High school cheerleaders sue Missouri school over discipline

[proud2BlibKansan]

SENECA | Two cheerleaders have sued a southwest Missouri high school district after being removed from the squad over alleged cyber-bullying.

The cheerleaders filed a federal lawsuit against the Seneca school district, seven school board members, Superintendent Rick Cook and principal Tosha Fox. They are seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages.

The cheerleaders, who are not identified in the lawsuit, alleges their constitutional rights were violated when they were taken off the squad. The Newton County Sheriff's Department investigated the allegations of cyber-bullying and no charges were filed.

Both plaintiffs also claim they have suffered from alienation from fellow students and cheerleaders.

The district's attorney, Tom Mickes, told The Joplin Globe that several court rulings have found that extracurricular activities are not protected by the Constitution.



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/12/28/2546146/high-school-cheerleaders-sue-missouri.html#ixzz19Vp697Ac

[baldguy]

1. You don't have a Constitutional right to be a cheerleader.

And the school has every right to set standards of behavior for students to participate in extracurricular activities.

[Robyn66]

2. Oh well

sucks to be them. Poor wittle cheerleaders. Hope they lose and have to pay court costs.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[surrealAmerican]

3. Even if they're not actually guilty of cyber-bulling ...

... they ought to be off the squad for their failure to understand what a "constitutional right" is. How could they possibly be passing social studies without knowing what's in the constitution?

[jody]

7. Please list one or more "constitutional rights". n/t

[baldguy]

8. People get elected to Congress not knowing what's in the Constitution.

There's a whole political movement based on people not knowing - and a major party promotes & capitalizes on people not knowing.

[Zebedeo]

13. The right of free speech

Apparently their argument is that they were punished for their speech. It's the freedom of speech that is the constitutional right, not the cheerleading gig.

[surrealAmerican]

17. Nobody stopped them from speaking...

... or in any way limited what they could say. They were only dropped from an extra-curricular activity. The school is allowed to set conditions for participation in extra-curricular activities.

If they were jailed for what they said, that would be a different story.

[Zebedeo]

18. Their argument is that the government retaliated against them

for the content of their speech by taking away their extracurricular activity. Suppose that you spoke out against Pres. Bush and the Bush administration then retaliated against you by revoking your privilege to travel outside the country. Would you consider that fine and dandy, because traveling outside the country is not a constitutional right? After all (according to your reasoning), no one has stopped you from speaking out against Pres. Bush or in any way limited what you could say. You just were dropped from a privilege that other people have.

[Posteritatis]

20. Are you seriously comparing school bullying to political speech? (nt)

[surrealAmerican]

21. That's quite a pair of false equivalencies there:

There is a very big difference between the liberty to travel, and one's membership in a school club...

... as big a difference, perhaps, as the difference between criticizing the government and writing nasty things about your classmates.

[Zebedeo]

23. OK, since you still don't understand . . .

Supppose you write a letter to the editor complaining about your neighbors having noisy barking dogs. One of the neighbors is the city mayor, and in a few days you receive a notice in the mail informing you that because of your letter, you are forever banned from participating in any of the city recreational league sports or adult education classes.

Would this be fine with you? After all, no one has stopped you from writing LTTE or in any way limited what you could say, and participating in city rec league sports and adult ed classes is not a constitutional right.

[surrealAmerican]

24. It isn't that I don't understand the point you are trying to make ...

... it's that there is a matter of degree here which you are not taking into account.

The "speech" that the children were engaged in was not political in nature.
The "privilege" revoked was one that is typically viewed as being provisional.
The "government entity", being a school, has a mission to actually educate these children.


These are NOT minor points.

[Zebedeo]

31. But

1. Apolitical speech is protected under the Constitution. Indeed, the speech in my hypothetical about you complaining about your neighbors is as apolitical as the "cyberbullying" in the OP.
2. Provisional privileges like driving on government roads? OK, change my hypothetical to "the mayor issues a decree taking away your right to drive on city streets."
3. Government entities always have missions. In my hypothetical, the city has a mission of governing its citizens. So? Why should that empower the government to violate the Constitutional rights of an individual?

I think you may have been influenced in this instance by the use of the term "cyber-bullying." That term may have been used to marginalize and trivialize the speech at issue. Suppose in my hypothetical that your complaining about your neighbors in a LTTE is deemed by the mayor to be "hate speech." Does attaching this pejorative to your speech empower the government to punish you for it?

[Bandit]

26. Suppose a student wrote something public that was historically incorrect

In fact just plain wrong in every detail and the school decide to suspend them from extracurricular activities. Is that taking away their right to Free Speech? It is the purpose of Education to Educate and when a student blatantly displays a complete lack of that are you suggesting the school has no authority to restrict that student until they understand the basics that had been taught?

[Zebedeo]

32. That's not at all what went on here.

I see no indication that anyone from the school is claiming that the school district suspended the students from extracurricular activities in order to better educate them in the academic curriculum. Instead, the suspension from extracurricular activities was clearly to punish them for the content of their speech. This raises a huge red flag, since this is a government school and the government has made attendance at school compulsory. By requiring attendance at school, and also restricting what those citizens attending school are permitted to say outside of school, the government has effectively restricted what certain citizens are permitted to say. That is Constitutionally suspect.

