# Schools over stepping bounds?



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> More GTA students punished over Facebook comments
> Updated Mon. Apr. 30 2007 10:12 AM ET
> 
> toronto.ctv.ca
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...ook_punishment_070430/20070430?hub=TopStories

This is a growing issue.....strikes me that there is a free speech issue here and that schools are over stepping their authority.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I am torn over this issue. While I advocate free speech, the comments made by these students could lead to the suspension of this teacher. The students might just be "joking around", as they contend, but there are consequences to these jokes. 

With freedom comes responsibility to use that freedom wisely.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I don't think this is a free-speech issue. This could be a legal matter and it a form of abuse. I am not 100% sure of Canadian law but the teacher could have sued over slander. He was making false aqcuisations about a teacher he should have respect for.

Is it free speech if some posts on the internet that they bought a gun a plan on shooting someone?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

There appears to be a difference between insulting or making disparaging remarks about an individual in person than doing the same on a web site such as Facebook, whereas in reality, there is no difference, except that one of the two is done virtually, but nevertheless is the same deal, is it not? Although one may argue freedom of speech, if you make a disparaging remark or an insulting comment to a teacher to her face, and you get suspended for it (or given "detention"), that's seen as the norm. However, if the exact same is done, but on Facebook, it's suddenly a different can of worms. Now why is that?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

You should add another poll option: "On the fence on the matter."


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

What the students wrote was offensive, and easily traced back to them.

I don't buy the parental argument that this happened away from school and therefore should not fall under the school's jurisdiction. The kids are lucky if they only get brief suspensions and don't get to go on school trips. Parents who condone this kind of abuse aren't helping at all. At least if they apologized for their kids, they might not reap the lawsuit they deserve to lose as a result.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Since the offensive stuff is about the teachers it could be argued that it is indeed 'at the school'. Much as homework is done at home, but managed by the school.

A doubt if we would find it acceptable for someone to say something disparaging or insulting to a teacher _at_ school, so why is it acceptable away from school, in such a public manner?

I am in the same place as Dr G on this one. We need to find a way to teach more about the responsibility part of the equation.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

I agree with Dr. G. With free speech comes the responsibility to use it wisely. What they said could or may have caused the teachers real harm.

"Dad's" upset because his son was called to account for his actions. Does he or his son understand that they prossibly slandered teacher(s)? I don't see any mention of an apology by the father for the actions of his son. Only excuses. Or doesn't that matter to him?

Bram Koch:


> "I didn't think it would be so public. I was just writing it to my friends. I didn't expect that the teachers would get involved and that they would be reading this," he said.


 So it was okay just so long as it remained "private"?

The student also violated board policy which reads: "Misconduct carried out over the Internet may be subject to school discipline, whether carried out at home, at a school or elsewhere." I suspect that the policy was clearly stated somewhere in their handbook or agenda and the parents were made aware of it. It's too bad some of the parents didn't take the time to go over the policy with their children and remind them to use their "freedom of speech" wisely. 

I'm glad the school is teaching students this lesson. Someone has to.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I got suspended in grade 8 forging a christmas card from a classmate a la "twas the night before christmas and all through the house, every create was f***ing yes even a mouse...."... perhaps I should have fought that it was free speech....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Misconduct carried out over the Internet may be subject to school discipline, whether carried out at home, at a school or elsewhere."


I doubt whether that would stand a legal challenge.

Indeed teachers have the recourse of the courts but in these cases it is not the court determining harm but rather the school itself acting as lawmaker judge and meting out penalties.

How is this different than rate your prof and any other school judgement forums even newspapers that interview students for their opinion.

I believe this should be a mediated matter between individuals and that the authority of the school should be reserved to mediating complaints either from staff or students about outside or inside the school comments.

Very serious accusations/comments in either direction have legal recourse but in my mind that should be last resort.

What it points out to in my mind is the need for a mediated complaint structure that involves, student, parent, teacher as individual, school administration and mediator. Ombudsperson if you like.

I believe private schools have more contractual power in this matter...public schools need limits to their power over monitoring and dishing out consequences as institutions in this area.

Teachers outside of class are also individuals not representative of the school administration and should not be able to wield that school authority arbitrarily.

