Parental responsibility is primary - Opinion - Republican Herald

March 31, 2019 at 10:46PM

The recent ruling by a federal court that Mahanoy Area School District violated a girl's free speech rights was not a surprise, although it is an unfortunate marker of the decline in responsibility that afflicts our era.

Although not settled law, courts have increasingly ruled that school districts may not discipline students for actions committed off-campus, after school hours.

In the fall of 2017, a sophomore, identified as B.L. in court records, didn't make it to the varsity cheerleading team and was set to serve a second year on the junior varsity team instead. A freshman, however, did make the varsity team. Miss B.L. later posted a photo of herself on Snapchat extending her middle finger and using the vulgar explicative in the caption that customarily goes with that gesture, referring in this case, to her school and the cheerleading program. She was subsequently suspended from cheerleading under school rules against putting "negative information" about cheerleading on the internet.

As B.L.'s juvenile outburst occurred over the weekend at a convenience store, the ACLU was able to win her a court order restoring her to the squad on Sept. 26, while the case was worked out. On March 21, Senior U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo ruled that B.L.'s words were protected by the First Amendment.

The ruling is in line with another case that had its genesis in Schuylkill County. In 2007, the Blue Mountain district suspended two students for posting a vulgar parody of a principal on MySpace. One student sued and, eventually, the Third Circuit Court ruled that previous court rulings did not give the district the right to punish the student for off-campus speech. When Blue Mountain appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court declined to hear the case.

There are three principles entangled in these cases, and, when it is all looked over, these court rulings, as much as they allow bad behavior, are probably for the best, even if American parenting is at its worst.

First, there is the right of every American to freedom of speech, a right that does not only commence at reaching age 18. Then, there is the fact that children are under their parents' authority who do have the right to curtail the speech of their dependents. Lastly, a school district has the right to conduct its affairs in an orderly fashion so it can educate and, we may hope, instill useful habits and values in the students.

The state protects everyone's rights, even children's. However, children are not normally the wards of the state, but the minor dependents of their parents who, out of love, take pains for their care and upbringing. With this enormous responsibility comes the parental right to govern their households.

The confusion in these cases arises from the failure of parents to do that — govern their households. The school can only ever stand "in loco parentis" in the place of the parent. As a public school is a creature of the state, its officers sometimes think they stand to children, not in loco parentis, but in the place of the state. They do not, and Caputo's ruling is right.

Yet, this is nothing to celebrate. The behavior of these students was poor. As has been pointed out, when B.L. is in the workplace, such an action will cost her a job and make it hard to find a replacement. Not only is it disrespectful, it shows bad faith, as the rules had been agreed when signing up for the extra curricular activity.

School districts, in punishing off-campus disruptive behaviors, may be overzealous, acting beyond their authority, and even making themselves look a bit petty and foolish; however, we all know that everyone reading about these cases is also making a judgement about the parents of the students. In doing so, we should all reconsider how much bad behavior, poor manners and disrespect we will tolerate from the young, and, indeed, from each other.

The recent ruling by a federal court that Mahanoy Area School District violated a girl's free speech rights was not a surprise, although it is an unfortunate marker of the decline in responsibility that afflicts our era.

Although not settled law, courts have increasingly ruled that school districts may not discipline students for actions committed off-campus, after school hours.

In the fall of 2017, a sophomore, identified as B.L. in court records, didn't make it to the varsity cheerleading team and was set to serve a second year on the junior varsity team instead. A freshman, however, did make the varsity team. Miss B.L. later posted a photo of herself on Snapchat extending her middle finger and using the vulgar explicative in the caption that customarily goes with that gesture, referring in this case, to her school and the cheerleading program. She was subsequently suspended from cheerleading under school rules against putting "negative information" about cheerleading on the internet.

As B.L.'s juvenile outburst occurred over the weekend at a convenience store, the ACLU was able to win her a court order restoring her to the squad on Sept. 26, while the case was worked out. On March 21, Senior U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo ruled that B.L.'s words were protected by the First Amendment.

The ruling is in line with another case that had its genesis in Schuylkill County. In 2007, the Blue Mountain district suspended two students for posting a vulgar parody of a principal on MySpace. One student sued and, eventually, the Third Circuit Court ruled that previous court rulings did not give the district the right to punish the student for off-campus speech. When Blue Mountain appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court declined to hear the case.

There are three principles entangled in these cases, and, when it is all looked over, these court rulings, as much as they allow bad behavior, are probably for the best, even if American parenting is at its worst.

First, there is the right of every American to freedom of speech, a right that does not only commence at reaching age 18. Then, there is the fact that children are under their parents' authority who do have the right to curtail the speech of their dependents. Lastly, a school district has the right to conduct its affairs in an orderly fashion so it can educate and, we may hope, instill useful habits and values in the students.

The state protects everyone's rights, even children's. However, children are not normally the wards of the state, but the minor dependents of their parents who, out of love, take pains for their care and upbringing. With this enormous responsibility comes the parental right to govern their households.

The confusion in these cases arises from the failure of parents to do that — govern their households. The school can only ever stand "in loco parentis" in the place of the parent. As a public school is a creature of the state, its officers sometimes think they stand to children, not in loco parentis, but in the place of the state. They do not, and Caputo's ruling is right.

Yet, this is nothing to celebrate. The behavior of these students was poor. As has been pointed out, when B.L. is in the workplace, such an action will cost her a job and make it hard to find a replacement. Not only is it disrespectful, it shows bad faith, as the rules had been agreed when signing up for the extra curricular activity.

School districts, in punishing off-campus disruptive behaviors, may be overzealous, acting beyond their authority, and even making themselves look a bit petty and foolish; however, we all know that everyone reading about these cases is also making a judgement about the parents of the students. In doing so, we should all reconsider how much bad behavior, poor manners and disrespect we will tolerate from the young, and, indeed, from each other.

DOWNLOAD FULL VIDEO

Tweet