Abstract
A freshman student posts on her social media account remarks that reflect intolerance and bigotry. Fellow students and faculty are upset, and disciplinary action follows. Was the student’s right to free speech ignored or were the rights of others to a welcoming and inclusive environment infringed upon? This case guides the reader through some of the issues associated with the currently confusing world of social media as it intersects with diversity issues. Discussion prompts and activities will prepare faculty and administrators to consider institutional culture, professionalism, and equity issues in an educational setting.
Background
The College of Educational Counseling (CEC), a small private college dedicated to training students in school counseling, is wrestling with how students should use social media. A recent incident at the college related to the inappropriate use of a student’s personal Twitter account prompted the school administration to recognize that they lacked institutional policy or guidelines to deal with such a situation.
Case Narrative
First semester CEC students have a required course called Culture and Diversity. The first week of class, students were asked to watch a video that role modeled in a positive way a White female counselor interacting with a Black male high-school student. After watching the video, classroom discussion was guided by the instructor, Mr. Harris James, an African American who identified as an openly gay, Black male. That evening Jenny Andrews, a student in the course, tweeted twice about the class on her private Twitter page. Jenny was a 19-year-old White woman who had an active online presence in social media, posting frequently to Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Jenny identified herself as a CEC student in her Twitter profile.
She tweeted the following: “OMG, can’t believe how gay he is!!!” “Do Blacks like gays????????”
Annie and Jon, two students in the course, saw the tweets and approached Jenny the following morning. Jon said, “Jenny I saw your tweet last night. It was rude and disgusting. You need to take it down.” Annie chimed in, “Yeah, Jon is right! And why in the world did you have to identify where we go to school? Makes us all look bad. Everybody knows it’s you.”
Jenny responded, saying, “What about my rights to say what I want? I was just being honest. Don’t you think the whole thing is gross?”
Jon said more firmly, Jenny, your tweets were offensive. If I were you I’d take them down. You can’t say that stuff about people and then tell them where you go to school. You’re supposed to be more tolerant of diversity, not less. For god sakes, you’re a counseling ed student.
“Yeah,” Annie agreed. “What were you thinking? You’ve gotta take those tweets down.” “Well . . . forget it. I’m not going to,” said Jenny. “Okay,” Jon said, “I’m gonna talk to Mr. James.” “You know what Jon, I really don’t care,” replied Jenny. “I have rights.”
Jon and Annie went to tell Mr. James about Jenny’s tweets. Mr. James brought Jenny into his office to discuss the situation. Jenny was unapologetic, saying, “Mr. James, I didn’t really mean anything. It’s my personal Twitter account. Everybody tweets stuff. I don’t see what the big deal is.”
Mr. James said, Well, Jenny, I think that’s the issue. You say you don’t see the problem. You’re right it’s your private account, but you identified yourself as a student here. To me that means you were representing the school. I need to take this issue to my director, Dr. Evans, and get his advice about this situation. We will meet and talk further about this after I talk to him.
Mr. James met with Dr. Evans, the president of the college and reported the issue. Dr. Evans had been president of the CEC for 18 years and had dealt with many student situations he deemed “learning opportunities,” but Dr. Evans was appalled by Jenny’s behavior. One quality of Dr. Evans’ leadership style was the ability to take swift and decisive action. He decided to put Jenny on probation for the remainder of the semester due to her unprofessional behavior and he asked Mr. James to talk to the college’s Office of Equity and Diversity to identify a class Jenny could take on diversity. “It could be some sort of reeducation for this young woman,” said Dr. Evans.
However, Dr. Evans also recognized that this incident signaled a bigger issue in the school. The CEC had no institutional policies that formally guided students in the use of social media. The college needed to catch up. Dr. Evans decided that a faculty committee should be formed to develop a student social media policy immediately. Dr. Evans requested Mr. James chair this committee, with the main goal of developing a social media policy for students as soon as possible.
Mr. James asked Jenny to come to his office to discuss what the college was going to require her to do as a result of her inappropriate tweets. “Jenny, I met with Dr. Evans about your tweets. He is requiring you to complete a class on diversity through the college’s Office of Equity and Diversity in order to continue in this program.”
Jenny retorted angrily, “You have got to be joking. Required! I still think I have some rights here! You can’t make me take this class.”
“Jenny, you’re upset right now. Why don’t you take a couple of days to think about this and we can talk again,” replied Mr. Evans.
Jenny stormed out of Mr. Evan’s office, pulled out her phone, and started tweeting: “Ridiculous! Punished by CEC-just speaking my mind!!” “required diversity course?????” “my rights- totally violated!!!”
Jenny’s best friend Apryl tweeted back “What???” Jenny texted Apryl with all the details. Apryl wrote an editorial about the abuse of student rights that was published by the school newspaper.
