Showing posts with label first amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label first amendment. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Social Media, Texting, Schools And Discipline: Students Beware

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

With the explosion of social media sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and the like, along with almost constant texting and other electronic communication between students, schools have entered a new era of discipline.  Parents need to be aware of this and caution their children about who may be watching (or find out about) what they post, text, email, or otherwise communicate.

It used to be that schools would hear a report of nefarious activity and would only have traditional investigation techniques to rely on (interviews, searches).  No more.  Now they have "written" evidence available on the internet and phones. Schools still have to conduct their version of an investigation, however, their investigations often become much easier with the proof lingering on electronic devices and phones.

Postings can be misinterpreted as somehow being sources of substantial disruption or threats to the school which are expulsion-worthy.  For example, encouraging another student in a chat to handle a teacher problem by stating "get her" (meaning "handle it"), or laments to a "friend" containing a negative opinion about a teacher, may be mistakenly deemed threats of harm.  Both students described were placed up for expulsion for such slips of the tongue which were not intended for anyone beyond the audience (friend) nor as threats of any kind.

I fought and got both students back in school with no expulsion, but this would not have happened without attorney intervention and return can never be certain.  In the "old" days (not that long ago), such statements would vanish the minute they were uttered verbally to another student and would never get reported.  No more. Statements on-line or on a student's phone don't disappear.  Even if deleted on one student's device, they may remain on another student's computer or phone and can come back to bite.

I have had students in my office up for expulsion who thought a Facebook post was "private" and that only their "friends" could review it.  However, students find out the hard way that their "friends" parents may be reading their posts and sending them to the school, or a friend may have their phone searched.  An expulsion recommendation may ensue after the communications are read.

My best advice for parents who do not want to see themselves hauled in with a suspension or expulsion for matters which seemed out of reach, is to talk to your children about what NOT to post.  Students should first be informed that NOTHING THEY POST ON THE INTERNET OR TEXT, EMAIL, ETC. IS PRIVATE, regardless of what they may think.  Whether they can be disciplined for it legally or not is a whole different matter.  Students need to simply be cautions about what they post.  For, although the First  Amendment DOES still exist, caution can help a student avoid discipline for "threatening" (or other) comments altogether.

Best,
Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209

Email: help@edlaw4students.com
[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.


Thursday, June 16, 2011

College Free Speech on Campus Case- Yu V. University of La Verne

This week, the California Court of Appeals, Second District, issued a decision in the matter of Yu v. University of La Verne.  This case, involving a private college and law school, is very interesting and explores the free speech rights of college students.  It also may be applied outside of its limited forum (private university) in the future.

Yu involved law student Katrina Yu who was punished for alleged plagiarism and academic dishonesty when she submitted an assignment which contained verbatim internet content.  The assignment also contained content alleged to have been copied from another student.  In May of 2010, Yu and three other law students were informed that they were being investigated for plagiarism and academic dishonesty.  While the other university students involved negotiated an unknown outcome, Yu took her matter to a three panel hearing within La Verne.

After the hearing, the panel issued a decision where Yu was to receive no credit for the class and a "0" grade on the record.  Yu appealed to the Dean.  In the La Verne policies, it states that the Dean may increase a student's punishment.

The Dean reviewed and raised Yu's punishment to a year suspension and a letter of censure, presumably along with the other punishments recommended by the panel.

Yu thereafter filed a request for a preliminary injunction (order from the court) to halt the implementation of the Dean's punishment.  The reason alleged was that Yu had been punished for the exercise of her free speech (aka First Amendment) rights for filing an appeal to the Dean (e.g. she alleged that her punishment was increased ONLY because she appealed).  The request for preliminary injunction was filed under Education Code section 94367.

Yu's request was denied by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals found that Yu's communication to the Dean was within Yu's free speech rights, but that she had not shown that she was punished solely for her exercise of speech to the Dean, as required by 94367.  They denied her request.

This case if very interesting and useful as far as the discussion of the free speech rights of college students.  It also holds a lesson in what can happen if a plea deal is not accepted.  College students should go into their appeals cautiously as the outcome can be more than the student bargained for and can involve a punishment not previously contemplated.


Best,
Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page [http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/]. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Freedom of Expression/Speech Court Case - Morgan Hill, CA

On June 23, 2010, the Rutherford Institute filed a complaint in federal court against Morgan Hill Unified School District (Morgan Hill, CA) for sending students home on Cinco de Mayo (May 5, 2010) who wore shirts with american flags on them.  That this happened at all in America is disturbing as the administrators did not seem to comprehend even basic freedom of speech and expression rights granted by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Students do not lose the entirety of their First Amendment rights just because they attend school.

