Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Great Debate 2007 Cases

Some time ago, I made a reference to competing in the Great Debate, sponsored by the Clearwater Bar Association. More specifically, I promised that I'd public my cases subsequent to the debate taking place. Well, for all it is worth, Derrick and I did not win. We received high marks, though a 3-judge jury decided in a 2-1 ruling that a team from Lakewood won. It is interesting to note, however, that the jury generally agreed that we had a more through understanding of the topic. On the other hand, according to one of the lawyers in the jury, we "read too much from the paper." I do have to question why you'd look at something as technical as this rather than weighing the competency of one's argument (our presentation style as a whole was commendable), but, what can you do...we shall attempt next year. In the meantime, these the cases that I wrote (we had up to 4 minutes for each):

For those of you who don't remember, the resolution was as follows:

RESOLVED: The Florida Department of Education's mandate that school administrators should actively search information posted by students on MySpace, Facebook, and other social networking sites on the Internet for use as evidence in students' disciplinary proceedings is an impermissible invasion of privacy.

The following is my affirmative case, where I argued that the search is, in fact, an impermissible invasion of privacy:

“If schools spend as much time teaching as they spend telling parents how to parent, maybe we’d have smarter kids coming out.” It is because of our accord with the words of Kristin Larson, a concerned parent whose daughter was unrightfully removed from the school cheerleading team after posting derogatory statement about other cheerleaders on her blog that we stand in support of today’s resolution. We’ll begin our argument by addressing a crucial inadequacy of the resolution itself, demonstrating its impact on the course of debate to follow.

Let us begin with a discussion of the lack of restraint on the scope of information being sought by the school administrators. Though cases as Beussink v. Woodland School District have suggested that school authorities have the power to punish students for speech that materially and substantially disrupts school, even if the speech occurred on student’s private Internet account, several civil advocates have expressed concern for the escalating trend of schools seeking to punish students for offensive speech that criticizes the school administrators. According to Neal McCluskey, a policy analyst at the center for Educational Freedom, there is general concern that schools will extend their power to limit other types of off-campus speech. With several other examples available for corroboration, we point your attention to a Pittsburg high school, where a student was kicked off the volleyball team for an Internet message that criticized an art teacher.

Thus, because of (1) the lack of restraint of the scope of evidence being sought in the resolution itself and (2) the rising threat of the schools’ increasingly active involvement in students’ off-campus activity, we move onto our next point: the Tinker analysis.

As articulated by the Student Press Law Center in 2004, the Tinker v. Des Moines case is important to off-campus Internet speech for several reasons. First, Tinker's implied view of education was that schools should encourage the free exchange of ideas among students. Second, the Court imposed a significant burden on school officials to justify silencing student speech, despite officials' interest in maintaining full control and discipline over students while at school. Finally, Tinker's "schoolhouse gate" language largely has been interpreted to imply that administrative control of student speech does not begin until the student arrives at the school and ends as the student leaves. As the court argued, [T]he First Amendment forbids public school administrators and teachers from regulating the material to which a child is exposed after he leaves school each afternoon. As further articulated, “In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate.” Through the recognition of a student as a rational human being, it becomes indisputable that the society must continue to provide venues that allow students to express and develop creativity, rational objectivity, and freedom of thought, unrestricted by the collectivist tendencies of the U.S. public school system. The United States judicial system has upheld this view in milieu of the settling of 7 judicial disputes, 6 of which have ruled in favor of the student. In the case of Beussink v. Woodland School District, federal district court in Missouri ruled that the school officials violated Buessink’s First Amendment rights by suspending him for a website criticizing the school, teachers and administrators. In Emmett v. Kent School District, the court ruled that the school had crossed its constitutional boundaries by suspending the 18-year-old Nick Emmett for creating an Unofficial Kentlake High Home Page. In analyzing the results of these judicial conflicts, it becomes clear that in purporting to be acting in the interest of in loco parentis, school officials are clearly overstepping their constitutional boundaries when failing to recognize students as free, private citizens when outside the school gates. Because of these reasons we affirm.

Next is the negative case (it is not an impermissible violation):

The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences. It is because of our accord with the words of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that we stand in negation of today’s resolution. In presenting an array of several contentions corroborating our claim, we’ll begin with a resolution analysis.

Because the resolution encompasses a lack of restraint on the scope of information being sought, if affirmed, it can be well argued that the use of any information, whether offensive or one that may disrupt the school learning environment, constitutes an impermissible invasion of privacy. As our case will demonstrate, however, such an interpretation would entail several negative implications on the school environment and would undermine the fundamental principles of social interaction.

According to the First Amendment Center, “from a legal perspective, schools can restrict student speech in the name of safety if (1) they can reasonably forecast substantial disruption under the Tinker v. Des Moines standard, or (2) the student expression is a true threat. Because the basis of any free society is the pursuit of individual will, as long as others’ rights are not impeded upon, it is crucial that we look to the legal precedent exemplifying such a philosophical outlook. In the case of Lavine v. Blaine School District, the court ruled that the schools did not violate Lavine’s First Amendment rights when they temporarily expelled him on emergency basis for writing a poem that depicted violence from a first-person perspective, as the schools could have reasonably forecasted a “potential for substantial disruption”. As the court further noted, “Tinker does not require school officials to wait until disruption occurs before they may act.”

Let us look to the case of Beussink v. Woodland School District, in which the court ruled that school authorities have the power to punish students for speech that materially and substantially disrupts school, even if the speech occurred on student’s private Internet account. Because the failure to respond to these threats with prompt expediency may inevitably result in the undermining of the safe educational atmosphere within a school environment, encroaching upon the rights of others, it is clear that we must negate.

In the second area of analysis, as articulated by the Supreme Court, [T]he First Amendment forbids public school administrators and teachers from regulating the material to which a child is exposed after he leaves school each afternoon. The statement, having been made in 1979, requires modern day reconsideration. Because schools generally contain professionally-trained IT staff and law enforcement agencies specializing in teenage interaction, it can be argued that schools have the capacity needed to effectively dictate child’s Internet activity, especially if that activity conflicts with the school’s purpose of preserving a safe and suitable learning environment for all pupils alike. As contended by Jim White, director of information services at the Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation, “so we want the students to learn they have First Amendment rights, but there’s a responsibility that comes with that speech.” Because schools provide the venues necessary for creating an environment where students can develop a sense of personal responsibility, we can conclude that schools are the optimal players in regulating child’s off-campus Internet habits.

Having established the requirement of schools to adhere to their ascribed mission of preserving a safe learning environment, in conjunction with a thorough analysis of the school’s ability to act as an appropriate regulator of students’ off-campus Internet activity, we stand in negation.

Any feedback is fine. As mentioned, my posting frequency will be scarce throughout the next few weeks, given that I have to prepare for the NCFL Houston debate, CONA (Conference on National Affairs in North Carolina), and, of course, continue research pertaining to monopolies.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Shock, shock, both of the cases were well written, although it surprised me that. it seemed as if, you neg case was written better than your aft (which I know your opinion usually differs). I was intrigued that there was not as much philosophy as you and Derrick(oh my no Ayn Rand!?) tend to enjoy using, is there any reason for that? I think it would have improved you aft which seemed to rely heavily on facts(which of course is good but it lacked for something without it). Oh well for the loss but good luck in Texas.