Here Comes the Judge! Part II

1. Student sues university for dismissing her from an educational program because she, against the direction of her supervisors, advertised her social networking page to her students. On the page she posted photos of herself in an intoxicated state and she made disparaging remarks about her cooperating teacher. Does the student have recourse against the university for dismissal? Should the student be re-instated? Why or why not?
Judgement: No recourse for the student. Academia can be a harsh and binding world, but it is necessary for the research that stems from this discipline. It seems as if she is a TA. If this is the case, than she should be professional and dignified when representing an academic department. This behavior of blogging about teachers and of her intoxicated in pictures makes both her and the department look bad. Even though the her removal from the program was harsh, it was probably done to make an example of her.


2. The school elected to non-renew a teacher’s contract because the male teacher, who had a social networking profile that included photos of naked men, engaged in non-school related conversations with his students via the profile. After being advised to discontinue the practice, the teacher deactivated the profile and substituted an essentially similar one. The teacher sued for violations of his first amendment rights of speech and association. Did the teacher prevail in his suit? Why or why not?
Judgement: No recourse. The teacher went against what the school wanted of him. By creating a similar profile, he has undermined the school. Also, he is a liabilty to the school because some young and possible homosexual students could reach out to him the wrong way. I feel that the First Amendeent gives him freedom to talk to whomever he wants to, but if they are underage and are his students, than he should be respectful of his position as a teacher and discontinue online communication outside of school.

3. A student disciplined for creating a parody site of the high school principal on a social networking site sued the school and the administrators as individuals for violating the student’s first amendment rights. The student had created the site on his own away from school, but used the principal’s photo from the school’s web page. Who do you sympathize with the student or the principal? Why?
Judgement: No recourse for the student. First of all, the photo of the principal is property of the school/website. Even though the kid was having fun, he pulled the school and a man who represents the school into the picture. Depending upon the parody, this could be taken as defamation of character to the principal. The kid probably thought he was col and funny for this, but he should be punished and made an example of to other students.