According to the Morgan Hills Times (newspaper) the Live Oak High School Vice Principal and Principal involved no longer work in the district, but the case is, thankfully, still moving forward.  Just yesterday (February 17, 2011), the students defeated most of the motion to dismiss filed by the school district and are proceeding with the case.  The case challenges the fact that students were singled out and made to leave the school for wearing patriotic shirts.  The school defended its actions based on alleged disruption to the school environment.  However, the only disruption was to the students' rights!

The school's actions were blatantly in violation of the students right to free speech and freedom of expression.  Although the District has offered to change its policy, the case will proceed for a court determination.

I have practiced in this field (education law) since 1995 and nothing surprises me anymore.  Although the law is written to protect students, it MUST be enforced, lest the law remain merely symbolic and/or something to wrap fish in.  A law written but unenforced is worthless.  As such, I commend the Rutherford Institute for rallying to this cause.  I cannot wait to see how this matter turns out, which I predict, will result in a victory for students.

Best,

Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/
Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page [http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/]. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Blanket Ban on Megan's Law Offender Parents May Not Be Proper

Tonight (January 13, 2011), a small school district located in northern California, will vote whether to continue a policy which provides a flat ban against individuals, including parents, listed on the Megan's Law database as sex offenders, from coming onto their campuses.

I have not been able to access the current policy on line, but in an article in the Sacramento Bee today: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/13/3320506/placer-hills-schools-to-reconsider.html#disqus_thread, the policy is described as flatly denying access to anyone listed on the Megan's Law database.  The article also outlines that policies in other districts are not so prohibitive and that the approach to such matters varies district to district.  If true that any parents listed on the Megan's Law website are banned as a group, the district in question has taken a unique stand which likely infringes on parents rights to visit its campuses on matters relating to their children.

There IS a distinct obligation and interest of school districts in keeping individuals who may hurt a child off of campus, but parents also have a right to go on campus to address matters relating to their children in attendance.  Is simply being on the Megan's Law list enough, without a court prohibition and/or disruptive acts occurring on campus, to stop a parent from conducting his or her business on campus?  Should the blanket exclusion apply to parents with certain-types of offenses but not for others?

Regardless of the Megan's Law status, offenders who are not court ordered to be excluded with some reason for exclusion continue to have rights as parents.  A blanket ban with no further inquiry nor review of a parent's individual situation would likely be a tough policy to uphold if challenged.

One thing to be clear about: I am not saying that child molesters should roam the campuses, but I think a BLANKET BAN without further inquiry of anyone on a Megan's Law list is likely improper.  Were this to be allowed, what is the next group which will be banned?  It could conceivably be any parents who have felonies, and later all parents who have misdemeanors.  Parents have rights too, and unless there is a court order preventing their access and/or acts leading to a current prohibition, their access should be allowed.  Districts should also have an internal appeal process for any parent banned.

The California Education Code section 51101(d) states:

"This section does not authorize a school... to permit participation by a parent or guardian in the education of a child, if it conflicts with a valid restraining order, protective order, or order for custody or visitation issued by a court of competent jurisdiction."

This is a matter for the courts to determine and if the courts do not issue an order on a Megan's Law or other offender stating they may not enter school campuses, the school district may be overstepping their boundaries in installing a blanket prohibition.

The Penal Code allows exclusion of a parent or other person for disruptive conduct for a maximum of 14 days unless a court order is sought.  If a school district has concerns regarding ANY parent, they may involve the courts and have that parent banned (if the evidence supports such a ban).  This is a much fairer way to approach such matters than a blanket ban.  In the matter at hand, a parent with a Megan's Law violation could potentially be monitored and if any foul play was occurring, the school could call the police and immediately issue a letter banning the parent for up to 14 days.  They could thereafter seek a court order for time beyond that.  This may not be as "easy" as a blanket ban, BUT would ensure that a parent's right to be involved in their children's education is not infringed.  

I know this is a hot topic, but both sides of the coin must be reviewed.  This matter certainly poses some food for thought!  What do you think?

I wrote about the banning of parents from campus in early 2010 on my website here: http://www.edlaw4students.com/archive.html#banned

[For more information on Megan's Law see here:  http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/)]


Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/
Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page [http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/]. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.