There are responsible kids and irresponsible kids.....the same goes for teachers and in my mind the latter need to be held to a higher standard by virtue of their position...easily abused in these cases.

I have no issue with "teaching" the kids that harm ( one on one with the "harmed teacher WILL make an impression ) can occur in these situations with careless commentary but I do feel that it needs to be done without the school wielding arbitrary power as that smacks far to much of restriction on speech and thought...and that's the greater danger in my view.

There is already a backlash winding up, a justified one in my view.
Dr. G remembers the 60s...so do I.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the most scary point is how the parent doesn't acknowledge his child's transgression

i wonder if the parent made such a disparaging remark about the CEO of his employer, if it would still be a "free speech" issue or if the parent would be fired?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"How is this different than rate your prof and any other school judgement forums even newspapers that interview students for their opinion." MacDoc, ratemyprofessors.com allows a prof to "flag a posting" that he/she feels is unjust. I did this with two postings, in that the rating was under my name for two different courses taught in another faculty by a prof with a similar name as mine. They took off these two postings. 

When a newspaper interviews a group of students, they are able to filter out obscene or comments that hinge on slander. 

Yes, I remember the 60's, which is why I find it difficult to support a limitation of free speech. Still, I contend that freedom of speech has a responsibility to use this speech in a relevant and truthful manner.

Full disclosure -- here is my ratemyprofessors.com rating. The latest ratings are always "under review" for some reason.

Marc Glassman - Memorial University of Newfoundland - RateMyProfessors.com


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> How is this different than rate your prof and any other school judgement forums even newspapers that interview students for their opinion.


Back to school, you clearly didn't read what the kids wrote.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

The school did the right thing.

"Free Speech" in Canada is not absolute.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Canada said:


> In Canada, it is illegal to say anything that could harm someone in a public area. Such as, "FIRE!" in a movie theater. Moreover, it is illegal to debate free speech in Quebec.
> The constitutional provision that guarantees Freedom of expression in Canada is section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
> Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:
> ...


This is why in Canada we have media bans on some court proceedings.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

WHAT the particular kids wrote is only a portion of the spectrum of commentary that exists online and between kids and the issues are

Who determines the transgression?
Who determines the penalty?
There ARE liable remedies.....why are the schools allowed to over ride them.

•••

GT - nothing in your quote directly affects the issue of schools exercising authority beyond the grounds of the school.

This is NOT an easy question -never has been - never will be.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

One thing being overlooked here is not the actions of the school but the action of the parents. Heck if these were my kids making crude slanderous remarks about their teacher online for all the world to see, they'd loose a heck of a lot more than a school trip to Montreal. I be too damned embarrassed to show my face on CTV news especially to fight for little Johnny to have his trip back. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> One thing being overlooked here is not the actions of the school but the action of the parents. Heck if these were my kids making crude slanderous remarks about their teacher online for all the world to see, they'd loose a heck of a lot more than a school trip to Montreal. I be too damned embarrassed to show my face on CTV news especially to fight for little Johnny to have his trip back.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Yes that's an important point - and very good moral suasion.

but it's the arbitrary exercise of penalties by the school outside school property I'm concerned about.

Informing parents in a neutral manner would be about as far as I'd see being tolerable..and legal for under 16.
16 and over..this is getting into a very grey area. 
Authority has limits.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> With freedom comes responsibility to use that freedom wisely.


And with Free Speech there is the risk of offence. Small price to pay.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"And with Free Speech there is the risk of offence. Small price to pay." AS, my problem with what you said is that there is far greater damage done to those unjustly spoken about with this free speech. Case in point -- an ex-student of mine was teaching in BC. He was accused of touching a boy on a field trip. Problem is, he was not on that field trip, and the boy who he supposedly touched confirmed this point. Still, the school district did not want to take a chance and he was not rehired. They said that they did not fire this teacher, just not rehired him. However, they did confirm that these allegations were a contributing factor in not rehiring this person. 

Thus, freedom of speech needs to be protected, as does the truth and justice. It is a fine balance, which is where responsibility comes into play. In law school, this balance is discussed with the classic situation of screaming "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded theater, even when there is no such threat.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

The comments I have read are not innocent harmless remarks about a teacher that is disliked, rather, they are comments that, if true, could cost a teacher their job and, if false, tar a teacher's reputation for life.

