Schools vs. Freedom of Expression

[Gary Childress]

I think some school administrators are on a power trip and get a little carried away with disciplining students. I remember a while back when a young boy was accused of "sexual harassment" for kissing one of his female classmates. Turned out she had asked him to. Now schools are trying to regulate behavior on social media off of school grounds by punishing a cheerleader for expressing her frustration for not making the varsity squad or something like that.

Shouldn't freedom of expression be upheld for our children as an example for their own maturation?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-che ... d=msedgdhp

[Immanuel Can]

Shouldn't freedom of expression be upheld for our children as an example for their own maturation?

Yes, but gradually, not instantaneously.

Something children look to their parents and other adults to provide is direction as to how their "expressions" are appropriate to socialization needs. So, for example, a two-year-old who throws hissy fits may be "expressing herself," but anybody who loves her will encourage her to "express" her frustrations differently than she is doing, and gradually show her that less self-centred "expressing" can win her friends and prevent her offending those she would wish to impress. If a parent does not provide such direction, the child grows up what we call "spoiled," meaning "lacking in the self-control measures that enable her to negotiate the grown world better."

So "freedom of expression" is an adult right, in specific. Like "freedom of movement" or "freedom of choice," we don't grant it to toddlers. So then, the question becomes, "At what stage in acquiring a full right to freedom of expression is, say, a 14 year old?" Or "At what stage is a 16 or 18 year old?" No doubt at some point, perhaps, say, 19 a full adult right to freedom of expression is developmentally appropriate, even if the 19 year old chooses to use that freedom in ways we don't happen to like. For adults, there is no stipulation that they can only "express" what others want or prefer them to "express."

But it's not an absolute right for children; and to give them that full right too early is not an act of kindness...it's an abandonment of the parental duty to help the child learn how to control her own expression for her own best interests, and in the interest of her getting to adult goals she may later choose.

[Gary Childress]

Shouldn't freedom of expression be upheld for our children as an example for their own maturation?

Yes, but gradually, not instantaneously.

Something children look to their parents and other adults to provide is direction as to how their "expressions" are appropriate to socialization needs. So, for example, a two-year-old who throws hissy fits may be "expressing herself," but anybody who loves her will encourage her to "express" her frustrations differently than she is doing, and gradually show her that less self-centred "expressing" can win her friends and prevent her offending those she would wish to impress. If a parent does not provide such direction, the child grows up what we call "spoiled," meaning "lacking in the self-control measures that enable her to negotiate the grown world better."

So "freedom of expression" is an adult right, in specific. Like "freedom of movement" or "freedom of choice," we don't grant it to toddlers. So then, the question becomes, "At what stage in acquiring a full right to freedom of expression is, say, a 14 year old?" Or "At what stage is a 16 or 18 year old?" No doubt at some point, perhaps, say, 19 a full adult right to freedom of expression is developmentally appropriate, even if the 19 year old chooses to use that freedom in ways we don't happen to like. For adults, there is no stipulation that they can only "express" what others want or prefer them to "express."

But it's not an absolute right for children; and to give them that full right too early is not an act of kindness...it's an abandonment of the parental duty to help the child learn how to control her own expression for her own best interests, and in the interest of her getting to adult goals she may later choose.

So are you in favor of schools punishing children for posting things on Social media off of school grounds? I had thought that was the job of parents.

[henry quirk]

yeah, my kid's freedom of expression is regulated by me...he knows this, his school knows this

already have had some rather direct conversations with teachers and the principal: about the content of some his school work (nah, you people ain't indoctrinatin' him cuz that's my job) and the content of some of his assignments (yeah, not only do I approve of his essay, I helped him revise & edit it)

parents need to stop pussin' out when it comes to school...most educators are soft & spineless: push back, they'll fold

[henry quirk]

yeah, my kid's freedom of expression is regulated by me...he knows this, his school knows this

already have had some rather direct conversations with teachers and the principal: about the content of some his school work (nah, you people ain't indoctrinatin' him cuz that's my job) and the content of some of his assignments (yeah, not only do I approve of his essay, I helped him revise & edit it)

parents need to stop pussin' out when it comes to school...most educators are soft & spineless: push back, they'll fold

and, no, kids don't get to just freely express themselves without repercussion

I tell mine all the time: just cuz you have sumthin' on your mind doesn't mean it ought to fall out of your mouth

[Immanuel Can]

So are you in favor of schools punishing children for posting things on Social media off of school grounds? I had thought that was the job of parents.

