A Lancaster High School student in Ohio "was expelled from school earlier this year after school officials found a Web site that he created," according to NBC 4. An article in today's Lancaster Eagle-Gazette clarifies that Thomas Seifert was expelled for a Web site he "maintained off school grounds after school hours, and used no school resources." This appears to be an unbelievable -- and unconstitutional -- exertion of school authority. There's no claim that the school officials were threatened on the site; Seifert apparently just didn't like some of them and said so. The ACLU agrees, as the article notes:
[T]he ACLU of Ohio stated its belief that the Lancaster City Schools has no legal authority to punish Siefert for exercising what amounts to speech protected by the First Amendment.
Seifert's now-defunct site, which NBC 4 reported had some profanity on it in the comments section, "skewers various administrators and high school staff," according to Thursday's news release from the ACLU of Ohio. I would have to guess that if the school is going to defend this action it would be on the grounds that, in school or not, his actions were likely to cause a "material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline" during school hours, bringing this case within the restrictions of Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. From the information available, though, I don't think that argument would be particularly compelling.
Lancaster Schools Interim Supreintendent Dora Jean Bumgarner "would not discuss why Siefert was suspended" with NBC 4. The school board is to meet May 13 to consider Seifert's appeal of the expulsion. The ACLU has said that if the expulsion stands Seifert "Siefert will have the right to appeal to Fairfield County Commons Pleas Court," according to the article. As well he should. If a student can't run a personal Web site, maintained completely off school grounds, then what areas of non-school life exactly are exempt from school control?
In addition to Bumgarner, information to contact the school administrators and Board of Education members can be found here.
Thank you for the contact link. I'm going to use it.
It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant, of even the basic framework of 1st Amendment law, school administrators in this country are.
I think the problem is equally seated in ignorance and willful disregard. Either way, these violations are unacceptable - I've never understood the logic behind why students are afforded less rights.
Posted by: Greg at May 7, 2004 01:15 PMthey teach tinker in lawschool, but what they don't teach is that it's like chaplinsky - always distinguished never relied on. maybe that's an over statement. but i've seen a case (BAXTER V VIGO)which found tinker not well established enough to defeat qualified immunity.
McConnell, on the other hand, upheld kid's free speech rights and might apply here.
there ya go, fame.
Student's personal Web site causes Ohio high school to expel him: Chris Geidner provides details here at the "De Novo" blog.
posted at 10:37 by Howard Bashman
Thanks for the heads up. I'll definitely use that link too. :)
Posted by: Melissa at May 8, 2004 07:52 AMIt's hard to find anything telling what the site actually contained. If it had threats or libelous material, then maybe there is at least an issue here. As it stands though, it sounds like the school is completely in the wrong.
Posted by: Matto Ichiban at May 8, 2004 01:06 PMI agree that we'd have to see the actual contents of the site itself, rather than the media description of it, to truly judge whether there is a potential 1st Amendment violation.