Should students be able to criticize teachers online? I don't have a problem with that, however, the comments I have seen, and I haven't seen all of them, are simply beyond the pale and some action should be taken.

Based on the comments I have read, I find the consequence of not being able to go on a year-end trip to Montreal to be a little light.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

As far as I'm concerned Facebook and other similar sites are private ventures that can imposes self-censorship. 
No matter what was told, it's not the duty of a school to discipline what happens off campus.
How can biased sources decide what is proper retributions?

Freedom of speech above all. Don't you think that we have gone too PC? When you talk of ex-student in BC, should the blame not be partially placed on the directors who refuse to rehire him? Aren't they at fault also?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"When you talk of ex-student in BC, should the blame not be partially placed on the directors who refuse to rehire him? Aren't they at fault also?" Most certainly, AS. This is why I feel that freedom of speech needs to be protected. However, I still stress the need to be responsible in how we use this freedom of expression, and how just we are when receiving this expressed thought/idea/opinion/feeling/etc.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Z - you miss the point - WHO decides?

a) that a transgression has occurred

b) appropriate penalty if any?

c) under what circumstances is there an expectation of privacy or of free speech

If we removed the school versus kid issue .......if a person rants about Canadian Tire or their employee online should the company be allowed to set a penalty?
I certainly have heard enough about say Bell Canada on here - if a specific employee were taken to task online would Bell be allowed to set a "penalty"??.

•••

Dr. G - responsible ...who decides what is "responsible".
There are legal remedies for egregious slander.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And with Free Speech there is the risk of offence. Small price to pay.


There is a difference between offence and slander. What they did was slander not free speech. I frankly hope the teacher involved sues the students' parents. The parents, I believe, are legally responsible for the actions of a minor.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> However, I still stress the need to be responsible in how we use this freedom of expression, and how just we are when receiving this expressed thought/idea/opinion/feeling/etc.


Why should the school decide? While I don't like it, yes there should be limits on Free Speech (Hate crimes comes to mind) but who decides?
On ratemyteacher, you received a decent score. Now imagine that it had been poor, would that mean that you are a bad teacher? No - teachers who have difficult subjects tend to get lower scores . But should you be able to arbitrarily censor that?

Look at all the blogs and bulletin boards, some rather defamatory worlds are written everyday, do you need a police there or do you think that self-moderation is the answer?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Dr. G - responsible ...who decides what is "responsible".
There are legal remedies for egregious slander." MacDoc, this is my concern. I don't want government coming in and setting the standards of what is allowed and not allowed. I have faith in the legal system to interpret the Charter on this count. Still, I know what such reckless speech results in when it comes to teachers, et al.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> What they did was slander not free speech.


and who determines that??.......only a court can. The school administration certainly not.

You are only expressing your opinion it was slander...that's where the problem arises.

There certainly are limits.....yelling Fire, bomb jokes around airports, perhaps accusing a teacher of sexual misconduct with a student would fall into that category as an understandable limit with serious consequences.

But who sets the limit?? The consequence?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

The school was well within their rights to discipline the students in this situation. I would agree that the comments were possibly libel, and legal action could be taken by the teacher.

If the parents think the punishment was undeserved, take the issue to court. Or you could just say to your kid "Yup! You posted something stupid online, and now you miss out on a class trip. Live and learn."


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> ...If we removed the school versus kid issue .......


Let's not. The students made statements that could be construed as slanderous. Teachers are in many ways vunerable to these kinds of attacks, particulary at the elementary and high school levels . Things like this, true or not, can create lasting impressions that can taint a person's reputation permanently. Will some parents now look at the teacher in a different light, even if the statements are false? I wouldn't bet against it. Once you create doubts about a teacher's ethics and/or morals, damage, no matter how little, is done.

As I have said, I hope the teacher doesn't let this drop even if there is a half-hearted apology. Let the courts decide and hopefully send a message to those who think that "free speech" means being able to say anything they want even if they think it's "private".

Oh, and the board's policy was probably passed by the duly elected representatives of the parents. There was, more than likely, a draft version sent out for consultation to all interested parties, input given, including legal opinions, before the final resoultion was voted on and passed.


----------



## teknikz (Nov 20, 2006)

I think this is the beginning of the end . 

