FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Right to Bully?

On March 22, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down its decision in Cuff v. Valley Central School District.  The case raised the question whether an elementary school student’s First Amendment rights were violated when he was suspended for six days based on arguably threatening—but possibly simply joking—words that he had written during a classroom assignment and shown to other students.  The panel split 2-1, with the majority siding with the school.

The Drawing at Issue, and B.C.’s Prior Drawing and Story

The student was known in court only as B.C. (The use of initials to identify juvenile parties in federal court is standard.)  At the time the drawing was made, B.C. was a ten-year-old fifth grader.

The drawing itself was an innocuous one, provided by a teacher to be colored in, and depicting an astronaut.  But the text that B.C. added to the astronaut figure was seen by some at the school as far from innocuous: The teacher had encouraged students to write a “wish” and B.C. had written “Blow up the school with the teachers in it.”

B.C. testified that the teacher told the students that day that they could write about anything, even “missiles” if they so chose.  And a reference to missiles, if there indeed was one, might arguably have suggested to B.C. that even warlike wishes were acceptable.

Unfortunately, however, this was not B.C.’s first disturbing incident involving a drawing.  Previously, B.C. had created another drawing, depicting a student firing a gun.  On that drawing, B.C. wrote, “One day I shot 4 people each of them got fo[ur] bullits [sic] on them.”  B.C. claimed that, when he wrote this, he was depicting a game of paintball, but one has to wonder.

And on a third occasion, B.C. wrote a story for class about “a big wind [that] destroyed every school in America . . . [And] every body ran for there [sic] life and than [sic] all adults died and all the kids were alive.  Than [sic] all the kids died.”

Previously, B.C. had also been involved in numerous altercations—some of them physical—and other misbehavior at his school.  Some of these incidents had also led to trips to the principal’s office for B.C.

The wish that B.C. made in connection with the astronaut drawing drew the attention of the fellow students to whom he showed it.  Several laughed, but one—who B.C. testified had initially laughed—later left her desk to go and tell the teacher.  Moreover, at that point, the student seemed to the teacher to be quite frightened.

The teacher then asked B.C. if he meant what he had written, and she testified that he looked at her, the court noted, with a “blank and serious face.”

Later, in the principal’s office, B.C. said he hadn’t meant what he’d written.  However, the Superintendent, after being briefed on the incident and on the earlier misbehavior by B.C., imposed a six-day suspension.

The Panel Majority’s Holding

The two-judge panel majority applied the seminal school-speech test drawn from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist.  Specifically, the panel inquired into whether B.C.’s case had demonstrated “facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.”

The panel majority also quoted a precedent from the Second Circuit itself, which described the Tinker inquiry as ascertaining “whether school officials might reasonably portend disruption from the student expression at issue.”  Moreover, the panel majority cited a string of precedents that seem to establish something close to a post-Columbine zero-tolerance policy for threats of school violence that are assessed under Tinker.

When a court engages in Tinker’s inquiry, the panel majority made clear, the student’s intentions don’t count. What matters, instead, are the reasonable predictions that school officials make regarding the disruption that the student’s expression may cause.  (The panel majority also accorded significant deference to the school officials’ judgment in its analysis.)

B.C.’s prior drawings and writings that depicted violence were on school officials’ minds when they contemplated his suspension, and officials also had spoken to the school psychologist, who was aware of B.C.’s prior drawings and past disciplinary issues.

Based on the evidence, the two-judge majority ruled against B.C.

One other possible, but unspoken factor in the appellate majority’s decision might be the fact that it was U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff who initially ruled against B.C. and in favor of the school.  Judge Rakoff is reputed to be both very smart and very liberal. Thus, the members of the appellate majority might have had, in the back of their minds, the fact that even the liberal Judge Rakoff had ruled against B.C.

The Dissent

Judge Rosemary Pooler’s dissent took a very different approach than did the majority’s opinion:  Judge Pooler made it clear that she saw B.C.’s comment as trivial, whereas the majority took the comment very seriously indeed.  (It seems likely that the real nature of the comment lay somewhere in the middle, between these two extremes.)

Judge Pooler began her dissent by characterizing B.C.’s comment as a mere “stab at humor,” an “ill-advised joke.”  In her view, B.C.’s comment “barely had the potential to cause a stir at school, let alone a substantial disruption.” In addition, she predicted that had this case gone to a jury, the jury would have agreed that the comment was innocuous.

In support of her point, Judge Pooler notes that none of B.C.’s classmates seemed to have taken the comment seriously; even the girl who later became concerned initially laughed.  But clearly, that girl herself thought better of her first, knee-jerk response since she did, in the end, feel that her teacher ought to know about B.C.’s comment.

Judge Pooler makes a good point when she notes that the protection of free speech cannot depend on a listener’s veto; if a listener or reader misinterprets a comment, that is not the speaker’s or writer’s fault.

But here, B.C.’s prior writing and drawing provided context that could reasonably be used by a reader within the school administration to illuminate the meaning of B.C.’s most recent writing.  And that context suggests, to me, that Judge Pooler may have dismissed B.C.’s most recent writing too quickly.

Is the Tinker Standard Alone Sufficient to Protect Students in the Modern-Day School Context?

Finally, Judge Pooler contended that what the school was really worried about, in B.C.’s case, wasn’t that B.C.’s most recent writing would cause disruption at the school. It was, instead, that B.C.’s writing might foreshadow a possible school shooting, or other act of violence, to be perpetrated by him in the future.