I was not speaking of the specific case you mentioned: only of the general principle you asked about.

But since you've raised the specific question of this grade 9 girl (aged around 15, obviously), it makes the point nicely: you have a young woman making a very bad public decision about how to "express" herself. Clearly she has a very child-level grasp of the consequences of such "expressions." So her parents have been failing at that, and now need to step up. They're manifestly not raising her with an appropriate sense of how to use "expression," particularly in public. So you're right about the parents being responsible for dealing with the situation.

As for the school, if the parents have delegated some of their role to the school, in that they commit their daughter to the school's care for several hours every day, then how do they expect the school to act? Would they be happy with the school if their daughter was, say, using drugs, stealing, abusing other children or acting dangerously to herself, and when the parents found out the school knew about it, the school were to say, "Well, we're not the parents; we have no role in correcting or protecting your child from her decisions; that's your job"? Or would they say, "We sent her to you, and she's your responsibility; we expect you to act in our place when our daughter is in your care; and that includes you not indulging her in stupid and self-destructive choices"?

The kid did stupid stuff that had an impact on others in the school and beyond it. The most important thing is that the kid learns that it was stupid stuff that she did, so she does not become the kind of adult who can't control herself in her own best interests. Does the school have a role to play? Well what do you think, Gary?

[Gary Childress]

The kid did stupid stuff that had an impact on others in the school and beyond it. The most important thing is that the kid learns that it was stupid stuff that she did, so she does not become the kind of adult who can't control herself in her own best interests. Does the school have a role to play? Well what do you think, Gary?

If it's off school grounds, and something relatively trivial like cursing or flipping the bird on Social media, then I assume it's an issue for the parents and maybe her friends. If she breaks the law and does something destructive, then sure, authorities should get involved.

[Immanuel Can]

If it's off school grounds, and something relatively trivial like cursing or flipping the bird on Social media...

Are those "trivial"? Or are they indicators of a lack of self-awareness and responsibility that might plausibly transfer to other areas of her judgment?

Clearly her parents have not taught her the values of respecting others and being civil, or else she has failed to internalize those lessons. But it was also the student who pulled the school, the team, and others into her comments. And I don't think it's a bad lesson for her to learn, that other people don't like it when you show you're a sore loser, or when you abuse them in front of others.

Another thing she can consider is that her personal freedom of expression is weighed off against the freedoms others have to react to her bad behaviour as they see appropriate. They also are free, so she should weigh her own freedom carefully, and use it circumspectly. All to the good, if she learns it.

Consequences. That's what's not being taught to that generation. And it's the lesson they most need.

[Nick_A]

This reminds me of the old debate on school uniforms. This 14 year old girl has attractive legs so why shouldn't she show them in school wearing a mini? She argues that the uniform deprives her of freedom of expression.

Is the purpose of school to learn something or to prove what you don't know? If the school doesn't know what to teach, maybe the 14 year old girl has the right idea; sell it while you've got it.

[Gary Childress]

If it's off school grounds, and something relatively trivial like cursing or flipping the bird on Social media...

Are those "trivial"? Or are they indicators of a lack of self-awareness and responsibility that might plausibly transfer to other areas of her judgment?

You never cursed or flipped the bird as a kid? You must be quite the saint.

[Immanuel Can]

You never cursed or flipped the bird as a kid? You must be quite the saint.

I'm not singling her out. What she did would be stupid no matter who did it.

Common sense says that anybody who flips the bird at somebody should be ready to fight. If they're not, they should keep their hands at their sides. And anybody who curses should expect to be visited with consequences of their speech action, as expressed in objection and resentment from the people whose ears they assault with it. If they're not ready to accept that, they should hold their tongue. That's maturity. That's responsibility.

And that's the point...actions have consequences. Kids need to learn that lesson, and parents who hide that fact from their children do their children no favours in the long term. They grow up thinking they can say or do anything without having to answer for it...and that does not make them successful adults.

Today, all students in public schools are taught not to abuse social media, and in particular, not to use it to abuse other people. And the girl knew what she was about to do was hurtful; that is, in fact, exactly why she did it. So she knew it was wrong. She didn't just say a naughty word or make a random gesture to somebody privately. She posted a direct attack against the school and her classmates, using social media. That's cyberbullying, by any definition. (And stupidity too, of course.) So she did something she knew was wrong, and left a permanent record of it.

