IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 2012
No. 01-2345
Julie Turner,
PETITIONER
v.
Jefferson High School,
RESPONDENT
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE MOOT CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED ……………………………………………………………………….3
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ………………………………………………………………4
JOINT STIPULATED FACTS …………………………………………………………………...5
ARGUMENT ………………………...………………………………………….…………….….8
I.
Jefferson High School does not have the authority to censor Julie’s online
comment under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District because Julie’s
comment did not cause a material or substantial disruption.
A. Julie’s comment did not cause a material and substantial disruption
at school because her speech took place off campus.
B. Fear of disruption or an administrator being upset by the content of
the speech does not rise to the level of disruption anticipated by
Tinker, and thus is not a permissible basis for suppression of student
speech.
II.
The Respondent’s reliance on Bethel, Morse, and Hazelwood is improper.
A. Bethel and Morse give schools more power to censor student speech,
but the contexts in those cases were very different than the facts of
Julie’s case.
B. The Respondent does not meet the requirements of Hazelwood
because censoring Julie’s speech did not further any legitimate
pedagogical goals.
APPENDIX I—CASE SUMMARIES…………………………………………………………..14
APPENDIX II—COURT DOCUMENTS……………………..……………….………………..16
Testimony by Mrs. Adams, Math Teacher
Testimony by Mrs. Ramirez, Parent of Julie’s Classmate
Affidavit by Ms. Lincoln, English Teacher
Question Presented
Does a school have the power under the First Amendment to discipline a student for a derogatory
comment that the student wrote off campus on a private school-sponsored website?
Constitutional Provision
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S. CONST.
amend. I.
Statement of Facts
In May 2011, Tyler Poole, a senior at Jefferson High School, was suspended for 10 days
after he was found with a bottle of Adderall on campus. Tyler had been diagnosed with
Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and was prescribed Adderall to control his
condition. Jefferson High School had adopted a strict policy prohibiting students from entering
school grounds with medicine after many students were found dealing prescription drugs on
campus. Any student who needed prescription medication was required to leave the medication
with the school nurse, who would dispense as needed. Jefferson High had one part-time nurse
who often had a line out the door of her office. The school board required that any student who
was found with prescription medication on campus would be suspended for a minimum of 7 and
a maximum of 10 days. Since Tyler had been in trouble multiple times before, he received the
harshest punishment.
After Tyler’s suspension, many students at Jefferson High School felt that Principal Short
had disciplined Tyler too harshly. Julie Turner, a 16-year-old junior at Jefferson High, decided
to take matters into her own hands and express her views and the views of her fellow students on
the school’s web page. The web page had a message board in which members of the school
community could post comments, questions, and suggestions, and engage in discussions with
one another. Many parents used this message board to discuss concerns that they had regarding
the school, to ask questions to school officials, and to organize carpools and after school
activities. Teachers also used this message board to update the school community about current
events or important reminders. The message board was visible to any student or parent who
signed into the web page using their school identification number.
From her home computer, Julie posted a comment on the message board with the subject
line “Principal Short should be disciplined himself.” Her comment criticized Principal Short for
his “way too harsh” punishment of Tyler, and included several lewd and inappropriate comments
about the principal. One comment stated “Principal Short abuses his power as a way to
compensate for something.” Julie also asserted her own personal views that prescription
medication like Adderall should not be controlled on campus, and encouraged other students to
do a better job of hiding medications in their lockers. She accused Principal Short of
confiscating the drugs for his own personal use, and ended the comment by saying “Principal
Short must have thought that the Adderall was Viagra, which is why he wanted to take it away
from Tyler so badly.”
After Julie posted her comment, several students at school began talking and laughing
about what Julie said on the web page. One student printed the comment from the web page and
brought it to her English class to show other students. Though the comment did not cause any
disruption in the classroom, the English teacher, Ms. Lincoln, confiscated the printed comment
and showed it to Principal Short and other administrators. School officials were shocked at the
language Julie used, and felt that their authority to discipline students was undermined. Teachers
were especially shocked because Julie was a straight-A student who rarely got in trouble. She
was the vice president of the student body and started the Jefferson High School Community
Service Club. The Community Service Club encouraged students to double their annual
community service requirement, and it regularly led after-school trips to hospitals and nursing
homes to give students an opportunity to volunteer.
