Education and Freedom of Speech
Welcome to my coming-out party. No, sorry pico; it’s not that kind of ‘coming-out.’ :-)
For my inaugural front page diary, I wish to start by stating that I will try to present the type of material I find most interesting: those issues that have no clear-cut or established partisan answers. Let’s go beyond the important but often trite partisan debates we have around here and examine what it means to be an American citizen in the 21st century. What are our obligations? What are our values? What are our goals? Most significantly in regards to our mission here of inter-ideological dialogue, what are our rights in the current political climate?
While those are my long term goals here at SC, in the immediate future I will present three different discussions regarding a topic I spend quite a bit of time thinking about: education. This first piece regards the touchy issue of students’ civil-rights, especially the first amendment right of free speech.
My first discussion in this series focuses on a problematic news story that deserves attention involving a student, Allen Lee, who was recently charged with disorderly conduct and essentially suspended from school in suburban Chicago for what he wrote in a ‘stream-of-consciousness’ writing assignment (link to story ). The student’s writing “included references to ‘shooting everyone’ and ‘having sex with the dead bodies.’” He was arrested as he walked to school the day after school officials became aware of the content of the assignment.
High school senior Allen Lee sat down with his creative writing class on Monday and penned an essay that so disturbed his teacher, school administrators and police that he was charged with disorderly conduct.
"I understand what happened recently at Virginia Tech," said the teen's father, Albert Lee, referring to last week's massacre of 32 students by gunman Seung-Hui Cho. "I understand the situation."
But he added: "I don't see how somebody can get charged by writing in their homework. The teacher asked them to express themselves, and he followed instructions."
Allen Lee, an 18-year-old straight-A student at Cary-Grove High School, was arrested Tuesday near his home and charged with disorderly conduct for an essay police described as violently disturbing but not directed toward any specific person or location.
A few notable points that help frame the context of this situation are necessary. The directions of this assignment stated that the students should not “censor or judge” their writing and that they should allow whatever comes to mind to spill onto paper. The student, a high achiever, did not stipulate specific targets or suggest an actual plan to carry out an assault, nor did he have a history of violence. In light of the recent shootings at Virginia Tech, school officials and authorities understandably cast a cautious eye on any early warning sign of a potential threat. Much has been made of the ‘disturbing’ writings of Seung-Hui Cho before his rampage, and many decry that these signs were not acted upon sooner to prevent the mass shooting. Perhaps if professors and school administrators took Cho’s writings more seriously, the Virginia Tech shootings could have been averted. As we ask ourselves what we can do to prevent the next school shooting, we now are urged to search out indicators to catch any potential problem students at an early stage before their feelings become actions.
Supreme Court decisions about free speech in public schools suggest that the first amendment boundaries for students are malleable with no clearly defined standards. Students have their freedom of speech rights intact at public schools, but limits are acceptable when "substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities " occur. Another case on the horizon, the humorously named ‘Bong hits for Jesus
’ case, will help further delineate these rules, but many expect the same vagueness of limits as in the past rulings. As the law stands now, students have the same rights as any citizen except when they do not. Confusing? I agree.
My question is whether or not this student, Allen Lee, should have been arrested. Are we willing to trespass on our first amendment rights to remain safe (especially when the teacher gave such a long leash as to what was deemed tolerable for the subject-matter)? We also recently discussed on this site whether or not freedom of speech should be suppressed during war times. What constitutes a violation of free speech in these circumstances (both in the heated public school scenario when nerves are shaky and when we are at war as a nation)? If the school topic is too narrow, perhaps we can venture into more familiar political territory and discuss what contexts we think are permissible to relinquish rights, such as is the case with the PATRIOT Act during the so-called Global War on Terror which echoes analogously a lot of concerns of the Allen Lee situation in light of the recent shootings.
Comments :
Thanks Specter!
We drew your name out of a hat. Anyway, since you are the newbie, now you get all the crappy assignments here at SC. Pico was getting really tired of being the newbie. Welcome to the Front Page!
My pleasure
The floors around here are filthy. I can see why pico wanted to move up in seniority.
I hope I can do the site justice.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
For some reason
we seem to always pick people who are really really busy with something else. I have been really scarce of late trying to keep up with my day job and the little political consulting I do on the side. Thanks for taking this on.
I just want to say welcome
My eyes are too bleery to read and make a thoughtful comment... !
Other than I think you are awesome!
I'm only half stupid
Thanks
it was your suggestion after all. :)
My participation as a FPer will be limited for a while, but I will at least try to make sure the weekend OTs are up. ;-)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
klWhdLJjwrDxWY
health insurance quotes
0672 home insurance 
%[[[ auto insurance quotes 
609 life insurance quotes 
=-DD cheap health insurance 
>:-D
I am glad
you have the chance to do some steering here as well :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Thank you for the
opportunity.
I also wish to formally request the forgiveness of any people I have offended in the past and hope we can begin anew with a clean slate. :)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I have to go to bed
but I will be back smacking you down in short order :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I was about to say what a silly overreaction
and then I read his story:
The direct address of the teacher, in combination with the not so subtle threat, probably does rise to the level of disorderly conduct (if I understand the legalese correctly), and certainly merits some sort of official rebuke.
I dunno about the comparison to Cho -- Cho wasn't arrested for his writing, he was offered psychiatric help. Maybe that's indicated here, it's hard to tell from one essay (Cho had a pattern of behavior).
I think if I were a school administrator faced with a specific situation I'd probably react more strongly than I'd advocate in a general discussion. It's hard to balance abstract principles against concrete concerns when you actually have to make that call.
Great to see you on the FP =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
While I
kind of see how bringing this real-world teacher into the topic can be seen as grey area, this is still not a direct threat or target but a statement of motivation.
You are correct about the lack of a pattern of behavior. I do not know anything more about this student than what the article states, but it doesn't seem as if the student has a violent history compared to Cho.
I seriously do not know how I would react to this situation, but it still seems based on an over-reaction. Of course, in the current climate, perhaps not.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Heh, well
No need to apologize - trust me, the other kind is much messier and not fun at all. Here you only get mildly berated, and you already know us all well enough to deflect it. ;)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Now that I have some time,
I can give you a little more feedback on this diary, which I liked a lot, especially since it covers issues I have/will have to face as a teacher. My students don't really do creative writing, but the general idea of learning how to deal with speech issues is a salient one.
Should this kid have been arrested? I can't give an answer to that for two reasons: 1. I don't know what he wrote, apart from the inclusion of certain elements. I don't even know the nature of the assignment. Were the students supposed to present this to other students? Was it written to disturb people in light of the VAtech story? 2. I don't know the student nearly as well as the teacher who made the call, and as a general rule I try to respect the teacher's decisions re: students, since they know him far better than I do. The teacher who read the paper - and who I'll assume is a discriminating reader - decided that it was disturbing enough to act on. Without knowing the context better, it's hard to gauge whether it was the right decision.
From the bare-bones outline of the story, no, I wouldn't have had the kid arrested, because I can't think of anything short of "I'm showing up tomorrow with a rifle to shoot you in the head" that would merit it. Part of creative writing involves exploring boundaries and effects, and if nothing else this kid got an excellent lesson in the effects of boundary-pushing while they were shoving handcuffs on him. But that seems like an extreme reaction, VATech notwithstanding.
In fact, it seems too extreme especially in light of VATech: you ask kids to write to cold write, and of course the news reports have been 24-hour massacre... What do you expect is going to be on their minds?
Which is why this seems odd. I honestly can't make a firm opinion without the specifics, but as I mentioned above, nothing shy of a death threat would have me calling the cops. I can just as easily imagine someone trying to charge the teacher with disorderly conduct for assiging "The Lottery" in an English class.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
What are schools?
Is it just me, or does it seem odd that we feel we must pull in free speech rights into the discussion of what is or is not acceptable in K-12 schooling? That's not directed at you specifically Specter, but at the bigger "us."
While we are children life can be very resticted, much more restricted than an adult's. Many "freedoms" are curtailed -- my parents did not always allow me to associate with whomever I wanted; does that mean they restricted my Constitutional right of assembly? I was not allowed to sass back, not at parents nor at teachers; does that mean my free speech rights were abridged?
The danger I see in this is that instead of using common sense and good judgment when dealing with children, we are placing all responsibility for decision making upon "the law." Like handcuffing kindergardeners who throw temper tantrums -- where will this abdication of our own personal responsibility to think end?
In this specific case, there were several failures of judgment. The teacher, for failing to think that the assignment should have had more boundaries. The student, for failing to understand that following the letter of the assignment does not absolve him from understanding its spirit as well and for failing to recognize that perhaps his writing could and would be misinterpreted, regardless of the "protection" afforded by the parameters of the assignment. The school for its understandable but yet unreasonable paranoia that led them to choose calling in the law over other possible ways to resolve this.
If we believe K-12 schools should stand in loco parentis then maybe we need to insist more on judgment and less on lawsuits. Otherwise, we will transform our schools from adaptable places of learning into places of law, hemmed in and restricted by contracts, legalese, and constant evaluations of litigation risks.
(And welcome to the FP! Like you didn't have anything else to do. . . )
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Students
need to learn to think for themselves also. They should be allowed to practice their freedom of speech at some level in order to learn how to be responsible adults when they leave school instead of merely being robots who follow all 'rules' and the herd mentality without thought (which perhaps leads to the situation we are in today politically). Now where does this freedom end? I don't know. You seem to take a 180° turn after your second paragraph by going from students don't need the same rights as us (agreed to a point), but we shouldn't rely on the law to establish those rights. How else do we define these rights, especially when 'good judgment' and 'common sense' are often subjective/constructed terms.
In reference to the growing trend of litigation risks, I see this tendency becoming a reality the more I teach. It used to be that a class syllabus/policy statement served as a loose guideline for expectations. Now students are suing teachers to the extent that our dean has a law degree, and we must turn in all documentation of our policy with grades which now relies heavily upon legalese. For example, I have an 'attendance policy' stated on page 3 of my class policy statement which can lower a student's final grade if they miss a certain amount of classes. The chair of my department said this was not valid since I do not mention this potential grade adjustment it in the 'grading policy' on page 2. Ridiculous. But I guess it comes with the territory of today's sue-happy society.
Thanks for the welcome. I am fairly busy at the moment, and with the new baby on the way, I am sure it will only get more hectic, but I will try to uphold my duties to the best of my ability (with hand over the keyboard :-) ).
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Common law versus Codified law
I think I'm speaking to a slightly bigger picture than you've drawn and I probably did not explain that very well. If I've wandered too far into left field let me know where you see the gap.
How have we defined the rights of children for the millennia of our existence?
This reminds me of the warning the British gave to the young United States: over-reliance on only the written codification of laws is a risky proposition, because it erodes the true basis of common law-----commonly held and accepted standards, which a human mind can adapt to new and/or unique situations. They prophesied that by following this path of insistence on formal codification of nuance, the United States would ultimately drown its legal system in written explanations that hindered progress and only enriched the lawyers.
I think we'd be better off trusting your judgment in what grade to give a student in your class. So what if it's subjective? I'd like to give you a better answer but I cannot, because I think the entire framework is part of the problem. People are too afraid of exercising their own judgment, and are fearful of others exercising theirs.
To use a metaphor: We don't need to tune-up the Chevy; if we want to change things, we need to buy a Toyota. Because no amount of tinkering will change the nature of the Chevy. And it's the nature that is the real problem. I know you're stuck with driving the Chevy. We all are. And it's not a bad car. But like any construct it has its limits. It leads us to handcuffing toddlers and arresting straight-A students. And tinkering with it will only lead to documents that try to define exactly when it is OK to handcuff toddlers and arrest students.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Gotcha
I think we are in agreement about the dangers of codifying the law to such an extent that we now need lawyers to give a student a grade or even to deal with a shallowly disguised threat of violence. It's a sad state to be in, and the tide does not seem to be turning any time soon as seen in my above 'Bong Hits for Jesus' link.
On the other hand, we are stuck with the Chevy. Students are suing teachers, and teachers have students arrested. There is no magic-wand to shake at this problem to bring back (if it ever existed) societal norms/'commonly held and accepted standards' to the point where these problems disappear. I think your observation looks at the situation a bit opaquely through these nostalgic goggles of the 'good ol' days' (I'm not trying to be degrading or belittling here, because I agree with you in spirit, but you and I are not going to solve this through falsely optimistic 'shoulds').
So what do we do now? The only way to cover our butts at the moment is to play the game of legalese so we do not lose our jobs or our financial standing. Sad state. Much blame is to be spread around as you stated in your above post, but it does seem to be a problem of the system (the Chevy--good analogy by the way) rather than an individual party.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Welcome to the FP.