The students didn't make a facebook group announcing to the world " our gym teacher gives masturbating tips" .

They simply wrote on eachothers walls ( my best guess ) which is intended to be a semi-private message board for those in their friend groups.

I find it disturburing for many reasons , whomever took the time to track this down instead of attending to other more important matters. 

I also find it disturbing the reaction the school gave out , When you become it teacher , especially of children that young . You should be somewhat prepared for the insults , spitballs and whatever else. 

Im sorry , but im a believer in freespeach and plain common sense.

Its not like he wrote a 6 page story on how his teacher fondled him or something somewhat credible that could hurt his teachers reputation. It was an off the cuff albeit crude remark about a teacher and it shouldn't of been blown out of purportion.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

teknikz said:


> I also find it disturbing the reaction the school gave out , When you become it teacher , especially of children that young . You should be somewhat prepared for the insults , spitballs and whatever else.


 
Grade 2 students are young. Grade 6 students are young. I wouldn't classify Grade 8 students as young. They are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong, what is inappropriate and what is not. Oh, and teachers are there to teach not be insulted, defamed, or have spitballs thrown at them. 

Why should the school's reaction be disturbing? They were only following a clearly defined policy. I would find it disturbing if * they hadn't* followed the policy.

Oh, and I'm soooo glad to see that you know what can and can't damage a teacher's reputation. It must be nice to know where the boundaries are.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

The school has to protect their teachers and has a certain level of legal power. If I tell a teacher where to go; they can suspend me. Do you expect them to call the police to intervene?

Declaring on the internet that their teacher got inot a one fight with a trouser snake falls under this category. It is slander, and is illegal. They could have called the cops and could have been charged with harrasment. 

Some of you are also leaning towards free speech being without bounds. Should I be allowed to shout out racist remarks and such?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Some of you are also leaning towards free speech being without bounds. Should I be allowed to shout out racist remarks and such?


Yes. 

But tell me, why should a school discipline students on something posted outside of school?


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Because the school has to protect it's teachers from this type of abuse regardless of where it takes place. The student got off lucky. I can see the argument that the school over-stepped it's grounds, but then I would make a case thatthe police could have gotten involved. Take your pic. Arguments can be made for both, but what it comes down to is some form of discipline is needed, and suspension over a possible criminal record is way better.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> But tell me, why should a school discipline students on something posted outside of school?


Because the postings were libelous against the teacher. They created a negative atmosphere within the school based on lies. It doesn't matter if it happened on school grounds or not. Where the comments are made is irrelevant.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes.
> 
> But tell me, why should a school discipline students on something posted outside of school?


 If something is posted outside of school that involves students or staff it has implications in the school. If, for example, a student is being bullied online there are definite ramifications at school. The same if things are posted online re: staff. Board policies are there for a reason. They don't create them on a whim and they usually give them a certain amount of thought. 
Also, if a parent feels that a board policy is inappropriate, they do have the option of taking the board to court over it.


----------



## teknikz (Nov 20, 2006)

I still think you guys are overreacting , this barely warranted a detention let alone police involvement. 

Any adult who takes a 13 year olds masturbation comment seriously enough to cause a newspaper story shouldn't be around kids let alone teach them.


----------



## teknikz (Nov 20, 2006)

Students aren't suspended over cyber bullying other students

Why over that comment

Smells like overzealous administration to me

They should be getting drugs out of schools not facebook comments.

When I was in highschool , I was lucky if it was a weeks wait to see a VP . They are honestly 1001 more important issues like bullying , violence and drugs to deal with.

Lets leave the internet scouring for later shall we?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Because the postings were libelous against the teacher. They created a negative atmosphere within the school based on lies. It doesn't matter if it happened on school grounds or not. Where the comments are made is irrelevant.


Then you go to Facebook and have them remove the offensive material. 
Instead, the school looks like they are vigilantes...

How many blogs to you see that have equally libellous material?

As for taking the school board to court, that will not happen because most parents just don't have the time or money to pursue acts like that.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

the other side of the story is that there are many whack-a**'d people out there; many allowed to reproduce. They see this, and think the teacher was doing something. Perhaps not baby oil on the desk, swank holiday issue opened wide, pants around the ankles doing something in the middle of a pop quiz. But it could give a wrong impression. WE all know people take things out of context far to often.


