Did the Winnipeg School Division go too far this time?

Kristine Barr, Winnipeg School Division Ward 2 Trustee; Chairwoman, Policy/Progam Committee

Good Day Readers:

Upon reading the Winnipeg Free Press article and seeing the word "Draconian" come into focus here's what we'd like to know:

(1) What is/are the range of penalties the WSD can impose if someone posts on Facebook or YouTube and refuses to immediately remove the content? (Reference paragarph 2)

(2) Did the Policy/Program Committee seek input from a lawyer(s) well-versed in constitutional law? Could certain statements contained in the WFP article form the basis of a Charter challenge against the School Division by a solicitor(s) seeking to make a name for themself? (paragraphs 4, 6)

(3) How is the media defined? What are the potential penalties for violators of this WSD policy (paragraph 10)

(4) Why is the range of sanctions the School Division can impose not outlined as in the civil or criminal code? Is it because, "It will be difficult to enforce that policy?" (paragraph 12)

(5) Full disclosure - why not? (paragraph 15)

A couple years ago a university in British Columbia received national coverage (Globe and Mail) for introduction of its innovative course entitled, "Electronic Tattooing." The purpose was to highten student awareness whatever they post on the internet lives there forever and the potential future repercussions this can have.

Our question for WSD's Policy/Program Committee:

Is any classroom time devoted weekly to a course designed to educate your students on the perils of the internet be it Facebook, YouTube or Twitter. If not, we recommend you do so as soon as possible. We'd suggest you invite employers, lawyers, bloggers and others to offer their comments and experience. CyberSmokeBlog remains prepared, if invited, to contribute on the subject of digital defamation. Doing so might serve to mitigate the need for such harsh policies.

We do not know how many students there are in the Winnipeg School Division but presumably several thousands. What percantage have Facebook pages, Twitter accounts or mastery of the simple technology required to make a YouTube? In other words, are digital savvy? We'd respectfully submit most if not all. It would appear the WSD will need a significant compliance effort it it is to effectively monitor this policy.

For edification of the Winnipeg School Division's Policy/Program Committee we have posted a recent article from Time-CNN (Why Students Have a Right to Mock Teachers Online - June 20, 2011). We strongly recommend they have a read. While based on the American experience you need only change "First Amendment Right" to "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" or "The Canadian Constitution."

Comments from administraters or students are welcome. Those containing fair, valid content will be published unless otherwise requested.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
__________________________________________________
LOCAL
Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Don't put grad videos online, WSD urges
Says new policy aimed at protecting students' privacy

By: Nick Martin
June 23, 2011
Shaftesbury High School students, from the Pembina Trails School Division, are photographed at the legislative building Wednesday before their graduation dinner. (Ruth Bonneville/Winnipeg Free Press)

Planning on taking photos or film of Winnipeg School Division high school graduation ceremonies later this month and posting them on Facebook or YouTube?

WSD will be really, really unhappy with you, and will order them removed immediately.

The province's largest school division has adopted even more stringent privacy policies than its already rigid standards.

Anyone recording a school's public events -- including those held after school, off-campus or at a school in another division -- may do so only for personal use, and may not post on the Internet.

"We believe student safety is paramount," said trustee Kristine Barr, chairwoman of the policy/program committee that recommended the changes to the board.

"It could be a holiday concert, a band recital, a sports game," Barr said.

Principals will be responsible for notifying people attending school-organized public events of the rules and it will be up to principals to ask people to take down any postings that violate the rules, Barr said.

"They're welcome to do so for their own use, but they can't be posted on the Internet," she said. "Our hope is there's going to be compliance."

Barr said that parents and students 18 and older would continue to be asked at the start of the school year to give written consent for students to be interviewed and/or photographed by the media at school-organized events.

But, she said, WSD would expect the media not to use any photographs or film of students who did not have consent forms. That has been the practice of media coverage within schools, but the new policy extends to after-hours and off-campus events, including sports matches, concerts, musicals, science fairs, and similar events.

Barr said the division would likely not object if parents choose to photograph their own child at an event, and post those pictures, but the photo or video could not include any other children or staff.

Barr would not talk about what steps WSD could take if anyone refused to take down postings that violated the policy. "It will be difficult to enforce that policy," she said. She hoped that students, staff, and parents would use common sense at events.

Existing division policies allow WSD to discipline students who violate privacy policies.

In one case several years ago, a student who attacked teachers on the Internet was expelled.

However, Barr would not speculate what action WSD could take against parents, other adults or media who did not comply with the policy.

Trustee Mike Babinsky said that as he's been attending elementary school graduations this month, schools have posted the policy and principals have also told the audience prior to the start of the ceremonies. The policy is intended to protect small children, Babinsky said.

