jaco;1522292 wrote:It doesn't really matter how the school board defines "bullying". What matters is how the courts define the First Amendment. Friedman is a darn fine attorney. He's going to have the superintendent for lunch. And even being sympathetic to the administration, I don't see how this is defined internally as "bullying". It was an expressive piece, and the kid expressed frustration with football and perceived favoritism. Unless the kid was in the room or mentioned by name, I don't see bullying or intimidation. I'd bet 90% of these poems dealt with how much high school life sucks for teenagers. How would this be any different from a kid who expressed frustration that he gets B's while the "teacher's pet" gets A's? Is that bullying of the teacher's pet? By this standard it would be. This is why administrators really need to talk to lawyers before doing stupid stuff like suspending a kid for four days because he completed a homework assignment.
I completely agree.
The more I think about this case, the more the administration far oversteps their bounds. Bullying, though it should be discouraged, does not trump free speech from a legal rights standpoint, and censorship is not the solution to bullying, even if this piece WERE an example of bullying.
Taken to its ultimate conclusion, one could use the exact same logic to say that those public speakers who speak out against government action or inaction could be said to be bullying. I think dominance, real or perceived, need to come into play in the discussion of bullying, particularly in schools.
Censorship, however, should not come into play, and legally cannot come into play.
pdracer;1522302 wrote:This is the definition of bullying taken directly from StopBullying.gov:
Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. Thebehavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.
In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive and include:
- An Imbalance of Power: Kids who bully use their power—such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, or popularity—to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people.
- Repetition: Bullying behaviors happen more than once or have the potential to happen more than once.
The power imbalance is in the favor of the supposed victim in this case. The victim was not present, it was not a repeated action and according to what I was told, the teacher gave this kid a good grade on the assignment.
The head coach/AD/ Dean of students was offended, I get it. But this is a little overboard. I have talked to a number of administrators, not board members, but principals and vice principals, from around the area and you are the first that has agreed with this. Bench him for the year, maybe, but a suspension and KICKED off the team, sounds a little excessive for doing what was asked to do.
If in fact this paper was graded, and if, as I have been told, this was allowed to be read in class even after the teacher new about the content, wouldn't that teacher be responsible for allowing this "Hazing and Harassment" to take place? Any discipline on that end?
Regardless, it's another black eye for the Rittman football team and one more thing to add to a horrible Senior year for yet another group of football players. I feel bad for all those kids and hope they get what they deserve next year.
WCALfootballfan;1522365 wrote:Good post, to me it seems like the Kid that wrote the poem is being bullied.
Yet another point worth mentioning. Should someone being bullied not be permitted to respond? Talk about mean-spirited.
BRF;1522381 wrote:Interesting that the DR didn't have a story on this today.
I'm betting they don't want to be associated with the quagmire this has become in any way.