----------



## teknikz (Nov 20, 2006)

Coupled with the Cell Phone ban LAW? The TDSB is spending more time and money playing gestapo then actually teaching kids.

This waste of time and resources is deplorable.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

teknikz said:


> This waste of time and resources is deplorable.


Or they are trying to get back to a place where kids get a quality education. There is no reason what-so-ever for kids to have cell phones at school.


----------



## teknikz (Nov 20, 2006)

Neither do drugs but I didn't graduate to long ago and they weren't doing much about it.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Z - you miss the point - WHO decides?
> 
> a) that a transgression has occurred
> 
> ...


I think in this case the principal or school board would be the appropriate people to decide that the comments were inappropriate.

I think the penalty would be relative to the comments made. The comments in this case are of a sexual nature and involve people who are trusted with people's children which, imo, should make the penalty rather high if they are not true.

Whatever consequence the principal/board dish out, the individual teachers should have recourse through a civil suit in the courts (though kids don't have much money...maybe their parents and Facebook do).

Can we really claim an expectation to privacy when it comes to comments posted on the net?

If you remove the kid vs. school issue the dynamic changes too much. Making false statements on the internet about on-the-job sexual practices of people working in a hardware store aren't going to have the same impact as those on a teacher or other person in a position of authority in a public institution (politicians are of course exempt  ).


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Zoziw, nicely put!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Making false statements on the internet about on-the-job sexual practices of people working in a hardware store aren't going to have the same impact as those on a teacher or other person in a position of authority in a public institution (politicians are of course exempt ).


The school administration is not neutral in the matter. That's why it's not appropriate as arbitor. You make the case yourself as to the importance. That makes it vital that it be assessed by a neutral party.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> The school administration is not neutral in the matter. That's why it's not appropriate as arbitor. You make the case yourself as to the importance. That makes it vital that it be assessed by a neutral party.


The principal is a professional and it is part of his job to handle this kind of thing. If he is doing a poor job, parents can complain directly to him, the parent's council, the school board, the Education Minister and, as in this case, the media.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I think the school was right in its actions.

The comments were clearly offensive, if not libellous, and targeted teachers in what is essentially a public forum, not a private discussion.

As the school bears a measure of responsibility for protecting teachers from students inside and outside the classroom, as well as a responsibility to promote a healthy and respectful learning environment, it took action.

To do nothing would send a message to the teachers, all teachers, that the school doesn't value them and that when it comes to student behaviour against them outside of school, teachers are on their own. It comes close to putting an "open season" sign on teachers.

Had the situation been reversed – had teachers been posting disrespectful comments about students in a webgroup intended for teachers but available with little difficulty to all – would parents not expect the school to take action against the teachers?

Of course they would, and the discipline would be far more than missing a school trip. Suspension and dismissal would quickly be out of their mouths.

And they would be right, because the school has the same responsibility to protect students that it has to teachers.

Personally, I think the discipline is pretty mild, but I think it will be effective. It says if you, as student, cannot respect teachers then we, as a school, cannot permit you to go on a trip where you would be under the direction of teachers without recourse to your parents or school administration.

It's pretty simple, if you can't respect the people leading, you can't follow.


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

The school overstepped it's boundaries. I don't see this as being different then writing remarks on a notebook or whatever. Kids have been writing stuff like this for years and is never punished. I've said a few things that are probably stepping over the line in my years in high school. I never got punished for saying them to a friend or writing it in Instant Messages. How is this different? 

The school has a responsibility to keep it's property a safe place for their students. It's not their responsibility to make sure they get to school safely or get home safely. That's the parents responsibility. And it's the same for the internet, they use firewalls and net nanny or whatever to block unsuitable sites from being used. It's the same for home use, it's up to the parents to decide if it is suitable for their children.

Okay fine, they wrote it on the internet that was a mistake. But one wonders of what people were looking for when they discovered the remarks. I certainly don't think it is in the teachers or principle's or other school staff duty of care to be looking in to information about the student.

The punishment certainly doesn't justify what did happen. Generally there's a warning or something before the major trip of the year is canceled because of a few words. That's completely unfair, and it's clear they were joking, and really they were 14 for crying out loud. 