After Ms. Lincoln confiscated Julie’s comment, some members of the school community
heard about what happened and were outraged. Parents who saw what Julie wrote began calling
Principal Short angrily demanding more security at school to prevent prescription drugs from
entering school grounds in the first place. A few parents argued that Principal Short acted too
harshly in suspending Tyler, and felt that 10 days was too long to keep a student out of school.
Many parents demanded that the offensive comment be taken down to prevent younger students
from seeing Julie’s vulgar language.
Feeling undermined and upset by what Julie wrote, Principal Short called Julie into his
office. He showed her the printed comment that Ms. Lincoln had confiscated and asked Julie
whether she had written the comment. Julie admitted that she did write the comment, and
expressed her belief that “it is a free country” and she was free to say whatever she liked.
Principal Short called Julie’s parents into a meeting the next day, explained what Julie wrote on
the web page, and informed them that he was suspending Julie for five days.
Julie and her parents appealed the suspension to the school discipline committee,
claiming that Julie had written the post at home and not at school, that she had a right to express
herself off campus, and that her comments were merely a reaction to an event that upset
members of the school community. The Turners asserted that Jefferson High was acting
politically and engaging in viewpoint discrimination, and were censoring Julie’s comment
because the school did not agree with what she said. Principal Short and the school
administration responded, asserting their right to take action against a student who interferes with
school discipline or procedures.
The school discipline committee upheld Julie’s suspension. Following the committee’s
decision, the Turners brought a suit in federal district court against the school claiming that her
suspension improperly violated Julie’s First Amendment rights. The court upheld the school’s
right to suspend Julie, and the Turners appealed to the Moot Circuit Court of Appeals. The
appeals court affirmed the judgment against Julie, and the Turners now appeal to the Supreme
Court.
I.
Argument
Jefferson High School does not have the authority to censor Julie’s online comment
under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District because Julie’s comment did
not cause a material or substantial disruption.
When determining whether schools have the power to censor student speech, courts first
turn to the controlling case of Tinker v. Des Moines Unified School District. In Tinker, the
Supreme Court held that schools may censor student speech when that speech causes a material
and substantial disruption at school, and this test remains the standard for in-school speech today.
A. Julie’s comment did not cause a material and substantial disruption at school
because her speech took place off campus.
In creating the rule requiring a material and substantial disruption, the Court in Tinker
emphasized the “special characteristics of the school environment” that necessitate restricted
First Amendment rights. However, courts subsequently have held that the standard required by
Tinker is harder to meet when student speech occurs off campus. Julie’s speech occurred
entirely off campus on a website, and courts have repeatedly held that online speech falls within
the category of off-campus speech.1 Courts scrutinized a school’s ability to censor off-campus
speech, including that which occurs online, because those “special characteristics” referenced in
Tinker are not present outside the schoolhouse gate.2
Because there is no Supreme Court precedent for off-campus speech, this court must look
to the most similar lower court cases. In Beussink v. Woodland R-IV Regional School District,
the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that a school violated a student’s First
Amendment rights when it disciplined the student for offensive comments he made about school
officials on his personal web page. In its ruling, the court reasoned that the student’s online
1
See Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District, 30 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (E.D. Mo. 1998); Killion
v. Franklin Regional School District, 136 F. Supp. 2d 446 (W.D. Pa. 2001).
2
See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969); J.S.
v. Blue Mountain School District, 650 F.3d 915 (3rd Cir. 2011).
speech did not cause a disruption at school. Even though students accessed the website on
campus, the court still ruled that the speech occurred off campus because the student did not use
school facilities or resources to create the web page. The Beussink court explained that speech
that occurs off campus is less likely to cause a material and substantial disruption at school, and
also made clear that school authorities could not discipline a student for speech just because they
were offended by the content of that speech.
Similarly, in Killion v. Franklin Regional School District, the District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania affirmed that schools have less control over off-campus speech
because this speech is less likely to cause the disruption required by Tinker. In Killion, the court
ruled that a school violated a student’s First Amendment rights when it disciplined him for
creating an offensive “top 10” list about a teacher. Although another student brought the list to
campus, the student who wrote it did so entirely off campus, and the speech did not materially or
substantially interfere with anyone’s rights at school.