Now, ideally, the parents ought to deal with it; but since they don't seem to be doing that, the school has a duty to protect all students and teachers from slander and abuse. So they have a right to react appropriately, imposing consequences where consequences are due. That's a very good lesson for the girl to learn, and a good lesson-by-example for others, as well.

[Gary Childress]

You never cursed or flipped the bird as a kid? You must be quite the saint.

I'm not singling her out. What she did would be stupid no matter who did it.

Common sense says that anybody who flips the bird at somebody should be ready to fight. If they're not, they should keep their hands at their sides. And anybody who curses should expect to be visited with consequences of their speech action, as expressed in objection and resentment from the people whose ears they assault with it. If they're not ready to accept that, they should hold their tongue. That's maturity. That's responsibility.

And that's the point...actions have consequences. Kids need to learn that lesson, and parents who hide that fact from their children do their children no favours in the long term. They grow up thinking they can say or do anything without having to answer for it...and that does not make them successful adults.

Today, all students in public schools are taught not to abuse social media, and in particular, not to use it to abuse other people. And the girl knew what she was about to do was hurtful; that is, in fact, exactly why she did it. So she knew it was wrong. She didn't just say a naughty word or make a random gesture to somebody privately. She posted a direct attack against the school and her classmates, using social media. That's cyberbullying, by any definition. (And stupidity too, of course.) So she did something she knew was wrong, and left a permanent record of it.

Now, ideally, the parents ought to deal with it; but since they don't seem to be doing that, the school has a duty to protect all students and teachers from slander and abuse. So they have a right to react appropriately, imposing consequences where consequences are due. That's a very good lesson for the girl to learn, and a good lesson-by-example for others, as well.

Yes, there are consequences to such actions. Parents and peers respond as they see fit. Those are consequences. However, if you want authorities to step in over someone flipping the bird and cursing on social media then that seems like overreach and overkill to me. Talk about "nanny states"... Would you also like "woke" authorities and school officials sanctioning kids for "racism", "misogyny", "misanthropy" or "microaggressions" on social media? Wow! So much for "land of the free".

[Immanuel Can]

However, if you want authorities to step in over someone flipping the bird and cursing on social media then that seems like overreach and overkill to me.

Gary, please...I did not talk about "authorities" stepping in, far less "the State." Something much more natural and appropriate than that happened in the case you list: the school she insulted returned consequences to her, and her peers were protected from her venom. "The State" was not alerted, nor did policemen appear to arrest the girl. What she did, she did in public, and to particular persons and the institution of which she was a legitimate ward for several hours a day. That's the beginning and end of it.

And that's how it actually goes in real life. If you walk up to somebody and give them the finger, expect a punch, or at least a finger back. If you insult your employer to the public, expect to get the sack. That's reality.

So enough with all the horrified hyperbole. Let's keep this attached to the facts, and keep it focused on what actually happened and on what I actually said.

[Gary Childress]

However, if you want authorities to step in over someone flipping the bird and cursing on social media then that seems like overreach and overkill to me.

Gary, please...I did not talk about "authorities" stepping in, far less "the State." Something much more natural and appropriate than that happened in the case you list: the school she insulted returned consequences to her, and her peers were protected from her venom. "The State" was not alerted, nor did policemen appear to arrest the girl. What she did, she did in public, and to particular persons and the institution of which she was a legitimate ward for several hours a day. That's the beginning and end of it.

And that's how it actually goes in real life. If you walk up to somebody and give them the finger, expect a punch, or at least a finger back. If you insult your employer to the public, expect to get the sack. That's reality.

So enough with all the horrified hyperbole. Let's keep this attached to the facts, and keep it focused on what actually happened and on what I actually said.

Unless it was a private school, then it's a state agency and therefore a component of the state. "Authorities" applies to any state worker acting in an official capacity.

[Immanuel Can]

Unless it was a private school, then it's a state agency and therefore a component of the state.

Totally incidental.

Whether the school was funded privately or by the State, she could -- and should -- expect that exactly the same thing would have happened. It was the reasonable response to her folly, whether by her peers, by some private institution, by an employer, or by a public school. She got exactly what she was sucking around to get.

Think of it this way, Gary. If I were to insult you, would you have a right to react? And if I were your coworker and publicly defamed our employer, would he have a right to penalize me or even fire me? And if you did react, or I did get sanctioned or fired, would I have any justification in whining that I was being treated unfairly? No. I called for it, and I got it, right?

As for her parents, if they were good ones, then what they'd say to her is, "That'll larn ya, darlin'." And she would not do it again.