"Had the situation been reversed – had teachers been posting disrespectful comments about students in a webgroup intended for teachers but available with little difficulty to all – would parents not expect the school to take action against the teachers?"

Uhm. Yes, but that's because they are PROFESSIONALS, that's supposed to mean something. Students certainly aren't. I certainly wouldn't mind if my teachers talked about me, as long as they didn't mention names, which is what a lot of my parents friends that are teachers do when they discuss teaching with them. They mention things about certain kids, but without mentioning names.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

> It's not their responsibility to make sure they get to school safely or get home safely.


If they walk to school, true. But if students takes a school bus, the minute they step on the bus until the moment they step off, the school/school board is legally responsible for their safety.

You may have said things but either you weren't caught or your school may not have had a policy in place to deal with it. You say it's the parent's responsibility . Well, where was the parental supervision when they were writing the comments? The father who was quoted seemed more upset at the punishment than he was at the original comments made by his son. You also stated that there should have been a warning. Doesn't the policy on proper use of the internet count as a warning? 
We all learn some hard lessons in the school of life. The students should consider this a lesson in life and be thankful if the only consequence is a missed field trip. Personally, I would like to see them, and some of their parents, experience something with a little more consequence - like being dragged into court and charged with slander.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The school administration is not neutral in the matter. That's why it's not appropriate as arbitor. You make the case yourself as to the importance. That makes it vital that it be assessed by a neutral party.


It's not vital at all. A neutral party isn't required in this case. I don't see how you can even begin to think that one is. If you hang out at a bar across from work, and you pick on one of the IT guys in a ruthless manner, if word gets back to the boss, things aren't going to be all peachy at work the next day. Yes, places of employment have this authority, and so do schools. The kids got off lightly.



Makr said:


> The school overstepped it's boundaries. I don't see this as being different then writing remarks on a notebook or whatever. Kids have been writing stuff like this for years and is never punished. I've said a few things that are probably stepping over the line in my years in high school. I never got punished for saying them to a friend or writing it in Instant Messages. How is this different?


Let's try this exercise. I'm going to write something in a book on my desk here about you. I'm going to tell it to a few friends this afternoon. Now, I'm going to post it in this thread.

"Makr plays with himself in public."

Now, which one has significantly more impact?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> "Makr plays with himself in public."


He does? I highly doubt that GT, but given that post, it does add credibility to stories that you often enjoy a liquid breakfast...


Facebook is a private venture - if the school officials are so worried, they should contact them - not suspend students.

What if I wrote that Polyvalente des Sources high school sucks because they had an albino teacher that would pretend to be a vibrator - would that be enough to have someone suspended? 
People in a position of authority tend to look outward to place blame on others instead of having conviction. The school milieu is an insular incestuous world that should get over it.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Keep in mind that libel and slander are different in the French-speaking 'milieu' than they are in other parts of the country/world.

Facebook isn't answerable to the school, though; although it probably would delete the comments, since they don't want bad publicity ruining their billion $$ venture capital project.

The children *are* answerable to the school, wherever they go and whatever they do, if they inflict harm on people in the school.

Cyberbullying, whether about a student or a teacher, should be--and is--met with zero tolerance.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Facebook isn't answerable to the school, though; although it probably would delete the comments, since they don't want bad publicity ruining their billion $$ venture capital project.
> 
> The children *are* answerable to the school, wherever they go and whatever they do, if they inflict harm on people in the school.


Children are not answerable to the school 24/7 - The school should not be policing kids outside of school hours.

If the comments did cross the line into slander, then there are legal ways to deal with it. What seemed to happen here is that the school board decided to act as judge and jury beyond normal bounds...

Some teachers may not like what is written about them in social networking web sites when it's negative but they are rather quick to point out when they have a positive review. Why even bother? Maybe Dr. G could explain this....