Julie created the comment on the school’s website off campus, at her own home using her
own computer. Unlike in Beussink, no student accessed the web page on campus, nor were any
school facilities involved in viewing the web page at all. As in Killion, another student brought a
printed copy of the comment onto campus without the knowledge or encouragement of Julie.
Julie intended the comment as off-campus speech, and because she created the comment at her
own home, it should be treated as such. Also, as in Killion, the speech may have offended the
principal, but the fact that the principal is offended does not justify censorship. Therefore, the
court should rule according to Beussink and Killion, and find that the school violated Julie’s First
Amendment rights by punishing her for this speech because she did not cause a material and
substantial disruption on campus.
B. Fear of disruption or an administrator being upset by the content of the speech
does not rise to the level of disruption anticipated by Tinker, and thus is not a
permissible basis for suppression of student speech.
Tinker’s requirement that speech creates an actual disruption is not satisfied by a mere
fear that the disruption would occur without disciplinary action. Tinker explicitly states that
schools may not suppress students’ speech based on an “undifferentiated fear or apprehension of
disturbance.” Instead, it requires an actual disturbance or a concrete and particularized reason to
believe that a disturbance would result from the speech.
The Third Circuit recently upheld this principle in two cases, Layshock v. Hermitage
School District and J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District. In these cases, students created false
MySpace pages making fun of their principals and were disciplined by their schools. In both
cases, the schools asserted their right to censor the speech based on a fear of disruption. The
court found that the web pages did not cause a disruption, and it interpreted Tinker to hold that a
threat of disruption is not a sufficient reason to censor a student’s First Amendment right to free
speech.
Julie’s comment did not cause a material or substantial disruption. In fact, there was no
disruption caused by the comment at all until a teacher confiscated it and turned over to the
administration. The Respondent alleges that it still may censor Julie’s speech because of the risk
of disruption it posed. However, Tinker and subsequent cases interpreting it have clearly
affirmed that schools are not permitted to censor student speech based simply on a risk of
disruption. The Respondent’s argument in this regard therefore lacks merit.
Students do not relinquish their rights upon entering the schoolhouse gates.3 Consistent
with this concept, courts have long held that schools may not censor student speech simply
because school officials do not agree with or are offended by that speech. This was affirmed in
3
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).
Beussink, in which school administrators were upset about the content of a student’s website and
feared that the website would cause a disruption on campus. The court held that this was not a
sufficient reason to censor student speech, and that school administrators could not suppress a
student’s right to free speech simply because they did not agree with what a student was saying.
Principal Short and the rest of the administration attempted to discipline Julie based on
their anger at what Julie wrote on the web page and Principal Short’s fear that Julie’s comment
would undermine his ability to discipline students. However, this fear is not a sufficient basis to
suppress a student’s right of free speech. Schools should be the place where students learn
constitutional values, and the best way to teach students these values is to allow them to exercise
their rights. If school officials could censor students simply because they did not agree with
what the students were saying, this would effectively put an end to lively and constructive debate
in the classroom. This is not the forum that we intended for our children’s education, and
students need to feel secure in their ability voice opinions and concerns in the school setting, so
long as those opinions do not create a disruption or intrude on the rights of others. The
Respondent is asking the court to rule against decades of precedent in ignoring this important
principle.
II.
The Respondent’s reliance on Bethel, Morse, and Hazelwood is improper.
A. Bethel and Morse give schools more power to censor student speech, but the
contexts in those cases were quite different than Julie’s speech.
The Respondent relies on Bethel v. Fraser and Morse v. Fredrick to assert that it was
within its power to censor Julie’s comment because it was lewd and sexual and promoted illegal
drug use. In Bethel, the Supreme Court ruled that a school was within its power to discipline a
student for delivering an inappropriate election speech during a school assembly. In its opinion,
the Court indicated that schools do not need to tolerate lewd or sexual speech that takes place on
campus. The majority focused on the fact that the speech included sexual innuendo and occurred
at an assembly of mostly 14-year-olds.
Julie, by contrast, created her online comment entirely off campus and separate from any
school event or facilities. In fact, the web site on which her remarks were posted was only
accessible by a mature audience of not just students but also parents, faculty, and staff. Further,
unlike in Bethel, Julie’s speech was not lewd or sexually inappropriate.