Judge Pooler’s point, put another way, is that the Tinker standard isn’t truly fulfilled here. Tinker is about disruption that is immediately or almost immediately foreseeable, and that is sparked by student speech. It is not about long-term risks of violence, as real as they may be.

Moreover, it would be odd to categorize violence as just a subset of disruption in order to shoehorn future-violence cases into Tinker’s framework, when actual violence is typically so much more grave.

In addition, as Judge Pooler points out, Tinker requires that the speech at issue must itself forseeably lead to disruption. (For instance, a bully’s taunt to a future victim could qualify.)  It is not enough, then, that the speech at issue reveals the potential of a given student for committing violence at some unspecified time in the future.  To fall outside First Amendment protection, speech has to do more than just reveal a reality or shine light on a personality.

Perhaps, then, we need a new standard for modern schools that face not only the fear that their school day will be disrupted by students’ clashes, but also the fear that their students could actually be killed or seriously harmed by their fellow students.

With a child like B.C., who seems obsessed with the idea of violence against others, perhaps our legal test should focus on whether a public school is offering such a kid enough in the way of psychological counseling to ensure that his fascination with violence will not take a deadly turn.  (Kids who are bullies, too, should be required to attend extended counseling, which should also be offered to bullying victims if they so choose.)

Of course, counseling won’t be a panacea, but it could change some kids’ lives. In contrast, it’s not clear if a suspension—the punishment imposed on B.C.—will do any good at all.  Some parents may just side with their kids (as B.C.’s parents did in this lawsuit) and conclude the suspension was unjust.  And other parents may learn of the suspension and impose harsh punishments that only reiterate the lesson their child is already learning:  Might makes right.

More articles by:

December 13, 2018
John Davis
What World Do We Seek?
Subhankar Banerjee
Biological Annihilation: a Planet in Loss Mode
Lawrence Davidson
What the Attack on Marc Lamont Hill Tells Us
James McEnteer
Breathless
Ramzy Baroud
The Real Face of Justin Trudeau: Are Palestinians Canada’s new Jews?
Dean Baker
Pelosi Would Sabotage the Progressive Agenda With a Pay-Go Rule
Elliot Sperber
Understanding the Yellow Vests Movement through Basic Color Theory 
Rivera Sun
The End of the NRA? Business Magazines Tell Activists: The Strategy is Working
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
Historic Opportunity to Transform Trade
George Ochenski
Trump Trashes Sage Grouse Protections in Another cCollaboration Failure
December 12, 2018
Arshad Khan
War, Anniversaries and Lessons Never Learned
Paul Street
Blacking Out the Yellow Vests on Cable News: Corporate Media Doing its Job
Kenneth Surin
The Brexit Shambles Rambles On
David Schultz
Stacking the Deck Against Democracy in Wisconsin
Steve Early
The Housing Affordability Crisis and What Millennials Can do About It
George Ochenski
Collaboration Failure: Trump Trashes Sage Grouse Protections
Rob Seimetz
Bringing a Life Into a Dying World: A Letter From a Father to His Unborn Son
Michael Howard
PETA and the ‘S’-Word
John Kendall Hawkins
Good Panopt, Bad Panopt: Does It Make A Difference?
Kim C. Domenico
Redeeming Utopia: a Meditation On An Essay by Ursula LeGuin
Binoy Kampmark
Exhuming Franco: Spain’s Immemorial Divisions
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
Democratizing Money
Laura Finley
Congress Must Reauthorize VAWA
December 11, 2018
Eric Draitser
AFRICOM: A Neocolonial Occupation Force?
Sheldon Richman
War Over Ukraine?
Louis Proyect
Why World War II, Not the New Deal, Ended the Great Depression
Howard Lisnoff
Police Violence and Mass Policing in the U.S.
Mark Ashwill
A “Patriotic” Education Study Abroad Program in Viet Nam: God Bless America, Right or Wrong!
Laura Flanders
HUD Official to Move into Public Housing?
Nino Pagliccia
Resistance is Not Terrorism
Matthew Johnson
See No Evil, See No Good: The Truth Is Not Black and White
Maria Paez Victor
How Reuters Slandered Venezuela’s Social Benefits Card
December 10, 2018
Jacques R. Pauwels
Foreign Interventions in Revolutionary Russia
Richard Klin
The Disasters of War
Katie Fite
Rebranding Bundy
Gary Olson
A Few Thoughts on Politics and Personal Identity
Patrick Cockburn
Brexit Britain’s Crisis of Self-Confidence Will Only End in Tears and Rising Nationalism
Andrew Moss
Undocumented Citizen
Dean Baker
Trump and China: Going With Patent Holders Against Workers
Lawrence Wittner
Reviving the Nuclear Disarmament Movement: a Practical Proposal
Dan Siegel
Thoughts on the 2018 Elections and Beyond
Thomas Knapp
Election 2020: I Can Smell the Dumpster Fires Already
Weekend Edition
December 07, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Steve Hendricks
What If We Just Buy Off Big Fossil Fuel? A Novel Plan to Mitigate the Climate Calamity
Jeffrey St. Clair
Cancer as Weapon: Poppy Bush’s Radioactive War on Iraq
Paul Street
The McCain and Bush Death Tours: Establishment Rituals in How to be a Proper Ruler
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail