Tag Archives: Social Media

Dawg Bones

CAN A TEACHER BE FIRED FOR REFERRING TO STUDENTS AS “SPAWN OF THE DEVIL” “UTTERLY LOATHSOME” AND “NOWHERE NEAR AS GOOD AS HER SIBLING”????

You won’t be surprised to hear that this is about an English teacher, a woman with a good vocabulary and a colorful writing style.  At first, her blog was a private affair, read by less than a dozen people. But you know how these things work.  It was not password protected, and so….people discovered it. The media discovered it.  The superintendent got a call that probably caught him off guard: Have you read some of the comments Ms. Munroe has made about her students?

The blog was entitled “Where Are We Going and Why Are We In This Handbasket?”  The blog post that drew the most attention featured a depiction of a school bus with a “Short Bus” sign and the following heading: “I DON’T CARE IF YOU LICK THE WINDOWS, TAKE THE SPECIAL BUS OR OCCASIONALLY PEE ON YOURSELF….YOU HANG IN THERE, SUNSHINE; YOU’RE FRIGGIN SPECIAL.”

The blog then included a number of comments Ms. Munroe would like to have included on student report cards. Things like this:

A complete and utter jerk in all ways.

Gimme an A.I.R.H.E.A.D.  What’s that spell?  Your kid!

Just as bad as his sibling. Don’t you know how to raise kids?

Dresses like a street walker.

Whiny, simpering grade-grubber with an unrealistically high perception of own ability level.

Rude, belligerent, argumentative fuck.

Liar and cheater.

Utterly loathsome in all imaginable ways.

There’s no other way to say this.  I hate your kid.

It took the school district more than a year to do it, but they terminated this teacher.  The district asserted in court that her blog posts had nothing to do with it.  That’s hard to believe, seeing as how the district also asserted that the blog posts caused a major disruption of school operations, with students “livid” and large numbers of parents opting their kids out of Ms. Munroe’s classes.

In the end, it didn’t matter. The court held that the blog posts were not constitutionally protected speech.  Therefore, even if the district did fire her because of her comments, the district was on safe ground legally.  The court emphasized the importance of the teacher/student/parent relationship. There must be trust, based on mutual respect. Thus the court concluded that the district legitimately concluded that Ms. Munroe had fractured that relationship of trust.  Key Quotes:

We find that Munroe’s various expressions of hostility and disgust against her students would disrupt her duties as a high school teacher and the functioning of the School District.

Referring to the “…YOU HANG IN THERE, SUNSHINE” remark, the court said:

Even if intended as a comedic exercise, such characterizations speak for themselves. Simply put, they were despicable.

In these days of social media, this is an important decision, confirming the notion that teachers must exercise their free speech rights with thoughtfulness. At a minimum, teachers cannot use their First Amendment rights in ways that destroy the relationship of trust with students and parents.

The case is Munroe v. Central Bucks School District, decided by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on September 4, 2015.  You can find the case at 2015 WL 5167011.

DAWG BONE: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU PUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

Dawg Bones

A GUY THREATENS TO SHOOT UP A KINDERGARTEN CLASS, AND THE SUPREME COURT THINKS THIS IS OK???

Don’t get alarmed by what you hear about the Supreme Court’s decision in the case involving a Facebook post.  True, the Court overturned the conviction of the man who posted this:

That’s it, I’ve had about enough.  I’m checking out and making a name for myself.  Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined.  Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a Kindergarten class. The only question is…..which one?

The Court (seven of the nine) overturned the man’s conviction because the jury was given the wrong instructions. The jury was told that the man’s intent was not relevant, that he could be found guilty as long as “a reasonable person” would find this language to be a threat.  Since the Court deemed this to be a serious legal error, they reversed the man’s conviction.

If you are like me, you hear about cases like this and wonder what they mean for your typical public school administrator.  Let’s just suppose that you find words like this on a social media site, and you know that the words are from 1) a teacher; 2) a local adult citizen or 3) a student.   Does this Supreme Court case means that your hands are tied?

Absolutely not.  It’s important to recognize that the man in the Supreme Court case was appealing a criminal conviction.  In that context—and only in that context—the Court held that the prosecution must prove what the man thought he was doing.  The Court said that the “reasonable person” standard “is a familiar feature of civil liability in tort law.” But it is not appropriate for a criminal conviction.

If you are dealing with a teacher, or a student, your first response will probably be disciplinary—either adverse personnel action or a student discipline penalty. This Supreme Court case would not be relevant in those contexts.

If language like this is posted by a citizen, we expect you will contact law enforcement and your school attorney.  If county prosecutors seek to file criminal charges, they will have to study this case carefully. But there are other avenues of recourse available.

The case is Elonis v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court on June 1, 2015.  Justice Alito concurred in part and dissented in part; Justice Thomas dissented.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, and was joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

DAWG BONE: KINDA NICE TO SEE THE LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES COME TOGETHER ON THIS ONE