Similarly, the Supreme Court in Morse held that schools do not need to tolerate speech
that promotes illegal drug use. In Morse, a student unfurled a large banner at a school-sponsored
gathering outside the school to watch the Olympic torch pass. The Court in Morse cites Bethel,
explicitly stating that “[h]ad Fraser delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the
school context, it would have been protected.” The Court ruled that the school did not violate
the student’s First Amendment rights for punishing him for drug-related speech that took place at
a school-sponsored event. As mentioned earlier, Julie’s speech did not occur at an open, schoolsponsored event, which is different from the context of Joseph Frederick’s banner.
Further, the majority in Morse explained that since the principal reasonably believed the
message on the banner to promote illegal drug use, she did not violate the student’s free speech
rights. Julie’s speech, on the other hand, did not promote illegal drug use. She merely voiced
her opinion against a school policy prohibiting students from possessing prescription medication.
Whereas Frederick’s speech was unclear and even perceived by some as nonsensical, Julie – a
well-respected student leader – clearly intended to speak out against a policy with which she and
others disagreed.
Julie’s speech in fact did occur in a public forum - the internet - and was created on her
personal computer. Therefore, should Morse or Bethel be controlling on any aspect of this case,
it should be to affirm that Julie’s online speech is protected by the First Amendment, not the
contrary as asserted by the Respondent.
B. The Respondent does not meet the requirements of Hazelwood because censoring
Julie’s speech did not further any legitimate pedagogical goals.
Contrary to the Respondent’s argument, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier does not give Jefferson
High School the power to censor Julie’s comment. Hazelwood requires that the censoring of
student press be reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical goals. In Hazelwood, the court
upheld a school’s right to censor student press that violated other students’ anonymity and
discussed topics that were too mature for some members of the student body, holding that the
school was furthering legitimate pedagogical goals by placing restrictions on student press. By
contrast, disciplining Julie for her comment furthered no pedagogical goals. The pedagogical
goals with which the court and, quite frankly, the school should be concerned include raising
informed citizens who understand and appreciate the Constitution and their rights therein.
Censoring student speech because it offends the administration teaches students that their free
speech rights are subject to the whim of school or government officials, which is a backward
message to be teaching students. Pedagogical goals would be better furthered by encouraging
students’ freedom of expression, as long as it does not disrupt the rights of others.
Because not a single case relied on by the Respondent gives it the authority to censor
Julie’s comment, the Court is urged to rule that Julie’s First Amendment rights were violated.
Case Summaries
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
In 1965, students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, even though the
school had adopted a policy that banned the wearing of black arm bands. Two students were
suspended. The students and their parents brought a suit against the school district alleging that
their First Amendment rights were violated. The Supreme Court held that the school could not
punish the students without any evidence that the arm bands materially and substantially
interfered with school discipline or the school environment.
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)
Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, filed a civil rights action after he was
disciplined for lewd language he used in a student government campaign speech at a student
assembly. Among his comments were statements like, “I know a man who is firm – he’s firm in
his pants, he’s firm in his shirt, his character is firm – but most of all, his belief in you…is
firm….Jeff is a man who will go to the end – even the climax, for each and every one of you….”
The Supreme Court held that the school district acted within its authority in disciplining Fraser
and in creating a policy against offensive speech because schools do not have to tolerate lewd or
sexual speech.
Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)
An 18-year-old high school student displayed a banner that said “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” across
the street from his school during a parade. Principal Deborah Morse suspended Joseph
Frederick. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Morse did not violate Frederick’s free speech
rights. The Court said that school officials may prohibit speech that is understood to promote
illegal drug use. The Court treated the banner display as a school-sponsored event, although the
display was across the street from school and students were permitted to leave school to watch
the Olympic torch pass by.
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988)
Staff members of a high school newspaper filed a First Amendment action claiming that their
First Amendment rights were violated by censorship of certain articles in the school newspaper.
The Supreme Court held that the high school paper that was published by students in a
journalism class did not qualify as a "public forum," so school officials retained the right to
impose reasonable restrictions on student speech in the paper. The court created a new rule for
student press that stated that schools may censor student press when the censorship is reasonably
related to legitimate pedagogical goals.
Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District, 30 F. Supp. 1175 (E.D. Mo. 1998)
Brandon Beussink, a student at Woodland High School, sued the school district after he was
disciplined for criticizing school officials on his personal Internet homepage. The District Court
held that Beussink’s First Amendment rights were violated, and explained that the web page did
not cause a disruption at school. The Court also held that the school could not discipline the
student just because they did not like what he was saying.
