Maya Shrivastav Clarke Central High School ODYSSEY Media Group

Avoiding extremes

The Mahanoy Area School District vs. B.L. case addressed whether or not schools should be able
to punish students for off-campus speech. B.L, or Brandi Levy, posted a picture of herself
holding up the middle finger with a profanity-laden caption on social media after a difficult day.
While some people believe that schools should be able to punish students for off-campus speech
such as this, others claim that this would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

However, the correct answer would be a combination of both. While speech that could be
considered a form of bullying should be punished, students should not be punished for using
profanity or for controversial speech outside of school. For example, if a student is found to have
been spreading hateful rumors about another student on social media, then the bully should be
punished for this speech. On the other hand, cases such as B.L.’s should not be punished because
they are not harming another person.

Those who support the decision made by the Supreme Court in Mahanoy Area School District v.
B.L. may argue that allowing schools to punish any form of off-campus speech would incite 1st
Amendment violations and unnecessary consequences for controversial speech. On the other
hand, opponents claim that allowing schools to do this would decrease rates of bullying by
punishing students for spreading rumors or picking on others on social media and outside of
school. However, going to either extreme will result in negative effects for schools.

A second case pertaining to this issue is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District. In 1969, in Des Moines, Iowa, a group of students who planned to wear black armbands
in a protest against the Vietnam War were told that they would be suspended because it could
disrupt class. After some students were suspended for wearing the armbands, parents took action,
and this eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The majority ruling
(7-2) was that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech
or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” However, the dissent argued that it was in the
administrator’s best interest to stop something that could be a potential disruption to the learning
environment. Personally, I agree with the majority. While suspending these students would be a
1st Amendment violation, the armbands were not harming anyone.

In terms of the Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. case, and even when it comes to the Tinker
v. Des Moines case, the best way to go about this issue would be to establish a system that
protects most forms of free speech while punishing students for bullying others or spreading
hate. The use of such a system could result in the avoidance of 1st Amendment violations while
still preventing bullying, and would appeal to people on both sides of the issue without going to
extremes and bringing about issues that pertain to these.

Works cited:
“Facts and Case Summary - Tinker v. Des Moines.” United States Courts, U.S. Courts,
https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-ti
nker-v-des-moines