The William S. Forrest Foundation, an ultra-conservative think tank, picked up on the campus controversy. They fully supported Jenny and her right to free speech in Forrest Foundation News, a daily online newsletter with more than 3 million subscribers. Social media and individual rights was now a “hot topic.”
In the meantime, Mr. James met with Soraya Alexander, a representative from the college’s Office of Equity and Diversity, to discuss this issue and the selection of a diversity class for Jenny. “Wow,” said Ms. Alexander, “it seems like Jenny has found some support.”
“Yep,” replied Mr. James.
Then, Ms. Alexander asked a question that surprised Mr. James: “Why do you think Jenny felt that it was okay to tweet these very derogatory remarks in the first place?”
“I guess she’s just young and pretty immature,” said Mr. James.
Ms. Alexander said, Maybe . . . But let me ask you something. If someone off the street came to visit this campus what do you think they would say about how tolerant of diversity you are? I mean in terms of the diversity ethos of the school. Not the number of different cultures or races on the faculty or staff.
“I’m not really sure,” said Mr. Harris. Ms. Alexander continued, I think it is very important that you and the rest of the faculty and staff ask yourself that question because having the faculty, staff, and student body reflect on this instead of placing one student in the spotlight may be a better way of addressing this issue. “That makes sense,” said Mr. Harris. “Could you help us with this?” “Yes, absolutely,” responded Ms. Alexander.
Mr. Harris and Ms. Alexander put a plan together to present to Dr. Evans and the student social media policy committee. At the first committee meeting, Mr. James asked that the committee begin first by thinking about the following questions:
Why did Jenny feel that it was okay to tweet what she did?
Was the message that this was not acceptable behavior clear to the student body?
Should Jenny be singled out or should the school community look at making changes in our diversity ethos that show our students that we support diversity and inclusion at all levels?
Was the requirement that Jenny take a diversity course an appropriate decision?
What policies, discussions, and education should come out of this experience for both faculty and students?
Teaching Notes
The following teaching notes explore aspects of the handling of social media in an educational setting that values diversity and inclusion.
Legal Framework and Institutional Policy Issues
Student interactions on social media have become a major concern for educational institutions, creating predicaments for students, educators, policy makers, and administrators. Given the complexity of such interactions, several considerations arise regarding individual rights, including both freedom of speech and maintaining non-discriminatory educational environments. Educators and students utilize social media sites as methods of communication, simultaneously engaging in both personal and academic pursuits online. Institutions of higher education have begun recognizing the need to create policies that place limited restrictions on the use of social media while attempting to respect freedom of speech. For instance, Berkeley College (2012) in New York City, New York, addresses social media usage with the following: It is important to recognize, however, that the use of social media at or concerning Berkeley College is governed by the same laws, policies, and rules of conduct and etiquette that apply to all other activities at or concerning Berkeley College. Even activities of a private nature conducted away from the College can subject you to disciplinary action if they reflect poorly on the College or interfere with the conduct of College business. Remember that laws and Berkeley policies governing inappropriate conduct such as sexual (or other) harassment, bullying, discrimination, defamation, infringement of copyright and trademark rights, and unauthorized disclosure of student records and other confidential and private information apply to communications by Berkeley students, faculty and staff through social media.
The popularity of social media usage coupled with issues surrounding free expression, privacy, and ethical considerations raise a number of ethical dilemmas for administrators and counselors not only in higher education but also in elementary and secondary education. Student activities in social media that are intended as private can spill over into institutional settings, presenting awkward situations for administrators. Social media communication, when inconsistent with professional or academic values, presents a quandary for administrators as well as faculty and counselors in educational settings.
