Do schools have the right to expel students for tweets?
Summary: Swear in a school corridor, detention. Swear on Twitter, expulsion.
Social media. There are several new cases every week which are reported by the media of people convicted due to behavior on social networking sites, employers are criticized for wanting the right to snoop around in employee Facebook accounts, and students face the consequences of talking about their university online.
Now, however, if you say a naughty word on Twitter, the appropriate punishment is not a mouth-rinse with soap, but expulsion.
Austin Carroll, formerly of Garrett High School, Indiana, sent a rather juvenile tweet from his Twitter account, allegedly outside of school hours:
"F****** is one of those f****** words you can f****** put anywhere in a f****** sentence and it still f****** makes sense."
Carroll claimed the tweet was sent via his home computer. However, an automated system for spying on student social media activity set up by Garrett High School recorded the tweet as being sent from a campus-based computer.
In contrast, the student says the message was sent at 2.30am from home.
Based on this act, the student was summarily booted from the school -- and later police became involved as other students protested his expulsion.
Carroll told Indiana News Center:
"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."
Some schools may be overstepping the mark by spying on their student's social activities in this manner. The tweet was not racial, sexist, or insulting. Yes, it was profane, but nothing out of the common way in terms of what teenagers say and do.
Not only this, but educational establishments are also opening themselves up for court cases -- which may be the case in situations like Carolls, since he was expelled three months before graduation. Although now enrolled elsewhere, he will be unable to attend the usual events associated with completing school.
The 'automatic tracking system' the school uses apparently tracks tweets whenever a student logs in to their account. There is a question mark circling around whether the system actually works or not -- as the student states his message was sent outside both school grounds and hours.
If you start accusing students of actions through unprovable or false pretenses in the name of curbing inappropriate online behavior, then this officious action will become detrimental to the school.
Eventually, a parent or child will fight back -- and so will other students, as the need to call the police in Garret's case proved.
One particular point concerning this student being expelled disturbed me. If a student swore in a school hallway, it is not reason enough to expel them. Children swear, and teachers swear far more than they do -- become a fly on the wall in a staff room for evidence. However, swear online -- oh, the inappropriateness! Expel the monster!
It's a witch hunt mentality. As communication and messages online have far more extended and potentially damaging affects for a school's reputation than 'physical' inappropriate behavior (such as swearing in class), the school tracks and descends upon anything they constitute as against school conduct, and hit the student with the largest stick they can find.
Forget the carrot. Rather than perhaps asking the student to be more careful with what they say online, and explaining the consequences, schools track, spy and attempt to quash online student behavior.
It's not detention or suspension. Drop the F-word and you're gone. I suppose the school would do the same if a child spat out the epithet in class after dropping something heavy on their foot?
This is not about teaching a student a harsh lesson in digital citizenship. It's a school's means of trying to scare students away from social media, in a vain attempt to prevent any possible communication that may or may not reflect badly on a school.
There is merit in recognizing that social media can be either a boon or a curse on an organisation's reputation. However, in Carroll's case and undoubtedly many more soon to come, the school has taken it too far.
You cannot punish someone so severely for an online remark if the same content would not constitute the same consequences in the physical world.
The reports of employers asking for Facebook passwords has caused outrage, cries of privacy invasion and overstepping the mark. Is it possible that students will be the next group that will have to hand over their social media account information?
Image credit: C.Osborne/ZDNet
Related:
- Court halts student grad ban over Facebook bikini photos
- The world of social media arrests and prosecutions
- How many tweets does it take to date a porn star?
- TeenTech Weekly: Research pledges, digital literacy, student tracking
- Employer vs Facebook: Is there a point to privacy settings?
- University battles Twitter parodies, strangles free speech?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Well "if" it was a school computer then the school might face
Pagan jim
Another example of pushing the boundaries instead of staying disciplined
Ideally, it is the parents responsibility, but the parents seem to be too lazy or expect the schools to discipline the students. So give the schools the right to discipline the students, or penalize the parents for not disciplining the student tweets.
Short sighted
Social fear has never worked long term. It may be great short term but eventually the oppressed will revolt. We are supposed to be teaching right from wrong, reinforcing good behavior and TEACHING alternatives to improper behavior. This is WOW..... :O
I think you meant "privilege"
Apparently, all the student did was to creatively use profanity from a school computer; reprehensible, but hardly an expelling offiense. The most that is justified is revocation of on-campus computing privileges.
Witch hunt mentality . . .
Schools are "intolerant" for a reason.
Discrimination, bullying, "sexual harassment" and religious intolerance. Our school has had to deal with recent lawsuits on all of these topics, and NONE of them actually involved faculty or staff! All of these cases arose from student-to-student interactions.
At one time, schools had fairly simple responsibilities: keep students in an orderly environment and deliver instruction. Now schools are responsible for keeping each individual child from any potential "harm" that might arise from the school site, faculty and staff, outside intruders, other students, society in general, and even students themselves. And now "harm" means anything from physical assault to "psychological distress."
The only other kinds of organizations that accept this kind of responsibility (and authority) over individuals are prisons and mental institutions. No surprise that schools are beginning to resemble both ...
One small piece missing
Profanity is not normal human behavior
Simmering
This attempted repression of rights is getting out of hand.
What about the rights of the school?
If Mrs. Smith posts that her student, David Smith is a lazy student and likely won't get far in life, "she's over stepping her bounds, and should be fired, and the school district sued for emotional pain and suffering".
Does this sound about right?
Yes, it sounds entirely right.
The teacher, on the other hand, like or not speaks for the school. She also has access to information about her students that is NOT public record. So yes, she is over stepping her bounds where the student is not.
You're missing the obvious
I disagree.
What are the teacher's right? That if you work for a school or company, individuals have the right to malign or slander you?
Like it or not, the student doesn't run the school, and neither do the parents. The school has final say in what is considered "inappropriate" use of their systems that they are expected to maintain.
i know the feeling
If you say it publicly...
Welcome to the 21st century
And on the other side you have idiots who think they have to respond to every little thing just in case another idiot sues them into non-existence. Again, stupid in the extreme.
All this and not an ounce of thought wasted on acting sensibly by anyone. You can't even send people to Australia for the rest of their natural as a punishment for idiocy any more. Apparently the place is liveable these days, so they might even like it.
Poor case to cite as an example...
But, I wonder if reactions would differ had the student's actions been a a continuation and/or admission of harrassment of another that occurred on school grounds. That scenario has much more "gray area."
At the end of the day, if school resources are used, the school has a right, and some might argue an obligation as well, to make sure that those resources aren't used in a manner that's in conflict with their objective of providing their students with an education in a safe environment conducive to learning.
As for monitoring social media outside of school hours, if the students don't leverage the privacy controls, then it's fair game. I'm not necessarily saying for punishment for profanity, but public profiles and accounts can offer valuable insight into what's going on in schools that shouldn't be. Drugs, violence, bullying, mental and physical abuse, rape, etc. don't check themselves at the school doors when students walk through, so again, it's a gray area.
Best advice to students, don't use school resources, use privacy controls on social media and better yet, don't post things (at all) that you might regret later.
Of course reactions would be different.
My point is that speech is speech and there are certain lines that can't be crossed. For example deliberately inciting others to to commit crimes or making explicit threats is illegal. But it makes absolutely no difference whatever weather the speech is on a social media web site, written on a piece of paper and put in the mail, or delivered while standing on a soap box on a street corner.
Making speech on social media somehow different than other speech and inflicting different standards on it is what the problem is here.
It still needs to be segregated
We are seeing a blurring of lines between these for minor offenses.
That's why...