Social Networking Safety
Here are some good resources for educators and students about keeping safe in cyberspace:
bNetS@vvy
bNetS@vvy is a comprehensive Internet safety website produced by the National Education Association Health Information Network (NEAHIN) in partnership with Sprint, and with editorial review by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Idaho Internet Safety
A site from state Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, including ProtecTeens, a toolkit for parents and teachers to help kids stay safe online; an online safety page for younger children; and additional online safety resources.
Note: The following articles are being published on the IEA website to fulfill New Business Items 3 and 5 passed at the 2010 Delegate Assembly, requiring the Idaho Education Association to provide educators and community members with information about the dangers of misusing social networking sites and the serious problem of sexting.
These articles were written by Michael Simpson of the National Education Association Office of General Counsel, and they reflect national standards. Because protecting children must remain our highest priority and because of the recent legislative assaults on teachers, their associations, and the teaching profession, it is more important than ever to be aware of and prevent any conduct that may harm children and steer clear of any activities that might jeopardize your career.
Be smart when it comes to social networking
Want to get fired from your first teaching job? Don’t read this article. Seriously. Just click on to something else. There’s nothing to see here. Move along....
First, let’s debunk the free speech myth: Many teachers believe they have the absolute First Amendment right to post anything they want on social networking sites, including party pix and diatribes about the boss. After all, they’re on their own time and using their own resources.
Sadly, the courts say otherwise.
Thanks to Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Tumblr, and other social networking sites what used to be private is now very public. And that’s the problem, particularly for young teachers: Some seem oblivious to the devastating consequences of posting really stupid things in cyberspace.
The exploding popularity of these sites has engendered a prurient interest in teachers’ “private” lives by both school administrators and the media. Newspapers across the country have begun trolling social networking sites for embarrassing and titillating postings by local teachers. And there’s a treasure trove of material to be mined:
- The Charlotte Observer reported that an afterschool staffer from Charlotte was fired for his Facebook comment that he likes “chillin’ wit my niggas” and a “suggestive exchange” with a female friend. Two probationary teachers faced termination for their Facebook musings that “I’m feeling pissed because I hate my students,” and I’m “teaching in the most ghetto school in Charlotte.”
- The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch ran an expose# entitled, “Teachers’ Saucy Web Profiles Risk Jobs.” One 25-year-old female bragged on her MySpace site about being “sexy” and “an aggressive freak in bed.” Another confessed that she recently got drunk, took drugs, went skinny-dipping, and got married.
- The Washington Postpublished a front page “investigative” piece entitled “When Young Teachers Go Wild on the Web,” quoting one DC teacher’s Facebook page: “Teaching in the DC Public Schools—Lesson #1: Don’t smoke crack while pregnant.” A special ed teacher wrote on her page to a student, “You’re a retard, but I love you,” and posted a photo of herself “sleeping” with a bottle of tequila.
- A San Antonio newspaper reported that college student “Mahka” posted pictures of herself in various stages of drunkenness with the catchy caption, “Can U say wasted?” She also wrote: “Drinking and partying is my life. I’m gonna be a high school English teacher one day.”
Really? You think so?
First Amendment 101
Until they acquire contuinuing contract status, most beginning teachers can be nonrenewed for no reason at all. They’re not entitled to know why or to have a due process hearing. The only caveat is that they can’t be let go for a discriminatory reason or in retaliation for free speech activities.
Without going into the gory details, teacher free speech rights are fairly limited: their speech is protected only if they speak out as citizens on “matters of public concern” and their speech doesn’t disrupt the school.
In the seminal Pickering v. Board of Education case, the Supreme Court held that it’s not a First Amendment violation to dismiss probationary teachers for what they say or write, if their speech involves merely personal things (i.e. doesn’t address broader social/political issues of the day), or if the speech might disturb the workplace.
Teachers with continuing contracts, by contrast, have far greater job security than probationary teachers: they can’t be fired except for “just cause,” and they don’t need to rely on the First Amendment for protection.
Pickering in Cyberspace
To date, there have been only three court cases involving teachers who claimed that their First Amendment rights were violated by being punished because of their postings on social networking sites. The teachers lost every case.
- Connecticut teacher Jeffrey Spanierman was fired because of two cyber conversations with students on his MySpace page. In one posting, he teased a student about his girlfriend, and the student responded, “dont be jealous cause you can’t get any lol:)” Spanierman replied: “What makes you think I want any? I'm not jealous. I just like to have fun and goof on you guys. If you don't like it. Kiss my brass! LMAO.” He also jokingly threatened another student with lifelong detention for calling him “sir.” Pretty mild stuff, really.But a federal court ruled that Spanierman’s termination didn’t violate the First Amendment because his speech “was likely to disrupt school activities.” The court faulted the teacher for failing “to maintain a professional, respectful association with students” and for communicating with students “as if he were their peer, not their teacher.” Such conduct, “could very well disrupt the learning atmosphere of a school,” the court said.