Barr said that discussion of the tighter controls was underway before last year's international furor over a student-posted YouTube video of two teachers at Churchill High School who performed a lap dance and simulated oral sex at an event in the school gym. The teachers were suspended and later resigned.

The new policy specifies that school yearbooks are part of the educational process, and photographs and other recorded material from school activities can be published in the yearbook without consent.

However, yearbooks may not be posted on the schools' or any other websites, and cannot be sold to anyone outside the school.

nick.martin@freepress.com

Request included in program for Grade 6 ceremony:

"We know that many of you have cameras and/or video recorders with you to take photos or recordings of your son or daughter. That is wonderful! You will capture memories for your child and your family for many years to come. We ask if you would help our students stay safer by keeping the photos and recordings for family viewing only and not posting them on the Internet."

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition June 23, 2011.
________________________________________________________

Why Students Have a Right to Mock Teachers OnlineBy Adam CohenJune 20.011

(Noel Hendrickson/Getty Images)

By Adam Cohen
Monday, June 20, 2011

Do students have a First Amendment right to make fun of their principals and teachers on Facebook and other social-media sites? Or can schools discipline them for talking out of school?

In a pair of free-speech rulings, a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania last week came down on the side of the students. In both cases, the court said that schools were wrong to suspend students for posting parodies of their principals on MySpace — one in which a boy made fun of his principal's body size, and another in which a girl made lewd sexual comments about her principal.

The speech in these cases is the sort of derisive put-down of authority figures that students have always engaged in. In the past, kids used to say these things to each other in the cafeteria or at recess, or pass them in notes during class.

Now, they post their digs on social-media sites — where principals and teachers can sometimes see them. With the explosion of Facebook, Twitter, and other online forums for self-expression, the issue of what rights students have on these sites is a critical free-speech issue — as important, arguably, as what speech rights they have in the school building.

In the Pennsylvania MySpace cases, the court struck just the right balance. It said schools have a legitimate interest in preventing educational disruption, but they have no right to clamp down on students' online speech simply because they do not like it.

Justin Layshock, a high school senior in western Pennsylvania, created a MySpace profile in 2005 that purported to be from his principal. It was not particularly clever stuff. A major theme was the use of the word big, an apparent reference to the man's size.

The principal found the way he was described to be "degrading" and "demoralizing." Justin's parents agreed, and when they found out, they grounded him. Justin, of his own accord, went to the principal's office and apologized.

The matter could have ended there — but it didn't. The school found Justin guilty of violating its discipline code. It suspended him for 10 days, and for the rest of the year assigned him to its Alternative Education Program, for students with behavioral and educational problems.

In a second case, a middle-school girl from a school district in eastern Pennsylvania created a MySpace profile of her principal that was cruder. The girl — who was not identified by name in the ruling — used the principal's photo, but presented him as a bisexual Alabama middle-school principal named "M-Hoe." The profile, which she created in 2007, described the principal in coarse terms, and said he "enjoyed hitting on students and their parents.

The principal was irate. He suspended the girl for 10 days, the same punishment he gave students who took knives to school, and had the state police call her and her parents in to discuss her actions.

The question of how much free speech students have is a fraught one. In 1969, in the landmark case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court held that a school violated students' First Amendment rights when it suspended them for wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. In a famous phrase, the court declared that students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

The court in Tinker said the proper test was whether the speech would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." More recently, the Supreme Court has given schools more leeway. In the 1986 case of Bethel School District v. Fraser, it upheld a school's right to discipline a student for giving a raunchy speech at a school assembly. In the 2007 case of Morse v. Frederick, it upheld the suspension of a student who held up a banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a school-sanctioned event.

The test under Tinker is whether a student's speech is substantially disruptive of school discipline. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled that in these two cases, the schools could not meet it.

In Justin's case, Layshock v. Hermitage School District, the court noted that his conduct occurred outside school, and there was no evidence it had much impact on the school.

In the case of the middle-school student, Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District, the court said "the profile was so outrageous that no one took its content seriously." And again, it emphasized that there was no significant disruption at school.

The Layshock ruling was unanimous — all 14 judges agreed his suspension was unconstitutional. In the Snyder case, the court was divided 8-6. The six dissenters were troubled by the graphic language used in the girl's profile, which they thought could be disruptive and undermine authority at school.

In a perfect world — or some people's perfect world — students would all be polite and well behaved. They would respect their principals and teachers and speak of them with reverence. But in the real world, students push back against authority figures — they tease and mock. Now, in the social-media age, the authority figures are more likely to find out.

There clearly can be student Facebook or MySpace speech that goes too far — for example, serious threats that really do disrupt educational activities. But when speech is merely offensive, and taking place outside of school hours and property, principals and teachers should ignore it — and think of it as the price we pay for living in a free country.

Adam Cohen, a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board, is a lawyer who teaches at Yale Law School. Case Study, his legal column for TIME.com, appears every Monday.