Increasing Pressure on Schools to Address Off-Campus Conduct
K-12 administrators seek our counsel frequently on the issues of off-campus jurisdiction over student misconduct. Conversations about addressing out-of-school sexual assault and sexual harassment have been especially pressing because of the significant changes that have happened with Title IX over the last twelve months. District and school practices and policies are all over the map. In some states, K-12 schools would never extend the reach of their codes of conduct off-campus. In other locations, it seems to vary district-by-district. We’ve even noted that sometimes it varies within districts, where administrators may be loath to address off-campus sexual assaults between students (or any behaviors that are crimes) but are willing to address out-of-school harassing speech that occurs on social media.
Tourists walk in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, March 24, 2013. In their first-ever review of same-sex marriage laws, the nine justices on the country s highest court are hearing arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday on one of the most politically charged dilemmas of the day, bound with themes of religion, sexuality and social custom. | (Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a free speech case involving a Pennsylvania high school student who was kicked off her cheerleading team over a profanity-laced Snapchat message, a case advocates say has free speech implications for all students.
Some parents and students are calling the policy flat-out sexist for both its wording and enforcement as more than 80% of infractions over the last three years have been issued to female students, according to data provided by district officials.
A March 26 large-scale inspection of students dress at Bartram Trail High School resulted in 31 students cited for issues such as the length of their skirts or exposed midriffs. All of the violations were against female students.
The problem, critics say, is that verbiage in the policy, such as modest, not revealing and too distracting, puts the blame on young women as if they were actively trying to call attention to their developing bodies.
The Daily Universe
Last week the Supreme Court heard its most important student speech case in nearly a half-century. The case took into question whether schools can punish students for speech that occurred off campus or online. The case has the ability to transform student speech rights in every public school nationwide. No matter what decision is made in the case, the state of Utah ought to make a statement to the nation by passing legislation in defense of student speech.
To begin to understand student speech rights nationwide, you must first look at the case of
Tinker versus the Des Moines Independent Community School District. A woman named Mary Beth Tinker made one choice that revolutionized how the government views student rights nationwide. Motivated by strong emotions and wanting to express her First Amendment rights, she wore a black armband to school, an action which escalated to the suspension of five children and a 7-2 decision in the United States Supreme Cou
Mahanoy involves a profanity-laden Snapchat tirade by a Pennsylvania high school cheerleader. Upon learning that she did not make varsity cheerleading, the student, B.L., posted a picture of herself on the Snapchat app with the text “f school f softball f cheer f everything.” It was a Saturday, and she was off-campus and not at a supervised school event. B.L.’s school suspended her from the junior varsity cheer team. It cited the impact that her conduct could have on the cheer coaches’ ability to maintain respect and order on the team and the confidence and trust of B.L. by other cheerleaders on the team.