learning.now: at the crossroads of Internet culture & education with host Andy Carvin

About Learning.Now

Learning.now is a weblog that explores how new technology and Internet culture affect how educators teach and children learn. It will offer a continuing look at how new technology such as wikis, blogs, vlogs, RSS, podcasts, social networking sites, and the always-on culture of the Internet are impacting teacher and students' lives both inside and out of the classroom.
Read more



Court Rules Against Student Suspended Over Threatening Instant Messaging Avatar

In the wake of the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” ruling at the U.S. Supreme Court late last month, it was probably just a matter of time before we’d see another student free space case using it as precedent. I might have guessed some time in 2008 or 2009. As it turns out, it took less than a week, as a federal York appeals court used the Supreme Court’s newly minted decision to rule against a student who was suspended for sending potentially threatening instant messages off school grounds.

In April 2001, Aaron Wisniewski was an eight grader at Weedsport Middle School in the Weedsport Central School District in upstate New York. Like so many middle school students, Aaron had an instant messaging account he would use from his home computer to interact with friends. The instant messaging software allowed Aaron to create a graphical icon, or avatar, that would be associated with his particular account and seen by anyone who received his instant messages. As his avatar, Aaron decided to use an image of a gun firing a bullet into someone’s head, including the inevitable blood splatter. Just below the image, he added some text: Kill Mr. VanderMolen.

“Mr. VanderMolen” was Philip VanderMolen, Aaron’s English teacher.

For three weeks, Aaron used the gruesome icon as his avatar, during which time he corresponded with 15 friends on his IM buddy list. At no time did he send instant messages during school hours or to school staff. Eventually, though, a classmate saw Aaron’s IM avatar and passed along a copy of it to VanderMolen. Distressed, the teacher informed the principal, who in turn brought it to the attention of the police and the district superintendent. Official confronted Aaron, and he confessed that he had indeed used the avatar. He was suspended for five days, and was transferred out of VanderMolen’s class. Police investigators also concluded that the avatar was intended as a sick joke rather than a real threat, so they closed the book on the case.

That might have been the end of the story if there hadn’t been a further investigation by the district superintendent’s office. That investigation concluded that Aaron’s actions disrupted the school by taking up the time of administrators and students (who were interviewed by officials), and forced the reassignment of Aaron to another teacher. Even though Aaron wasn’t seriously threatening VanderMolen, the investigation concluded his intent was “irrelevant.”

Substantial and competent evidence exists that Aaron engaged in the act of sending a threatening message to his buddies, the subject of which was a teacher. He admitted it. Competent and substantial evidence exists that this message disrupted the educational environment…. As a result of the foregoing, I conclude that Aaron did commit the act of threatening a teacher, in violation of page 11 of the student handbook, creating an environment threatening the health, safety and welfare of others, and his actions created a disruption in the school environment.

The superintendent suspended Aaron for an entire semester.

Aaron’s parents sued the district over the suspension, arguing that no actual threat was intended and that the suspension violated his free speech rights, particularly since the action in question took place off-campus. In 2002, a district court sided with the district, saying school officials were within their rights to interpret the avatar as a “true threat” to the welfare of VanderMolen.

Eventually, the case found itself in an appeals court earlier this year, and that court issued its ruling last week. Once again, the district won the day. As part of their reasoning, they cited several precedents, most notably the Tinker case, in which students had their rights violated because they were forced to remove anti-war arm bands. That ruling set a major standard as to what can be deemed student free speech and what is not. Interestingly, though, the court decided to quote from the Supreme Court’s Bong Hits 4 Jesus ruling, Morse v. Frederick, from just the previous week. In their Morse ruling, the Supreme Court wrote:

Tinker held that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will ‘materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.

Meanwhile, the appeals court addressed the issue that Aaron’s actions took place off-campus, again citing Morse:

The fact that Aaron’s creation and transmission of the IM icon occurred away from school property does not necessarily insulate him from school discipline…. [I]t was reasonably foreseeable that the IM icon would come to the attention of school authorities and the teacher whom the icon depicted being shot… and the risk of substantial disruption is not only reasonable, but clear. These consequences permit school discipline, whether or not Aaron intended his IM icon to be communicated to school authorities or, if communicated, to cause a substantial disruption. As in [the Bong Hits 4 Jesus ruling], the student in the pending case was not disciplined for conduct that was merely “offensive,” or merely in conflict with some view of the school’s “educational mission.”

What’s fascinating about this case is the astonishingly short period of time that took place between the Supreme Court’s prior ruling and the appeal court’s decision to cite it as precedent. Though Aaron’s suspension had nothing to do with drugs, as was central in the Morse case, they both shared the fact that the incidents in question took place off-campus. The Surpreme Court ruled that holding a banner with the phrase “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” even if it took place off-campus and was done as a joke, undermined the school’s drug policies, particularly since they concluded that the event in question was school-sanctioned. The appeals court embraced the new precedent, concluding that Aaron’s actions, even if they took place off-campus as a joke, contradicted the school’s disciplinary policy and interrupted the normal course of educational activities at school.