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

A school as you say really should not be policing outside school hours with exception to where it pertains directly to school. This case does.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I don't think people understand that students at all levels these days sign a code of conduct or enter into an agreement in the act of registration that specifically precludes this kind of bullying. They are either fully aware of what they are doing, or too stupid to know the difference--which has its own consequences.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Some teachers may not like what is written about them in social networking web sites when it's negative but they are rather quick to point out when they have a positive review. Why even bother? Maybe Dr. G could explain this...." AS, a few of our profs have been hammered in their ratings on ratemyprofessors.com. Our union takes the view that these ratings can never be discussed or used in any Promotion & Tenure Committee meetings, be they positive or negative. I find that the ratings I have received confirm what I am trying to do in my 7 web courses, but more importantly, the comments that are negative give me some important feedback. Most of this feedback is helpful, in that I get an overwhelming positive response to the benefits of my coming on morning, noon and night, seven days a week. The negative responses were mainly about the amount of work, which I have adjusted over the course of my 10 years of being a teleprofessor. 

My only concern with the ratemyprofessors.com website is the "hotness" number. I am not the "hottest" prof at MUN, which is a joke since I am not "hot" and I have taught online only for the past three years.

Still, I have read the comments posted by students about other profs here at MUN and some of them have been cutting. I think that if a prof is getting torn apart semester after semester by a large number of students that this is an indication of something that might be addressed by the prof him/herself.

I have been rated by 295 undergrad and grad students. In the period of time that ratemyprofessors.com has been in existence, this represents about 20% of the total number of students I have taught in this time period. So, it is a good indication of some of the views of these students, at least in my opinion.

I have not gotten any truly damaging postings, as have some profs, but this has become an issue with our Faculty union. Luckily, there is a moderator who can delete a posting if a prof can prove that it is unfair or damaging.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I don't think people understand that students at all levels these days sign a code of conduct or enter into an agreement in the act of registration that specifically precludes this kind of bullying.


That's a valid approach with a private school where there is a choice in transaction. There is no choice for public school students in either going to school or where they do go in the public system.
So what would happen if they refused to sign - they still have to go to school by law.

You are also taking a very wide swathe on the term "bullying".
Criticism is not equated with bullying.

The schools are staking out adminstrative turf far beyond their mandate in my mind.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The schools are staking out adminstrative turf far beyond their mandate in my mind." Good point, MacDoc, in that I feel that most school administrators would rather not have to make these sorts of decisions.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> There is no choice for public school students in either going to school or where they do go in the public system.
> So what would happen if they refused to sign - they still have to go to school by law.


Sorry MacDoc, you are incorrect.

By law, children must be educated. There is nothing stating that this must be done at a public (or private) school.

If you don't want your kids to adhere to a school's code of conduct, home-school them.



RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> A school as you say really should not be policing outside school hours with exception to where it pertains directly to school. This case does.


Why not? Teachers are held to a standard, and their "outside work hours, off school property" behavior can have a direct impact on their employment. Even though their extracurricular activities may have absolutely no impact on their ability to do their job, teachers are still affected by their outside lives. So too should students.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm going to say this again: I don't think you have read the news article to which you linked. Since you started this thread, I think that's kind of forgetful (to use a nice word).

Here is the offensive part:


CTV said:


> Last December, his son wrote a message to friends on Facebook.com joking that he saw his science teacher masturbating in class.


Now, CTV uses the word "joking" as a description of the intent of the publicly viewable Facebook comment. That could be true, or the Star could be repeating something the student or father said.

It doesn't matter if it was a joke. It's inappropriate. I'm pretty sure if someone wrote that they went to your place of business, looked in and saw you masturbating, you'd be pretty quick in trying to get that comment deleted. If you found out it hurt your busines and/or your professional standing, you might even be taking legal action--if you weren't so 'forgetful,' perhaps.






MacDoc said:


> That's a valid approach with a private school where there is a choice in transaction. There is no choice for public school students in either going to school or where they do go in the public system.
> So what would happen if they refused to sign - they still have to go to school by law.
> 
> You are also taking a very wide swathe on the term "bullying".
> ...


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

> That's a valid approach with a private school where there is a choice in transaction. There is no choice for public school students in either going to school or where they do go in the public system.


This is not quite accurate in Ontario. North Bay has three English public high schools, as well as one English Catholic, and two French (public and Catholic) high schools. All students, language barriers aside, can choose to go to any high school, space permitting. And many do choose to go to a school out of their "normal" school's boundaries for special courses, programs, athletics, and "reputation."

I understand similar choice is available elsewhere, especially Toronto, where there is more than one high school.



> Criticism is not equated with bullying.


Talking about teachers masturbating and giving lessons in masturbation is not criticism.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Choice is not the case in many communities.

Criticism is not bullying...you are speaking of a specific instance I am speaking of the general principal.

Your specific instance is humour....whether you approve of it or not. Scatological humour is the norm in certain age brackets.

Respect is earned....not automatically forthcoming.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

> Choice is not the case in many communities.


Yes, I acknowledged that, also that in Thornhill, a part of the GTA, I doubt that is the case.



> Your specific instance is humour....whether you approve of it or not. Scatological humour is the norm in certain age brackets.


Until the entire comment and context are presented, there is only the youth's word he meant to be funny, and not spiteful.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Did you read what he wrote?? If you couldn't see the irony and references you haven't been hanging around teens much......especially given the instruction set for the project.

Joyce would be roling with laughter.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Enlighten me. The news stories I saw only had paraphrases.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Did you read what he wrote?? If you couldn't see the irony and references you haven't been hanging around teens much......especially given the instruction set for the project.
> 
> Joyce would be roling with laughter.


Got my threads mixed up tho there are similar principles in play which is overstepping school powers.

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/52106-student-arrested-writing.html#post544972


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

> "Doesn't the policy on proper use of the internet count as a warning?"


Uhm. If this was posted from a school computer, which i doubt it was, the school has nothing. What Policy are you referring to? And prove that the remarks were posted from a school computer. Are you saying that I'm held responsible for something i read and agreed to in school three years after the fact, when i don't attend that school anymore? Or closer to the discussion, a piece of paper is probably posted somewhere in a computer lab that probably doesn't say anything about punishment of taking away school trips. 



guytoronto said:


> Let's try this exercise. I'm going to write something in a book on my desk here about you. I'm going to tell it to a few friends this afternoon. Now, I'm going to post it in this thread.
> 
> "Makr plays with himself in public."
> 
> Now, which one has significantly more impact?


Neither. Who believed a word guytoronto just typed? And this site is significantly more public than facebook groups.




The internet doesn't matter. No one knows if you're a human, or a chimp or a banana or a toothbrush. It was the way that my high school drilled net security and privacy into us to ward against giving out private info.

It's fairly easy to sign up on facebook as someone else. Or create an entire persona on the interweb for that matter. 

Without going into ip logs or whatever way it is to figure when sites were accessed or whatever the school can't technically prove that ten people or whatever actually exist. Right now, they are assuming that these kids on the web correspond to the same kids who go to their school. 


Yes, I think what was said was innappropriate and should not of been posted but It's still the parents responsibility to punish the children for their actions.


----------



## teknikz (Nov 20, 2006)

Makr;545031
The internet doesn't matter. No one knows if you're a human said:


> Co-Sign


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Interesting little bit on CBC's The Current this morning about the incident.

According to a spokesman for the secondary school teachers' union under recent amendments to Ontario's Education Act/Safe School Act, a school has the right to exercise discipline in circumstances outside the school that affects the school's climate.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

It's the internet. There is no privacy on the internet, and people need to start understanding this or STFU!! (oops... can I take that back?  )

But seriously folks, it might appear overzealous of the Board to do this, but there's every chance that such a statement like that from a student could _easily_ be misconstrued by someone and before you know it you got a teacher suspended with pay while a false accusation of misconduct is investigated. Now, I'm not saying that could have happened in THIS instance, but **** can really spin or build -- or more slanderous comments could be posted about this or any teacher if such misbehaviour by students is condoned. Some may say that this is a slippery slope on freedom of speech, but it's JUST as slippery on the other side of the hill... er... coin... whatever. 

And besides; it's SLANDER. Period! IMHO, if a person is of or beyond the age of puberty (forget 16), then they must answer for what they say -- or LEARN that they must answer for what they say. Unfortunately, they also have to learn that "sorry" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. it's not THE magic word.

As far as why the school reacted given it's the internet and not "at school", this was cyber-slander. As the boards try to catch up with how technology is used for cyber bullying, this is no diffferent. And again there IS NO PRIVACY on the internet. You go for a job interview, chances are that A SMART headhunter will Google your name but good.

We want a free and open internet?? (which it should be -- although I would support a ".xxx" domain) Use it responsibly! No diffrerent than the expression of free speech, anywhere.


----------