In the fall of 2011, the American Council on Education described the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, 8th District, addressing a case wherein a student social media posting created a questionable situation at a public higher education institution (Tatro v. Univ. of Minnesota, 2012). In the case, a female student posted objectionable comments regarding her professor and inappropriate behavior toward a cadaver on the social media site, Facebook. After a series of deliberations played out at the institutional level and in the court system, the ultimate outcome favored the university, as the university’s disciplinary action did not violate the student’s free speech rights according to the court findings. In a previous court case, Morse v. Frederick (551 U.S. 393, 2007), the court decision initially favored a school principal’s decision to prohibit a student’s statement on a banner, only later to be overturned by the court of appeals in favor of the student’s First Amendment rights. Currently, the outcome of the Tinker v. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969) case, in which the court supported the First Amendment rights of the students, is often used by courts as a governing precedent, although a succession of more conservative courts has consistently weakened students’ free speech rights in favor of actions taken by administrators.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution addresses freedom of speech. In the past decade, the extensive use of social media has led college policy makers into complex arenas regarding student rights. In a recent publication, the California Advisory Committee (2012) reported to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights specific recommendations addressing the “competing obligations” of public colleges and universities when considering disciplining students for speech while ensuring that anti-discrimination policies are enforced (p. 4). In the findings section of the report, Ada Meloy, General Counsel, explained, “Freedom of speech is not absolute in all circumstances and all forums,” noting that some speech is offensive (p. 13). In the late 1980s and early 1990s, higher education institutions began to address the issue of hate speech on college campuses. In response to the disagreement between groups who supported free speech and those who sought to protect individuals and groups from offensive or threatening speech based on gender, race, ethnicity, or other traits, higher education institutions created speech codes. Hemmer (1995) described the conflict between the egalitarians and libertarians on college campuses as sparking a “nationwide debate” during the early 1990s (p. 307). Over two decades later, these competing priorities must be considered by institutions of higher education striving to balance free speech on campuses with a provision of a non-discriminatory educational environment.
There are many challenging issues college and university campuses are facing in creating social media policies that allow for free speech while ensuring that students are allowed an education within a non-discriminatory atmosphere. The need and interest for creating social media policies within college and university campuses has evolved from the growing popularity of students and their use of social media. For instance, Ohio State University’s College of Medicine (2013) addresses social media usage with the following statements: Students and Faculty of the College of Medicine: Should take steps to insure that their social networking sites have the appropriate privacy settings to avoid inadvertent dissemination of material to audiences beyond their control. Should include a disclaimer with postings that clearly states that the expressed opinions belong to the writer alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the College of Medicine. May not write about patients in a manner that could in any way convey the patient’s identity, even accidentally. They are cautioned that patients with rare diagnoses, physical appearances, and specific locations within the medical center may be easily identifiable even in the absence of names and medical record numbers. May not write defamatory comments about faculty, staff, students, and health professionals within the medical center. May not post someone else’s work (including from Internet sites) without attribution. May not post pictures or descriptions that demonstrate participation of students, faculty, or staff engaging in unprofessional behavior.
Lists of examples of possible infractions are included in the social media policy as well. Possible infractions include but are not limited to: any inappropriate away messages or profiles on instant messenger services, any inappropriate postings on social networking sites, blogs, or public websites, and any inappropriate postings of pictures.
According to EDUCAUSE (2014), a nonprofit organization concerned with information technology and higher education, no best practices exist currently to help guide college and university campuses in developing policies for students. Creating effective and rational social media policies that embrace and value inclusivity and diversity will help provide the campus community guidance and set the tone for behaviors that are expected online.
Student Discipline Issues
Universities have faced a major challenge with making a decision on how to discipline students for misuse that occurs through various forms of social media. While the activities occur online, which is technically outside of the university environment, they may have consequences that affect either the university or individuals affiliated with the university. Universities have established ways to handle inappropriate speech or behaviors that occur within the campus environment; however, now it is important for them to establish both guidelines for use and methods for handling misuse of social media that reaches an audience beyond the campus environment.
There have been several cases centered around a student’s right to free speech on a school’s campus, stemming back to the Tinker case, in which students wore black armbands to school to protest the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and to mourn the loss of individuals on both war lines. When school officials became aware of students wearing the armbands, they decided to enforce a no-armband code. Students did not comply with this code, so the school suspended them for non-compliance. The students sued the school, which led to this situation being presented to the U.S. District Court. The court ruled that the school was “reasonable” in their decision because it ultimately prevented a disturbance that would result from wearing the armbands. The landmark student speech decision indicated that a school may discipline a student for speech if the institution can show that the speech does or will “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school” (Kozlowski, 2011, p. 352). Essentially, the institution is given the responsibility of proving that the speech did or has the potential to materially and substantially disrupt school activities.
The Court of Appeal decision in the case of Pridgen v. Univ. of Calgary (ABQB 644, 2010) was much different from the Tinker case. In this situation, two brothers (Steven and Keith Pridgen) posted one comment each about one of their professors on a public Facebook wall created by another student. The instructor complained to the Interim Dean of the Faculty of Communication and Culture about the comments posted by students on Facebook. In response, the University of Calgary treated the complaint as an assertion of academic misconduct. The University has a Student Misconduct Policy, which includes a section on “Disciplinary Action for Non-Academic Misconduct.” If a student is accused of non-academic misconduct, he or she must meet with a school official, in this case the dean, before a decision is made in response to the claim. Whenever the misconduct does not require suspension, the dean may place the student on probation for a given period of time, with conditions as seen necessary. Thus, in this case, the dean met with all 10 of the students who were members of the Facebook group, many of whom did not post comments on the wall. Subsequently, Keith Pridgen was placed on probation for 24 months for non-academic misconduct. Steven Pridgen was also found guilty of non-academic misconduct and required to submit a letter of apology to the instructor and to refrain from posting or distributing defamatory material.