I also can’t help but think of Kathy Sierra, who earlier this year received threatening comments on her blog. Even though the threats probably weren’t serious, she perceived them to be - so much so she holed herself up at home and canceled all public engagements. I can’t help but think of Kathy when I also think of Aaron’s teacher, Mr. VanderMolen. We can’t tolerate cyberbullying and online threats when they happen in the blogosphere, so why should the standard be any different in education? Balancing free speech and school discipline is, and will always be a challenge, particularly when so much student speech takes place online and off-campus. Protecting students’ rights to say unpopular opinions is enshrined in precedent, as it should be. But where do you draw the line? In this case, it’s somewhere just short of Aaron Wisniewski’s home computer, and the threatening icon he made about his teacher. -andy

Filed under : People, Policy, Safety


I’m torn on this one. The initial suspension during the police investigation was prudent. The transferring the student out of the class protected the teacher from charges he was unfair after the incident.

The actions taken after the police determined there wasn’t a threat, those I’m conflicted about. If this was an adult at work - would we have a problem with him being fired. The student wasn’t punished criticizing the teacher’s lessons, he was punished for making a threat.

If he wasn’t punished and a month later another student did something similar and followed up with a violent act, we would all be screaming for the administrations heads on a pike. What if a disturbed student had followed Aaron Wisniewski instructions.

An eighth grader should have had the judgment to know that saying “Kill Mr. VanderMolen was crossing a line. My students (K-5), know this is unacceptable and can result in serious trouble with their parents, the school, and the police. I think I will agree with the superintendent on this one.

I feel the kid made a mistake and a very poor joke. However in the society we live in, you can’t make off color statements like this. Joke or no joke a threat is perceived by the person who reads it. The problem with typing is you can’t hear tones and inflections. It is very hard to read sarcasm. If I said, “did you see that game last night? When so and so hit that homerun, I could have shot him.” Some may perceive this as a threat, rather than casual conversation. I am not saying this should be accepted, but people should not put thoughts like this in an open forum.

While I think most would agree that this child showed poor judgement, that does not change the fact the the teacher did feel threatened, and so the child must suffer the consequences.

I don’t understand why threats made outside of school would not be handled exclusively by the police. We’ve got well established systems for juvenile justice. This decision seems to add those functions to the school’s many responsibilities.

Also, if the phrase “bong hits 4 Jesus” is officially disruptive of the school’s educational environment, and IM icons, etc. can be cited as sources of disruption, then if a student uses “bong hits 4 Jesus” as his status message, can he be suspended?

I am disappointed in Andy’s reaction to this. When he writes in reference to the Kathy Sierra incident, “We can’t tolerate cyberbullying and online threats when they happen in the blogosphere, so why should the standard be any different in education?” what is this supposed to mean? As far as I know, nobody was charged with a crime or sent to jail in the Sierra case, it was simply not tolerated socially within the community. You can’t conflate social pressure between adults and the power of the state used against children. His conclusion leaves me feeling like freedom of speech is being framed as a radical position.

Yeah, you definitely missed my point, Tom. You’re right that no one was charged with a crime in the Kathy Sierra case, but that doesn’t mean we should condone vicious personal attacks on people online, particularly when there’s a reasonable likelihood that they might be interpreted as a threat. We don’t know for sure who wrote the threats against Kathy, nor do we know if they were serious. But she certainly perceived them as serious, and it made her life a nightmare. Threats aren’t just unpopular or un-PC viewpoints “not tolerated socially within the community” as you put it. They’re expressions of doing someone else direct bodily harm. It’s the difference between you saying “Andy is a terrible blogger, he has bad fashion sense and doesn’t know what he’s talking about 99% of the time” and saying “Kill Andy Carvin.” One is protected speech, the other is not. I just don’t see how you could confuse the two.

Anyone who’s read my work over the years knows I’m a strong advocate of free speech rights, particularly in terms of not allowing schools to interfere with what a kid does from home. Time and time again I’ve written about the absurdity of schools trying to punish kids for at-home online behavior that is simply none of their business. In this particularly case, though, an action taken off-campus by a student was perceived by the teacher and his students as a real threat. It turned out it wasn’t, but it took a lot of work to discover that. So one could make a strong argument that the student’s off-campus actions indeed interfered with the educational process, one of the main tenants of the Tinker standard.

There is nothing radical about freedom of speech. Schools need to tread very carefully about disciplining students and not take a knee-jerk reaction when a student says or does something off-campus or online. But the First Amendment has never allowed us to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre or make direct threats against another person, either. The student in this case exhibited very poor judgment. Even if he was kidding, it scared the hell out the teacher - so much so, that he didn’t feel safe teaching the student any more. And if that doesn’t interrupt the educational process, I don’t know what else would.

I am in total agreement with the school, police and judicial system. As a teacher who received threatening email sent by a student fooling around, I can completely understand how Mr. VanderMolen felt. It is extremely unnerving and difficult to delineate between jokes or serious threats. My professional and personal lives were disrupted for about two weeks during the investigation and disciplinary actions. Schools that are vigilant in protecting their students and staff are to be commended. I applaud the district for fighting the fight and making an example of this student who used his IM and knowledge to make a threating joke. I don’t feel sorry for kids that try to push the limits of free speech while bullying people. More school districts need to be as vigilant in protecting the community from any form of threats…. jokes and all.

Learning.Now via Email

What's this?

RSS: Get a News Feed


Visit Media Infusion