- Tara Richardson was a mentor for beginning teachers who sued the Central Kitsap (Washington) School District claiming that she was demoted because of comments she posted on a personal blog. She described one administrator as “ a smug know-it-all creep” who has “a reputation of crapping on secretaries..” Last June, a federal appeals court rejected her First Amendment argument, finding that her nasty, personal comments interfered with her job because they “fatally undermined her ability to enter into confidential and trusting mentor relationships” with beginning teachers.
- And then there’s the sad tale of Pennsylvania college senior Stacey Snyder who was dismissed from her student teaching position because of “unprofessional” postings on her MySpace site, which she urged her students to visit. Her site included comments criticizing her supervisor and a photograph of her wearing a pirate hat and drinking from a plastic cup with the caption “drunken pirate.”
Because she did not complete her student-teaching practicum, Snyder was forced to graduate with a degree in English instead of Education. The lack of student-teaching experience also prevented her from applying for a Pennsylvania teaching certificate.
Snyder sued, but a federal court found no First Amendment violation. Applying the Pickering case, the court ruled that her MySpace postings dealt only with purely personal matters, not issues of public concern.
The lesson from the Snyder case is this: Unprofessional and inappropriate Internet postings by college students can be used to prevent them from entering the teaching profession. Seriously.
Make no mistake: Administrators are catching on and checking up. The Washington Post reported about a Missouri superintendent who, during interviews, insists that job applicants show him their Facebook or MySpace page.
So, how would you fare in that situation? If you’re not sure, show your Facebook page to your mom. If she’s got any concerns or problems, then so do you.
Michael D. Simpson
NEA Office of General Counsel
Sexting: Presumed Guilty
The harrowing tale of how one NEA member’s investigation of student sexting led to his own prosecution on child pornography charges
On par with child molestation, possession of child pornography is the professional death penalty for any educator. But NEA and Virginia Education Association member Ting-Yi Oei suffered that devastating accusation and—$167,000 later—lived to tell the tale.
As the media have reported, sexting, or sending sexually explicit photos electronically, is a 21st-century teen fad. One survey last fall concluded that fully 20 percent of girls ages 13 to 19 had engaged in sexting.
Teen sexting is also a felony in virtually every state (including Idaho): Anyone who takes, sends, or possesses a photo depicting a nude or scantily clad minor can be charged with a child pornography crime. Conviction brings with it a life sentence on the sex offender registry.
One of the early victims of the sexting craze is Ting-Yi Oei, a 30-year educator who worked most recently as an assistant principal at Freedom High School in Loudoun County, Virginia, a Washington, D.C., suburb. Acting on a tip, he confronted a student who admitted having a photo of a partially nude girl (arms covering her breasts) on his cell.
Oei’s principal told him to preserve the evidence. This led to a titanic mistake: the student emailed the photo to Oei’s cell phone, and he never deleted it. After investigating, Oei and his principal considered the matter closed.
A few weeks later, Oei suspended the same boy for pulling down a girl’s pants in class. In a meeting with the boy’s angry mother, Oei mentioned the sexting incident. After he refused to lift the suspension, the mother shouted, “I’ll see you in court.”
True to her word, she went straight to the local sheriff. Two investigators later showed up asking about the sexting incident. Assuming they were investigating the student, Oei voluntarily turned over his cell phone. Based on the girl’s immodest photo, the police charged Oei with “failure to report suspected child abuse.” Incredibly, after those charges were dropped, Oei was indicted in August 2008 for felony possession of child pornography.
He was arrested at school, handcuffed, and escorted to jail. The story was reported by local TV stations and the Washington Post, complete with his mug shot. The district reassigned him to a job with no student contact.
After seven agonizing months of legal wrangling, stress, and sleepless nights, the nightmare finally ended when a circuit court judge threw out the charges, ruling that the photo wasn’t pornographic. Last April, Oei returned to his job at Freedom High. In an editorial, the Post lambasted the “vengeful parents and zealous prosecutors” for using the criminal justice system to terrorize an innocent man. In June, recognizing the injustice, the school board voted to pay Oei’s legal expenses ($167,000).
The problem of teen sexting is here to stay, and, hopefully, Oei’s story is an aberration, the product of a politically ambitious prosecutor. But how does one avoid a similar fate? For starters, school employees should work with their administration to create a protocol for handling sexting incidents: When is it OK to view and confiscate student cell phones? Where should the evidence be kept? When should an employee report an incident to the state agency as a case of suspected child abuse? When should law enforcement be called?
In the absence of official guidance, these are matters best left to administrators, who can consult with legal counsel. And remember Oei’s lesson: Never transfer evidence of sexting to your own cell phone.
Michael D. Simpson
NEA Office of General Counsel
Here is the section of Idaho code dealing with sexting (Idaho Code Sec. 18-1507A):
(1) It is the policy of the legislature in enacting this section to protect children from the physical and psychological damage caused by their being used in photographic representations of sexual conduct which involves children. It is, therefore, the intent of the legislature to penalize possession of photographic representations of sexual conduct which involves children in order to protect the identity of children who are victimized by involvement in the photographic representations, and to protect children from future involvement in photographic representations of sexual conduct.
(2) Every person who knowingly and willfully has in his possession any sexually exploitative material as defined in section 18-1507, Idaho Code, for other than a commercial purpose, is guilty of a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period not to exceed ten (10) years and by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
