I think you would do well to explain to your kids, that anytime they are called to the office to answer any questions, they should ask, repeatedly if necessary, to be able to make a call to their parents. Schools sometimes see themselves as agents of the cops, and if so they should be handled the same way. I have even recommended that some of my clients send certified letters to the principal expressly stating that their kid is not to be questioned by anyone unless a parent, guardian, or legal representative is present.

“But the Supreme Court has ruled that children are the property of their parents–not the government.”
******************

I am not aware of the expression of such archaic thinking since the Dred Scott v. Sandford opinion. I am also not aware of any current law that supports the proposition that anyone or anything “owns” children as property. What case are you referring to?

But I digress. In this case, it seems obvious that this student was targeted; otherwise, why would they look into her personal comments off campus? And why should they have access to those comments? Should she not be allowed to “sound off” about her teachers? It’s much better than the alternative of keeping it bottled up until it reaches a boiling point from which there is no return.

As a teacher, I expect that not every student in my class will like the class or my policies. Anyone who works with the public in any capacity has to accept that as part of the job. So why are we letting these teachers play the victim when there was really no harm done?

Penrod
Stover at Yale

my childhood reading….

In it Alito held, “No court or legislature has ever suggested that unwelcome speech directed at another’s ‘values’ may be prohibited under the rubric of anti-discrimination.”.

.. “The plaintiffs in this case challenge the constitutionality of a public school district’s ‘anti-harassment’ policy, arguing that it violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. The District Court, concluding that the policy prohibited no more speech than was already unlawful under federal and state anti-discrimination laws, held that the policy is constitutional and entered judgment for the school district. We reverse.”

***
Patty C
1, March 6, 2008 at 3:33 pm

For her senior year, Miss Porter’s School is just down the road
- a piece.

deeply worried
1, March 6, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Patty C,
You have a mordant wit!

***

Duh, DW – it’s called ‘breeding’…

Of course, I was similarly optimistic of Scalia and Thomas when they were before the Senate. And I turned out to be drastically wrong!!

But even better, she was never suspended or disciplined. She just wasn’t allowed to be an officer of student council. Its like a coach removing a “captain” of a football team because he doesn’t simply captain-like qualities.
****************************

You obviously missed the whole point of Prof. Turley’s column. Which was that it was over-reaching on the part of these school officials to monitor such statements made by students that were nothing more than simple verbal criticism in the first place. Were there any threats made by this particular student? Nope. Did she threaten to harm any school officials? Again, nope. So, to quote the old Wendy’s ad, “where’s the beef?” Oh that’s right, the officials don’t HAVE any.

If some school officials have nothing better to do than monitor students’ OFF SCHOOL time, they should either get busy with more productive endeavors or LOOK FOR OTHER WORK.

Students are not the property of the schools they attend. They are not inmates in an asylum nor convicts in a prison. The school employees had no cause nor right to punish this student, she did nothing wrong.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with impolite language, and everything to do with a student’s willingness to criticize the state employees in charge of her school. If only we had more like her.

School administrators should not be held immune to the criticisms of the students under their care. Educators have a job to do, and that is education. Their students are their customers. Educators are not prison guards, the principals is not a prison warden. The students in their charge are guilty of no crime sufficient to hold them in contempt or deny them their natural rights. Prison convicts are deserving of punishment when they question the policies set down by the warden. The same is not true of students in a public school.

Sadly I don’t think that this case is going to result in anything but an increase in the powers of school employees to attack and persecute students whose speech they disagree with. Luckily the students are not without recourse. It has long been said that on the internet no one knows you’re a dog. The same thing is true of students, who will simply begin writing online under pseudonyms.

But even better, she was never suspended or disciplined. She just wasn’t allowed to be an officer of student council. Its like a coach removing a “captain” of a football team because he doesn’t simply captain-like qualities.

The CT State Constitution:

SEC. 1. All men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community.

SEC. 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such manner as they may think expedient.

SEC. 4. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

SEC. 5. No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.

So, what portion of ‘the Connecticut social compact’ empowers the School District to exercise jurisdictional powers beyond school grounds?

Just curious,

Bob

You have a mordant wit!

“Reformists who seek political and social change were planning a comeback, building on a modest recovery in the 2006 municipal elections. But, as in other votes, many of their candidates were barred from running during the vetting process.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080306/wl_nm/iran_election_dc_1

JT, I’m no Linda Greenhouse (sad to hear about her impending retirement by the way) and no great student of the courts, but this case seems tailored to allow the 2nd Circuit to trim back on the doctine of disrupting good order that they made in Wisniewski. There the message was blatantly violent. The school had to expend resources to adjust to the perceived threat. Here, there are only rude words. No one is threatened and the venue is in no way a school sponsored media such as a student newspaper. What the schools are seeking is essentially a gag order on all off-campus speech critical of the school. That is facially ridiculous.

I’m hoping the 2nd will come to their senses, but if they don’t then I just can’t see a majority for this speech suppression on the high court.

for Wisniewski itself go to ca2.uscourts.gov

I hope that you are right, but with Sam Alito on the Court, it will be more difficult. He is likely to vote with the district without much question.

Ah but they serve different masters. Smith, devoted to the constitution and rule-of-law, including the time honored traditions of the Boy Rangers; while Paine takes his orders from evil Political Boss Jim Taylor. So mean he even has his minions assault the Boy Rangers as they deliver, in the style of Thomas Paine – their pamphlet explaining the debacle – way over in Washington DC.

Fast forward to Present.

Junior Senator from Connecticut, works for Political Boss and apparently was elected by the opposite party… Senior Senator is known ‘good-guy’. Internet ‘pamphlet’ is used to punish student exercising free speech for describing school officials, apparently very accurately, and ultimately blowing their cover ??

Judge Torquemada can’t recall the name Thomas Paine or US Constitution First Amendment although he does remember reading something about another school case concerning the Negroes in Topeka.

Presumably Lady Justice is blind – it takes a great deal of training and / or neglect to make her look stupid and dangerous.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1183626396604

But I agree with JT, this is clearly over-reaching and even the churls that formed the Morse majority will have qualms on this case, or so we would hope.