What can principals do
about cyberbullying?
Scott McLeod, J.D., Ph.D.

Get this presentation!
www.scottmcleod.net/saisd
2

CASTLE
 Nation’s only university center dedicated to K-12
technology leadership issues
 Nation’s first graduate program for tech-savvy
leaders
 Postsecondary Partnership Program
 Lots of resources for K-12 leaders
• Blogs, including Dangerously Irrelevant
• School Data Tutorials and other DDDM resources
• Principals Technology Leadership Assessment
• Did You Know? … and more!
3

Disclaimer
We are not in an attorney-client relationship.
Do not construe anything I say as accurate
legal advice. For any and all legal questions,
I strongly recommend that you speak with a
reputable attorney who specializes in school
law issues.
4

Warning
 This presentation is rated PG-13 for vulgar
language, violent imagery, content of lewd
and sexual nature
5

Principle 1
 Schools have an affirmative obligation to
protect students and/or employees from
harassing, threatening, and/or bullying
conduct
6

Principle 2
 The default rule is that student speech in
schools is protected.
7

5 Supreme Court exceptions
 true threat
 material and substantial disruption (or
reasonable forecast thereof) (Tinker v. Des
Moines)
 vulgarity (Bethel v. Fraser)
 legitimate pedagogical concern (Hazelwood
v. Kuhlmeier)
 druggie language (Morse v. Frederick)
8

What about student conduct
outside of school?
 Fights off school grounds
 Illegal drug / alcohol use
 Underground newspapers
 Peaceful protests
9

Principle 3
 Schools may discipline students for
out-of-school conduct that substantially
interferes with the normal operations of the
school (a la Tinker)
10

Morse v. Frederick (2007)
11

Beussink (1998, MO)
 High school senior made web page highly
critical of school administration; some
vulgarity
 Invited readers to contact the school
principal to express opinions about school
and linked to school web page
 Another student showed web page to
teacher
 Student suspended for 10 days; failed four
classes
12

J.S. v. Bethlehem (2000, PA)
 8th-grader made “Teacher Sux” web site
 Disrespectful language re: principal
 Violent language / imagery re: teacher
 Teacher fear, stress, medical leave
 Student suspended for 10 days,
recommended for expulsion
13

Emmet (2000, WA)
 High school senior / basketball team
co-captain made “Unofficial Kentlake High
Home Page” with mock obituaries
 Visitors could vote on who would “die” next
 TV show ran story on web page with “hit list”
 Student suspended for five days, including
basketball team’s playoff game
14

Killion (2001, PA)
 High school student / member of track team
made an insulting “Top Ten” list about
athletic director
 E-mailed list to friends; list made it to school
 Student suspended for 10 days
15

Coy (2002, OH)
 Student created web site for skate boarder
group that contained some insulting, profane
material
 Student accessed web site at school
 No other students viewed site
 Suspended for 4 days, expelled for 80 days
(later modified to 80-day probation period)
16

Mahaffey (2002, MI)
 Created ‘Satan’s web page’
• ‘people that are cool’ / ‘people I wish would die’/
• ‘movies that rock’ / ‘music I hate’ / ‘music that is
cool’
 ‘Satan’s mission for you this week’
 Student suspended, recommended for
expulsion
17

Doninger (CT, 2007)
 Said central office employees were
‘douchebags’
 Prohibited from running for class secretary
again (held that position for last three years)
18

How’d you do?
 Use of Tinker test (material and substantial
disruption)
 The only case that schools won was J.S. v.
Bethlehem (teacher medical leave)
• School won in Doninger too but watch the appeal
 Strong protections for students’
constitutionally-protected speech rights
19

Principle 4
 If they have a strong acceptable use policy,
schools can regulate student cyberspeech if
done during school time and/or using school
computers
20

Principle 5
 Schools have more leeway with employees
21

Employee cyberspeech
 School employees are “agents” /
representatives of the school
 Employee speech protected only if
• on a matter of legitimate public concern, and
• not outweighed by school’s responsibility to
manage its internal affairs and to provide
effective and efficient service to the public
22

Review
 Substantial interference is a high hurdle for
schools
 Schools can always educate
 Schools should regulate with caution
 Private lawsuits are always a possibility
 Schools have more leeway with employees
than with students
23

Copyright notice
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0
www.scottmcleod.net
24