It appears the local district in this case over-reacted. Should the kid have been arrested? No. Should the kid have been discretely talked to? Yes.
What's your take on the Indiana English teacher who was overseeing the school newspaper? You know, the one where she let the student publish the essay saying that people should have tolerance for others who are different. It wasn't limited to gay/straight tolerance, but sexual identity was part of it. The local Principle tried to fire her. The district had her removed from the paper & said they'd "allow" her to seek a job teaching at another school in the district. No word on her luck in getting another job.
What do you think? Over reaction or reasonable?
Without
any other indications of a threat and without a violent history, I tend to agree with your take on the situation. Maybe some in-school counseling to see if the problems run deeper than this one paper, but an arrest seems to over-step the proper reaction. Then again, people are overtaken by fear, whether that is right or wrong, at the moment.
The courts have decided that schools have discretionary authority over publications such as newspapers and yearbooks, even if they are primarily a student-run product.
On the other hand, it seems that the Indiana teacher was pulled out as a special exception of this rule, as I do not see this rule being instituted even handedly across the board. In other words, I am sure there are plenty of teachers whose students wrote articles that were not expressly checked by the principal. For this reason, it seems to get into the unethical territory of homophobia rather than applying the rules fairly. But legally, I don't think the teacher has a case.
I commented at Dkos on this subject, noting that this situation is a catch-22. We cannot overcome homophobia and intolerance unless we address these issues, but the school won't allow the issue to be addressed/discussed which creates more ignorance and intolerance--exactly the opposite of what the aims of education are.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Yea, I agree for the most part.
I mean, I can see how the Board & the Principle involved might be miffed, but the girl wrote an essay on telling people to be tolerant. She wasn't saying it's good to be #### (fill in the blank with whatever). She wasn't saying you should be ##### (again, fill it in with whatever). She said be tolerant of those that differ from you.
If that's a firing offense, that's a sad commentary on the state of our nations people.
The principal
claims the issue is not necessarily based on the issue of tolerance (which we all know it is), but on the technicality that the teacher/advisor did not run it by the principal first
:
It seems she is being fired over a technicality, especially when there is such a double-standard over the issue of 'sensitivity of the material'. Aren't most things in newspapers controversial by default of their status as 'news'?
I wish the teacher would fight this one in court, but she said she does not have the funds (uh-oh, am I falling into the legality trap that I stated I disdained above?). The ACLU should pick up this case.
(edit): I just did some research and discovered the teacher was not fired
, but transferred to a different high school and banned from teaching journalism for three years. Still unfair in my book.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
There's no question but that the arrest was a gross overreaction
on the part of the police, especially since the student clearly was a normal, ordinary kid, expressing his creativity through writing. No harm in that, especially since he'd clearly made no personal attacks or threats on anybody.
However, there are times when kids have gone over the line, and need to take responsibility for what they've written. Not too, too long ago, for instance, in a suburban town southwest of Boston, a high school teacher who was a Liberal Democrat in support of same-sex marriage, and a Conservative Republican state senator who opposed same-sex marriage hosted a debate on same-sex marriage at that town's high school.
Several Freshmen at the high school who disagreed with the state senators viewepoints on same sex marriage posted things on the internet that went well beyond disagreeing with the man's points of view: They crossed over into personal attacks on the senator and his family, which also involved the use of "blue" language. Here's my take on it: While I'm certainly no stranger to "blue" language and am not exactly a "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms" myself, I believe that personal attacks on somebody and his/her family are counterproductive and go beyond what's acceptable. While the students were definitely within their rights to post their disagreements with the senator on his viewpoints, lodging personal attacks on the senator and his family was unhelpful, out of bounds and unacceptable.
Shortly after the debate took place, a high school faculty member called the students out on their offensive postings by reading them aloud during a big school assembly, resulting in much embarassment for the kids. While I believe that the kids in this instance deserved to be called out on their offensive internet postings, I'm not sure that reading them aloud during a high school assembly is the way to do it. I believe that by calling the students in and talking to them privately about it, and emphasizing the risks of posting offensive matter over the internet would've been the best way to go.
Hadn't heard about that one
To me it would make a difference where the students posted these things. If it was done out of school, in a public forum, I'm not sure the school ought to get officially involved; your suggestion of a private talk seems more appropriate.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson