Both of my father's parents served in the military in Britain in World War 2. Grandpa was an aircraft mechanic, nana served in a mixed-sex anti-aircraft artillery unit. Each in their own way, they were fighting the Nazis. I don't support Nazis--or any other kind of fascist or socialist, either.
So let's read an excerpt about Nazi symbols from the major Sacramento newspaper from December 23rd:
A rural Northern California high school is investigating student social media posts, a superintendent said this week, after photos showing teenagers with swastikas drawn on their bodies began circulating online over the weekend.
Wheatland Union High School in Yuba County “is investigating multiple social media posts made by students of our school,” district superintendent Nicole Newman wrote in a statement posted to the school’s website and Facebook Monday morning...
But in an update posted Thursday, Newman described the incident as “a recent social media post depicting students with swastikas painted on their chests.” She also said she can “confirm that the students in the picture are Wheatland Union High School students.”
“As a result of that confirmation, my team and I are in close communication with district legal counsel, as we take disciplinary action,” Newman continued in a letter sent Thursday to students, family and other stakeholders.
I have a long and consistent history on this blog of being against schools' trying to regulate or penalize student behavior off campus and away from student functions. Schools have a hard enough job educating California's students--especially now, given the 'rona stupidity--to worry about what kids are doing on their own time.
Nowhere in the article is there any indication that the pictures were taken on campus (in fact, it says they were taken at a party) or that they caused a "disruption in the educational process" (a flimsy, catch-all excuse for school martinets) to merit this so-called investigation. Did the reporter leave out some important fact that ties the student behavior to the school, or did the reporter not even think to ask about it? The closest we come is this:
In response to an emailed inquiry from (the major Sacramento newspaper) asking if the incident is being investigated under the district’s policy on “hate-motivated behavior,” Newman responded, “Absolutely.”
Unless something serious is happening at school or at a school-related function, it's not the school's business. This is overreach by people who are failing at their jobs. How do I know they're failing? Because here's Wheatland Union High School's academic "dashboard" linked from the California Dept of Education web site:
And the major Sacramento newspaper should improve its education reporting by hiring reporters who can ask intelligent questions.
Update, 1/10/22: The article linked above is a couple weeks old, and today I thought I'd do a follow-up. The major Sacramento newspaper has the follow-up behind a paywall, so I found another story at what is obviously not a completely disinterested site:
The head of Wheatland High School, north of Sacramento, has confirmed that the school has disciplined students who posted a picture of themselves covered with swastikas and SS symbols on social media.
In a video statement posted to Facebook on Dec. 30, Wheatland Union High School District Superintendent Nicole Newman said while she was “legally precluded from sharing details regarding their disciplinary action, I can share with you that we took immediate action.”
On what authority does a school district generalissimo administrator punish off-campus behavior? Absent hearing from the honcho herself, I'll tell you why--so she can look tough, like she's doing something. It doesn't matter if the behavior has anything to do with school (it doesn't), for her it's all about the feeeeelz. She can feel like she's done something a good person would do.
At least the author of this article put a smidge more effort into writing this that the original article I quoted:
The incident has resurfaced questions about whether and how schools can punish students for out-of-school behavior. Last June, the Supreme Court ruled that a school in Pennsylvania that punished a cheerleader for a vulgar remark made on social media had violated her free speech rights. But the decision did not establish a ban on schools regulating what and how students can say outside school.
The Anti-Defamation League, whose regional director Seth Brysk tweeted about the Wheatland photo, responded following the Supreme Court ruling. “It is noteworthy that the Court also recognized that public schools may have a special interest in regulating some particular types of off-campus student speech,” the ADL said in a press release, “including ‘serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals.’ This appropriately reflects the need to balance free speech protections against the ways in which social media can be used to inflict real harm on others.”
"Speech I don't like" isn't sufficient to allow a government entity--especially a lowly school district--to act. Nobody in this situation was bullied or harassed. That doesn't stop Superintendent Karen, though; no, that little authoritarian will do whatever she can get away with.
Here's the crux of the matter in my eyes:
“There is no denying that the choices made by the students in the picture were hurtful and deeply troubling,” she said at the time. “Their actions do not represent who we are as a school district and community.”
She doesn't even indicate how the behavior relates to the school. She just didn't like it. It was "hurtful". What specific school rule did they break? By what authority can she punish these teenagers, just because she has limited authority over them in a completely unrelated situation? This is absurd, and I question why there aren't threats of a lawsuit from at least one of the parents due to overreach.
There's no doubt the teenagers did something distasteful. So did young Brandi Levy, the foul-mouthed teenager who won her Supreme Court case last year. In both cases, though, the school penalized the students when it was not the school's purview to do so. In the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case, the Supreme Court correctly decided that student speech could be restricted as the student was at a school-sanctioned activity. If something happens at school or a school-sanctioned activity, or if something materially affects events at school, then I'm ok with the school's getting involved. Otherwise, the school administrators should curtail their petty impulses and focus on what they get paid to focus on.
No comments:
Post a Comment