Killion v. Franklin Regional School District, 136 F. Supp. 2d 446 (W.D. Pa. 2001)
A high school student was disciplined for printing a “top 10” list with offensive statements about
a faculty member. The student and his mother brought an action alleging violations of First
Amendment and due process rights by the school district and administrators who tried to suspend
him. The District Court held that the student's document did not disrupt school or interfere with
anyone's substantial rights, so the student’s first amendment rights were violated. The court also
made clear that schools have less control over off-campus and online speech.
Layshock v. Hermitage School District, 650 F.3d 205 (3rd Cir. 2011)
A high school senior created a false MySpace page for his principal that included descriptions of
alcohol and illegal drugs possession in his school office. Though the page was created off
campus and outside of school time, a three judge panel of the Third Circuit found that this page
created a disruption at school and therefore the administration could discipline the student. The
entire Third Circuit sitting together reversed the three-judge panel, and found that the MySpace
profile made outside the school is protected by the First Amendment, and the school could not
punish him.
J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, 650 F.3d 915 (3rd Cir. 2011)
An eighth grader created a false MySpace page that made fun of her principal. She used his
actual photo and included vulgar confessions of made-up sexual encounters between the
principal and students. The Third Circuit held that that school officials could not discipline
students for off-campus speech on the Internet.
Doninger v. Neihoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2nd Cir. 2008)
A student announced the cancellation of a school event on her LiveJournal page and urged other
students to call the administration to “piss them off.” The school disciplined the student by
barring her from running for student government. The Second Circuit held that the student’s
online speech posed a substantial risk of disruption at school, so it ruled that the suspension was
proper.
TESTIMONIES
Testimony by Mrs. Adams, Julie’s math teacher
Examination by Petitioner
Attorney: What is your relationship with Julie Turner?
Teacher X: She has been in my math class for the past 8 months. I am also the faculty advisor
for the Student Government Association and have worked with Julie in that capacity. Honestly,
I have always been very impressed with her classroom decorum, leadership and maturity both in
and out of the classroom.
Attorney: Can you tell me a little bit about what it was like to have Julie in class this past
year and supervise her in her role of student body vice president?
Teacher: I have had many talented, high achieving students throughout my years at Jefferson
High School. Julie is no exception. She is an excellent student and a very responsible student
leader. Her dedication to community service and student advocacy has always impressed me.
Attorney: Do you believe that Julie meant to cause a commotion with her online comment?
Teacher: Julie has never struck me as an instigator – she always has a reason for doing what she
does, in general her decisions are well thought out. We spoke about her online comment a few
days after she posted it after a student government meeting. She expressed that while she didn’t
regret her message, she wished she had taken more time to think about what she said before she
posted it. I believe that Julie just wanted to help Tyler, and wanted to advocate on his behalf. I
think she was frustrated and angry that day, and posted the comment without really realizing how
much of a commotion it could cause. I think Julie was very surprised by how much attention her
post has received. What she posted was slightly inappropriate, but Julie is a fantastic student and
dedicated student advocate, I really do not believe she meant to cause such a commotion with her
post, and now that she understands the consequences of her comment, and sees how much she
offended the principal and other members of the school community, I am sure she wouldn’t post
anything like that again. I hope she gets a chance to prove she didn’t mean to cause such a
commotion.
Attorney: Do you think Julie is sorry for her actions?
Teacher: I think Julie is sorry her comment became the subject of such a highly publicized issue.
I think that she is upset that simply expressing her opinion and feelings resulted in a suspension
and became such a large ordeal. I do believe that she regrets offending anyone.
Cross-Examination by Respondent
Attorney: How long were you Julie’s teacher before she posted inappropriate comments on
the school’s web page?
Teacher: Well, it was only 8 months, but I have advised her on student government issues for the
past three years.
Attorney: Do you really believe you are the best judge of her character, considering you
only had her in class for a few months?
Teacher: I know that my classroom experience with Julie may have been limited, but I truly
believe I know her well as a student and person outside of class. Even when she wasn’t in my
classroom, I met with her on a regular basis with the rest of student government on a bi-weekly
basis. I was able to get to know her, as well as my other advisees, pretty well. I have always
known what Julie was interested in accomplishing through student council and I feel like I got a
good read on her character through those meetings. She’s a really good kid, even though this
message board comment seems pretty inappropriate and out of character.
