Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[permission to reproduce
granted if authorship is acknowledged]
The US Supreme court will soon decide whether a school can limit the off-campus freedom of speech of a 14-year-old student. When Brandi Levy did not earn a spot on the varsity cheerleading squad, she posted a photo and message on Snapchat giving the middle finger salute and voicing her upset with a corresponding four-letter expletive about “school,” “cheer[leading],” “softball,” and “everything”.
The school barred Brandi from cheerleading for one year, arguing that punishment was justified to “avoid chaos” and maintain a “team-like environment.” Brandi sued the school district and won. The court said that the district had breached Brandi’s rights to free speech by punishing her for off-campus speech. Saying that the Court’s decision was inconsistent with rulings in similar cases elsewhere, the school district appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court where a ruling will soon be made.
It will be interesting to hear the US Supreme Court’s decision and read its reasoning. But it is important to keep in mind that Canada is different from the United States. What applies there may not apply in Canada. I doubt anyone would dispute the right and responsibility of schools to regulate student conduct on field trips, at inter-school events, and at school-sponsored activities off-campus. Few would dispute punishing a student who damages a teacher’s home, assaults another student at a park when the dispute began at school, or discriminates against another student, teacher, or school official.
Most conduct is not so clear cut. Take Brandi Levy’s case. She was away from school and sent a message to about 250 friends using Snapchat. One recipient took a screenshot of the message and showed it to her mother, a coach. The school used its power to punish Brandi.
I appreciate that schools must walk a fine line between protecting student rights and preserving order, but Brandi’s school did not appear to use the incident as a teachable moment. I wouldn’t be writing about the case before the US Supreme Court if it didn’t have implications for how schools respond to student criticism and protest.
Secondary schools typically have mission statements that refer to students becoming responsible citizens by acquiring the knowledge and dispositions that citizenship requires or as one school puts it “the wisdom, rationality, intelligence and empathy we hope to instill in all our students.” It is unfortunate that when things get a bit sketchy--as in Brandi Levy’s case--schools do not always walk the talk, communicating rather different messages than those contained in their mission statements
When schools stumble or take a misstep, those instances attract the attention of the students who learn lessons quite different from the ones taught in social studies or civics classes. A student is punished for defying a ban against singing a song deemed inappropriate when he sang the song in front of a school official during lunch time. A young man in Toronto is told he could not bring his male date to the high school prom. When a student wearing a T-shirt expressing his opposition to a commercial venture being pursued by his school, the school cuts the power to the amplifiers and microphones he and his classmates were using, preventing them from performing during a school-sponsored battle of the bands. A principal threatens students with punishment if they sign a petition against a school rule. A student is suspended from school for giving a speech to fellow athletes in which he said the soccer team existed because of “the tenacity and perseverance of several players who took it upon themselves to do the phys ed department's job and find a coach."
As expressed in many school mission statements, we want students to connect what they learn in school with the lives they lead outside of school. If schools truly want to instill wisdom, rationality, intelligence, and empathy in students, they must walk the talk.