[Zebedeo]

33. That's not at all what went on here.

I see no indication that anyone from the school is claiming that the school district suspended the students from extracurricular activities in order to better educate them in the academic curriculum. Instead, the suspension from extracurricular activities was clearly to punish them for the content of their speech. This raises a huge red flag, since this is a government school and the government has made attendance at school compulsory. By requiring attendance at school, and also restricting what those citizens attending school are permitted to say outside of school, the government has effectively restricted what certain citizens are permitted to say. That is Constitutionally suspect.

[NashVegas]

34. If You Dig Around For It

The speech in question was, apparently, indirectly threatening the life of another girl.

[Zebedeo]

35. If the government can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt

to a jury of their peers, then the government can punish such speech under the criminal laws prohibiting terroristic threats. Absent such proof, the government should not be able to retaliate against a citizen for the content of her speech. It's unconstitutional and it can have a chilling effect on future speech by these citizens or on speech by other citizens.

[NashVegas]

36. Right

[Bunny]

4. If they're guilty of cyber-bullying, then I applaud the school's actions.

It's time for kids to learn that bullying behavior has consequences. If they're guilty, I hope the girls suffer lots more alienation - they deserve it.

[Arkansas Granny]

12. And if they are not guilty?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Its not clear the school can punish for off campus activities

Lots of precedent that supports that they can not. Think underground newspapers in the 60s.

[RayOfHope]

15. They can and did this summer with players hazing at a football camp.

Albeit indirectly--what these football players did violated MSHSAA (state high school activities association) guidelines, and as a result the players were kicked off the team.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Summer Camp would have been school sponsored or related

which gives the school jurisdiction.

The real precedent is off campus publications and websites, where according to long standing precedent the schools can not retaliate against. For example, if a student creates or participates in a <$MYSCHOOL>Sucks.com website, there can not be official repercussions on campus. Same with an underground newspaper.

[RayOfHope]

22. Camp was offsite at a nearby college, it was voluntary, and the boys paid their own way

I say it was indirectly related because the boys were kicked off the team because criminal charges were brought against them, and MSHAA guidelines state a player is ineligible because of this.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Was it a team camp or an independent one? Did school coaches run it?

Those are the kind of things that give the school purview.

I have a real problem with schools asserting long arm authority. They should have no power beyond school events. The claim that in "has on campus impacts" is specious...so does gravity and the weather and they have no say over that either.

What brought this home to me was when one of my daughters was set up for an off campus beat down a 4 on 1 kind of thing. However, she ended up pummeling all of them. There was never any doubt it was self defense, a deputy witnessed it as he drove up and the perps freely admitted it. School counselor wanted to suspend her for fighting claiming that it had an "on campus impact". We won that one. The next year the staff was interrogating students about an off campus website that was critical of the school staff and administration. Their position was anyone identified as participating would be suspended. Again they cited "on campus impact".

I have no problems with reacting to police charges etc, but on their own, their authority should stop at the school gate

[RayOfHope]

28. It had to do with MSHSAA regulations

the kids could have been convicted of shoplifting, minor in possession of alcohol, getting into a fight on the town square, etc. Its not so much the 'where' and 'who sponsored'. If kids do something illegal and are convicted (at least in MO), they are ineligible for sports, per MSHSAA guidelines. The schools must follow those guidelines.

I agree about your daughter.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. I have seen such rules disputed for having a disproportionate impact on some groups

However, normally they hold up

Looking back at it, my daughter's case was almost amusing though it did not seem that way at the time. The school counselor defended her position saying that since the other kids were not in school it was only fair that my daughter should not be too. She took my disagreement personally saying I was disrespecting her by insisting the law be followed. She was incredulous when I told her that I was still planning on filing charges if things did not get worked out to our satisfaction.

The ringleader's mother claimed that it was my daughter had a responsibility to take the beat down since now her daughter had low self esteem and was now too ashamed to come to school since she had been dissed twice. Another parent saying similar things about how she should have known she had to submit since she was new in school. My wife's responses were fairly choice. I was the only non female in the room...I know when to hide in the corner.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Straight Story]

10. Better punishment - I will spank them for the school

:evilgrin:

[Arkansas Granny]

11. It's not clear from the article if bullying actually took place or not, just

that it was investigated and no charges were filed. If nothing was proven against them, then I would have to say that kicking them off the squad was probably unfair, even if it didn't actually violate their constitutional rights.

Just a side note. this really caught my eye since I graduated from this high school.

[Nikia]

30. Just because criminal charges weren't filed doesn't mean it didn't happen

Or that the offenders can't be disciplined. For example, when there is physical violence between students, sometimes the offendes receive in school discipline rather than facing criminal charges (or at least they did).
Another thought that I had was that perhaps they weren't alienated because they were kicked off the squad. Maybe they were alienated because their actions became public knowledge. If their peers thought that it was unfair that they were kicked out, they wouldn't have been so alienated.

[RayOfHope]

14. I live pretty close to this town. This summer they had problems with football players and hazing

It sounds like they learned from that and are really trying to keep tabs on any bullying situations.

[Posteritatis]

16. I'm comfortable with bullies suffering alienation because of their actions. (nt)

[siligut]

25. It's high school

Giving credence to this? What's next? Giving uzis to five year olds?