How much authority does a school have over the conduct of a student off school property, not during school hours and not in attendance at any school-related activity? Sane Americans would assert the answer is self-evident: none. The Mountain View-Birch Tree R-III School District in Missouri disagrees.
A 13-year old boy, “W.G.,” ended up with a three-day suspension for “cyberbullying” for a Facebook post of a home—not school—art project. Did he harass another student? Threaten someone? Disparage school authorities? Insult mom, the flag and apple pie? None of the above, though school authorities might have liked the latter. Here’s what the “cyberbully” did:
Author” src=”https://images.americanthinker.com/0i/0iuqkyv5kcu9gbsygvt5_640.jpg” />
Graphic: Facebook Screenshot
He glued eight Dr. Pepper cans into the rough shape of a gun and posted his creation on Facebook. Some busybodies, apparently perpetually outraged parents of the school district, took offense and complained to school authorities. Sane, rational school authorities should have gently pointed out W.G.’s creation violated no school rule, and particularly so since it was not a school project and wasn’t done on school property. Sorry, but we have no authority in the matter. Besides a “gun” made of empty Dr. Pepper cans glued together isn’t a threat to anyone who isn’t mentally ill and hopelessly paranoid—what’s wrong with you anyway? Thank you for your concern and let us know if he glues anything else together.
This despite the District Superintendent admitting: “school officials had found “no credible evidence of any danger.”
Apparently, the Mountain View-Birch Tree R-III School District isn’t sane or rational, and has a skewed view of its authority, which has caused W.G.’s parents to respond:
Shortly afterward, the boy’s mother filed a lawsuit, led by Goldwater Institute attorneys, against the school district, claiming the school had violated the boy’s (called “W.G.” in the lawsuit) First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
“W.G. was not holding the can art in his arms nor was he displaying it in any manner that suggested the can art could potentially be used to endanger any person, and the photo contained no threatening language or anything that would suggest harm to anyone or anything,” the lawsuit stated. “Although the School District quickly became aware that the Plaintiff had not threatened anyone, the School District decided that they must punish W.G.
“W.G. brings this lawsuit to ensure that schools may not punish a student for sharing non-threatening creative expression with other students outside of school hours, even if others mistakenly believed that the student’s creative expression could be construed as a threat.”
We don’t know if school authorities, who admitted there was “no credible evidence of any danger,” tried to involve local police. If they did, presumably the police did their sworn, professional duty and laughed them out of the building: The kid did what?! And you think we should arrest him for gluing some Dr. Pepper cans together? No thanks; we’ll pass on this one. Thank you for your concern and let us know if he glues anything else together.
First Amendment law is clear. Student speech and behavior can be regulated on campus during school hours and at school sponsored events off campus for the purpose of maintaining discipline and a proper academic environment. Speech that presents a knowing, intentional credible threat of harm may not be constitutionally protected. Remember in this case the Superintendent admitted there was no threat, but punished W.G. anyway despite having no jurisdiction to punish him at all. The District has been less than forthcoming:
“Unfortunately, because the lawsuit involves a student, we are significantly limited in what we are legally permitted to share publicly. For now, we can only say that we have legal counsel, who will present our side of the story and defend against these allegations.”
There are always two or more sides to any story, however, let’s review the known facts:
*W/G’s conduct had no connection to, or effect on, school.
*Because his conduct had no connection to, or effect on school, and was constitutionally protected expression, the school district has no authority to punish him for that conduct.
*The District Superintendent admitted W.G.’s conduct represented no threat, ignored the authority issue and punished him anyway.
*No sane adult could possibly see glued together Dr. Pepper cans as any kind of threat to anyone or anything.
What other “side of the story” is going to chip away at these facts?
One would hope the Mountain View-Birch Tree R-III School District’s school board has a majority of responsible adults willing to have a meaningful chat with the Superintendent and bid him issue a groveling admission of stupidity, a sincere apology and a check to cover all of W.G.’s court and attorney costs.
Somehow, I doubt W.G’s parents are holding their breath waiting for that sort of sanity.
On a different subject, if you are not already a subscriber, you may not know that we’ve implemented something new: A weekly newsletter with unique content from our editors for subscribers only. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription.
Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
This article was originally published at www.americanthinker.com