Attorney: What did Julie say to you about her comment on the message board?
Teacher: She said that she doesn’t regret saying what she said – that she believes she should have
the right to speak freely and share her opinion on her own time and from the privacy of her own
home. However she did mention that she wished her comment had not created such a storm of
commotion and disruption at school.
Testimony by Mrs. Ramirez, Parent of one of Julie Turner’s classmates
Examination by Petitioner
Attorney: Have you ever had the opportunity to meet, or speak personally with Julie
Turner?
Parent: No, but my son was in her English class, and I have interacted with many of Julie’s peers
over the years.
Attorney: As the parent of another high school student, have you ever heard another
student say anything inappropriate, or that might be interpreted as inappropriate, about
school or any of the other school administrators?
Parent: All kids sometimes say things that they don’t mean, but Julie went above and beyond by
posting her opinions on a school message board. Of course high school students sometimes say
things or act inappropriately, but by posting this online Julie caused a substantial disruption that
has affected my son’s learning experience and has had a negative effect on the entire school
community. Julie should be ashamed for posting what she did on the school’s website. This was
not just a joke or a prank, it was a purposeful message directed at the principal – which was
entirely inappropriate and she should be punished.
Cross Examination by Respondent
Attorney: Do you know exactly what Julie wrote in her comment on the web page?
Parent: Of course I know. It’s all my son and his friends were talking about. She made a
derogatory comment about Principle Short compensating for something, which I find deplorable.
She also made a comment about Viagra and advocated for drug use on campus. I find it
completely inappropriate that a student advocated that other students hide drugs in their lockers.
I do not want my son to go to a school where that type of behavior is tolerated.
Attorney: Is it fair for the school to punish Julie for comments she made at home, outside
of school, on her own personal time?
Parent: Absolutely, yes. In my opinion, posting on a school-sponsored message board is the
same as speaking in school or directly to a school administrator. Julie knew that parents,
teachers and administrators monitor this website, and she could expect that the entire Jefferson
High School community would see and read her message. Even though she typed these words at
home, everyone at school was still able to read them, so it is perfectly reasonable for the school
to punish Julie for her actions.
Attorney: Do you believe that it was necessary to suspend Julie as punishment for her
actions?
Parent: Yes. From what I have heard, Julie has not apologized for her actions, nor does she
realize she has done anything wrong. My son has told me that he hasn’t been able to learn
anything in school the past week because the whole campus is focused on chatting about the
message board and Julie’s message. Julie needs to learn that her actions and her words have
affected other people and prevented other students from going to school and learning. If
suspension is what the school believes is necessary to teach her that lesson, then I support the
school’s decision! In my opinion, sometimes juveniles are simply incapable of comprehending
the extent of their actions if they never have to face a significant punishment that really teaches
them to think before they act.
Affidavit by Ms. Lincoln
My name is Natalie Lincoln, and I am an English teacher at Jefferson High School. Julie
Turner is a student in my 11th grade English class. In May 2011, at the time of Julie’s
suspension, I had known Julie for about 9 months.
On May 14, 2011, just after the bell rang, the students were noisier than usual. I walked
over to a group of students in the back of the classroom who were being particularly rowdy, and
I saw that they were reading off a printed sheet of paper. Because class had started, I took away
the piece of paper when it became apparent that it was not school-related. At the time that I
confiscated the piece of paper, it was not causing a substantial disruption; I simply took it away
to gain control of my classroom, and because it is my practice to confiscate anything unrelated to
school that is distracting my students during class time. Julie was sitting near the students but did
not appear to be engaging with the students who were looking at the paper.
After class, I read the paper and was shocked to see that it was a printout from the
internet containing a comment that Julie had written on the school website. In the comment, Julie
wrote incredibly inappropriate things about Principal Short, and encouraged students to bring
drugs onto campus. I thought the comment was horribly offensive and harmful to school
authorities, so I turned the printed comment over to Principal Short.
Several students were outraged that Julie was suspended for speaking her mind, and I
believe that her punishment brought even more attention to what Julie said on the webpage.
When I turned the comment over to Principal Short I was not intending for Julie to receive any
specific punishment; I just felt Principal Short should be aware of what Julie said. However, I
believe that Julie’s punishment was appropriate given the nature of her speech.