll.

HB 1307 all about power-hungry journalism teachers, columnist claims

In an op-ed for the Times, Bruce Ramsey dials in a lot of the same issues we've already discussed here. However, he adds another wrinkle to the debate:

HB 1307 would give students the entire power at public colleges and most of the power in public high schools — which is where the controversy is. It would allow the high-school principal to read the paper before going to press and to make changes to avoid libel, invasion of privacy or incitement to disruption. If he changed anything, he and the school district could face a lawsuit for going beyond these exceptions. If he changed nothing, all the liability would be held by the student editor (and perhaps his parents).

The students who spoke for the bill said they were willing to take the responsibility. But when a teenager says, "I'll take the responsibility," what does it mean? Maybe not a lot.

Most interesting was the attitude of the teachers. They all supported the bill. Though it would leave a teacher with no more legal power than the principal, legal power is not the only kind of power there is. The teacher is with the students. Often the conflicts over what can be printed are between the teacher and the principal.

Really, this is a bill to enhance the power of journalism teachers. It allows the students to pretend they are adult journeymen, which they are not, and allows the teachers to get the principals off their backs. It has little to do with the world those students will inhabit if they go to work for a real newspaper.

freedom of speech for student journalists

Your local newspaper has no obligation to give you a bully pulpit, and they don't even have to publish your anti-corporate screed in the letters to the editor. You don't have the right because you don't own it.

Local papers know, though, that allowing a diverse array of viewpoints, by stoking controversy, we can smack some sense into Our Great Republic (or, at very least, the city council). The First Amendment protects that function.

It does not, however, give you a right to publish in someone else's forum.

For that reason, this proposed legislation can't match intentions and outcomes.

Rep. Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines, has introduced legislation that would allow advisers to review student publications but strip them of any authority to control what is printed. Instead, students would be in charge of writing, editing and publishing — and would be liable for any fallout....

By granting students added freedoms and accountability, Upthegrove hopes to generate an appreciation for constitutional rights and give young people a sense of civic responsibility.

The Supreme Court has already been there, Upthegrove. A school newspaper isn't a public forum. It's taxpayer-funded and beholden to the greater needs of the "educational process." Thou shalt not disrupt it.

However, the disingenuous stance of the Washington Association of School Administrators bothers me, too:

If students want to voice their opinions without restraints, he suggests they turn elsewhere. Between blogs and personal Web sites, Kipp said, "There are lots of opportunities that kids have in school to express whatever they want."

Except that administrators block access to both blogs and personal websites, and have even gone after students for publishing anti-school materials at home.

It's a delicate balance, and administrators usually lean too far on the side of tyranny, afraid that controversy is in itself disruptive. A wise administrator knows when to let students take the fall.

On balance, I'd probably support the bill, even though I'm not sure how well making students liable will work when the first lawsuit rolls in. Accountability, after all, is another word for litigation.