The brothers filed for an appeal with the University’s Review Committee, which reduced their probation period to 6 months and 4 months, respectively. The Pridgens were not satisfied with the outcome of the appeal, thus they submitted an application for judicial review in the Court of Queen’s Bench. The Court concluded that the University’s decision was not reasonable, because it did not provide insight into how or why the students’ postings were considered non-academic misconduct. The committee did not indicate if it was the site, the comments, or the fact that students were posting on the site that classified the behavior as non-academic misconduct. In addition, the judges had a problem with the fact that the review committee did not discuss whether or not the Pridgens’ comments caused injury to the professor, which is an aspect of their policy for misconduct.
The Pridgen case is significant because it provides a good framework for universities to follow when they want to discipline students for using social media to talk about their instructors or peers. In this case, one can look at why the court ruled in favor of the students to determine how they should respond to students who may carry out similar activities. In the Pridgens’ situation, the university did not have enough evidence to support their claim of the Facebook activity causing injury to the professor. In addition, the review committee did not have a convincing explanation of how or why the students’ comments were considered misconduct.
School Culture Issues
In addition to members of an educational setting having rights by law or policy, educators and other professionals value diversity, inclusivity, and cultural competence. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Essential Learning Outcomes include intercultural knowledge and competence (AAC&U, 2014). Professions involved in human services, health care, and education take a position that values diversity. The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) has a position paper titled Ethical Standards for School Counselors that addresses the professional responsibility of school counselors to not only embrace diversity but also actively advocate for groups that have historically been under- or poorly served by the educational system (ASCA, 2014). In light of this perspective on diversity, it is not surprising that Mr. James and Dr. Evans did not understand how Jenny could think that her Twitter comments were acceptable. However, was the CEC creating an environment that sent a clear message about diversity?
There are several theorists who have developed models for effective multicultural education, which address how to create an educational environment that is inclusive and teaches students to engage in diversity. James Banks’ five dimensions of multicultural education is such a model and have been effectively applied to K-12 education and higher education environments. Being ready to embrace a diversity ethos in an educational setting and using a model such as Banks’s as guidance are first steps on a road to improvement. Application of these ideas in the practice setting is the next step. The literature provides examples and inspiration for educators wishing to engage their students in diversity in the classroom.
Discussion Questions
Tinker v. Des Moines focused on discipline for students who inappropriately expressed themselves within a school setting. How is this case relevant to making decisions about ways to discipline students for misconduct through various forms of social media?
According to the Court’s decision for the Tinker case, a school can discipline a student for speech if his or her speech “materially and substantially disrupts the work and discipline of the school.” Does the CEC have grounds to discipline Jenny for her comments made on Twitter about Mr. Harris, based on the ruling from the Tinker case? Explain your answer.
Which stakeholders should policy makers include when crafting a policy on social media? What legal concerns would you have when creating such a policy?
Does your institution have a social media policy in place? Does it give examples of what would and would not be considered professional online behavior and clearly state expected behaviors and consequences for inappropriate actions?
What is your personal perspective on the deliberate inclusion of diversity content and experiences in higher education?
Do you feel comfortable with the amount of emphasis placed on diversity in your educational setting? Would you like it to be more than it is currently? Less?
Do you feel comfortable making changes in your educational setting to support diversity? Do you need anything to feel more comfortable?
How does your setting measure up in the five dimensions?
Where do you see areas for improvement?
Banks interview:
Tucker, M., & Banks, J. A. (1998). Multiculturalism’s five dimensions [interview]. NEA Today Online. Retrieved from http://www.learner.org/workshops/socialstudies/pdf/session3/3.Multiculturalism.pdf
Describe how you might change your curriculum or a course to incorporate diversity in a meaningful way.
Develop a specific teaching strategy or activity that you could use in your educational setting.
Activity 2 Articles:
Lee, A., Williams, R., & Kilaberia, R. (2012). Engaging diversity in first-year college classrooms. Innovative Higher Education, 37, 199-213. doi:10.1007/s10755-011-9195-7
Martinez, S. (2014). Teaching a diversity course at a predominantly white institution: Success with statistics. Journal of College Student Development, 55(1), 75-78. doi:10.1353/csd.2014.0005
Ruiz, E. C., & Cantu, N. E. (2013). Teaching the teachers: Dismantling racism and teaching for social change. The Urban Review, 45, 74-88. doi:10.1007/s11256-012-0225-2
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Lance Fusarelli for his guidance and input on this manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.