When can schools limit students’ speech?
Off-campus social media postings raise rights issue
By Demi Budd | Manor Ink
Livingston Manor, NY – The First Amendment guarantees freedoms of religion, expression, and most notably, freedom of speech. But where is the line drawn between expressing an opinion and participating in hateful speech? And how far can interventions go in cases where this line is blurry?
This is the current situation in the Brandi Levy Supreme Court case. Levy, a student from Mahanoy City, PA, wasn’t chosen as a member of her school’s varsity cheerleading squad, prompting her to post a Snapchat image, outside of school, expressing her dismay. This image featured Levy and a friend raising their middle fingers and a caption with swear words and objections to school, cheerleading and “everything.”
Another student posted a screenshot of the image, which brought it to the attention of the cheerleading squad’s coach who, subsequently, suspended Levy from cheerleading for a year.
Is a school’s authority limited?
Levy’s parents took the situation to court, arguing that the school had no authority in the matter. If a student was not on school grounds, the assertion went, should he or she be disciplined or even reprimanded for such actions by the school they attend?
Student speech of another sort
Exercising their right to speak out on issues they deem important were LMCS student members of the group Stand Against Racism in Education. In April, they appeared at a Hate Has No Home in Sullivan County rally in Liberty, and decried the “many jokes and comments about the Black Lives Matter movement and about black people as a whole.” SARE urges students to get involved in bringing “anti-racist education and policies” to their schools, quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., on their website at nysare.com: “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.”
One side of the debate argues that disruptive or hateful off-campus speech should be punished. In terms of the Internet, any photo or message can be distributed instantaneously, and can reach thousands of people within seconds. And what is posted on the internet is often permanent.
For that reason, to some, the time and location where the offending content was created should be irrelevant. What matters is the fact that, in the Levy case, the student targeted a group of people who attend the school.
On the other side, some argue that students’ freedom of speech should be governed by the First Amendment outside of school. In Levy’s case, some believe the school is overreacting to the situation. They ask whether or not profanities really cause significant disruption or are a form of bullying.
A similar case in the Manor
Earlier this spring, an image portraying the death of George Floyd was posted by two Livingston Manor Central School students. When posted on Snapchat, people quickly reacted to the image and sent it to the LMCS board.
The school swiftly responded, notifying the school community that whatever reprimand or discipline it would issue, would remain confidential per school policy.
In either case, should the school be expected to intervene? Neither incident occurred during school hours or on school grounds.
However this issue may be decided by the Supreme Court, LMCS is working toward educating its students and staff about the historic roots of racism in the U.S. and the implicit bias that everyone carries as a result of our history and culture.
To that end, the school has implemented racial equality and cultural proficiency training sessions for its staff and students. It has also formed an Environment and Culture Advisory Council, a group tasked with ensuring that the district provide a “safe, welcoming and supporting environment for all students.”
To learn more about the Livingston Manor Central School District’s efforts to combat racism, visit lmcs.k12.ny.us.