POLL: Did Lincoln-Sudbury High Violate Free Speech for Students?

Image via Shutterstock

After a tension-filled protest at the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School earlier in the month, where some 100 students demonstrated protests related to the Michael Brown and Eric Garner decisions, Superintendent Bella Wong put some new policies in place.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts has since accused the officials of violating students’ free speech. The ACLU has sent letters to the superintendent as well as the school’s lawyer indicating what they argue are violations.

Superintendent Bella Wong said that the demonstration at the high school called for action to protect the students. But the ACLU, and some students, say it’s in violation of students’ freedom of speech and expression.

The situation in question happened on Dec. 5, when students congregated in one of the primary corridors of the high school, shortly before lunch. At the beginning of third lunch, the demonstration began to escalate. One student spit from the staircase on others from an overhang. Another was throwing sharpened pencils. A group of students chanted “Don’t shoot me,” and others were shouting profanities and racial slurs.

“Once alerted that the demonstration was occurring, school staff and administrators helped monitor the activity and space to ensure school safety,” said Wong. “Students have the right to assemble to express themselevs as long as it does not disrupt the school environment for teaching and learning.”

Wong added that most of the demonstration was managed and peaceful.

“Negative exchanges were exacerbated by the way some students were dressed,” she said. “The student protestors then relocated from their initial site holding their hands in the air while chanting, ‘Don’t shoot me!’ The demonstration was then disbanded by the adults who were present.”

Wong said that students had expressed to her dismay, hurt, confusion and anger after the demonstration. Some didn’t return to classes for the rest of the day, and families reported hearing from students that they were scared and had anxiety.

“Many students reported not feeling comfortable to return to class Monday morning,” said Wong. “This clearly needed immediate attention to restore a climate conducive to teaching and learning for our students.”

That weekend, the superintendent communicated to families, students and staff the following temporary expectations to be in place for the remaining 12 school days for the month of December: “ while student-adult coordinated events were supported and encouraged, no impromptu student-intitiated events would be allowed, and students should not dress in a way to evoke the imagery of either the perpetrator or victim in the recent cases in Ferguson and/or Staten Island. The purpose of these expectations was to facilitate a calm return to school for the remaining days of school prior to winter break.”

The notice prompted the parent of a student to contact the ACLU, reported the Boston Globe.

In a letter dated Dec. 12 that the ACLU sent to Wong (which the ACLU sent to Patch), it reads, “We believe that Lincoln Sudbury students’ expression of strongly held, controversial viewpoints about Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases cannot automatically and universally be deemed disruptive.” The letter begins that speech is protected by the Student Freedom of Expression Act.

Informed that Marc Terry from Mirick O’Connell would be responded on behalf of Wong, the ACLU, in a follow-up dated Dec. 16, indicated that “We’ve been informed that this week, school officials threatened a Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School student with serious disciplinary action if he did not cease his silent protest of Ms. Wong’s ban on student demonstrations and use of certain images.”

The letter indicated that a student had put a strip of tape of his mouth to “protest the broad limitations school officials have placed on student speech.”

Wong said that the school continues to work with staff and students, and that the students had participated in a class writing reflection exercise to offer perspectives on what had occurred.

“I believe what occurred in school on Dec. 5 was a microcosm of what is happening across our country,” said Wong. “I also believe our students have been well-taught by their families and the school to understand the bad behavior that occurred day in our school was wrong. And that we are committed, as a community, to help each other express ourselves more productively moving forward.”

With respect to concerns expressed by the ACLU branch, Wong agrees that students have the right to expression and free speech in the school.

“However,” she added, “it is my right and obligation to ensure that this is done in a way that does not jeopardize school safety or disrupt general teaching and learning in school. The expectations I shared with students provided temporary guidance on possible forms of expression for remaining12 school days through the end of December. It did not in any way amount to a ban on student expression but served to provide calm to allow us an opportunity for reflection and further learning.”

In regard to the letter sent from the school’s lawyer to the ACLU Foundation of Massachusetts, Sarah Wunsch, deputy legal director, told Patch, “We do not agree that this matter is at a close and will be responding to him more about it.”

What do you think? Vote in this poll, and share your comments in the comments section below.