Tenth Circuit Tells College Administrator That Ordering A Student To Stop Talking About An Instructor Clearly Violates The First Amendment
from the how-could-you-seriously-think-otherwise? dept
The First Amendment applies to school students. This is something courts seem to have particular difficulty drilling into the heads of school officials and administrators. Yes, their rights are somewhat limited due to their age and/or time and place restrictions, but they are closer to "fully respected" than "nonexistent" -- the latter of which appears to be the default assumption for far too many educational entities.
Schools hope allegations of "disruption" will salvage their rights violations. But in far too many cases, the asserted disruption was localized solely in the minds of the rights violators, resulting in them having to continue facing lawsuits over their actions, rather than having complaints against them judiciously wished away into the qualified immunity cornfield.
Such is the case here in legal action involving a college and its violation of a student's rights. (via Volokh Conspiracy) In this case, a student, who dropped a class because she was unhappy with her instructor, was subjected to discipline solely because she (very quietly) made her unhappiness with this professor known.
The plaintiff, Rowan Thompson, has an eye condition that makes her sensitive to light. In one class, taught by Dr. Megan Lazorski, avoiding aggravating this condition meant sitting in one of the first three rows. For the most part, Thompson was able to use this option. But in two instances, when she arrived late, seats up front were no longer available. Thompson chose to sit on the floor, which apparently irritated her instructor. In the second instance -- with no other usable seats available -- Dr. Lazorski gave Thompson this option: sit in an available seat or leave the class. Thompson left. Then she dropped the class.
She also sought mediation of her dispute over seating. The mediators asked her to submit a review of Dr. Lazorski, utilizing an online form for evaluations and class ratings. Thompson discovered she could no longer do this through the college website's portal since she was no longer listed as a student of Lazorki's.
Because the only option the mediator provided wasn't available to her, Thompson emailed her fellow students, asking them to submit their own reviews of Lazorski's class. This is taken from the Tenth Circuit Appeals Court decision [PDF]:
Hello everyone, I’m Rowan- some of you may know me as the goth girl who sat on the floor in class. For those who don’t know, I came late to class a couple of times and sat on the floor. It angered the professor enough that I was asked to leave class on the last occasion. A few weeks later, after a mediation attempt between the dean of chemistry and the professor, I had to drop the class to stop further confrontation- over sitting on the floor.
I have heard so many of you say how horrible a time you’re having in this class, that there are some bits that are ridiculous or downright unreasonable. You shouldn’t have to suffer through a class, especially one that is required, and this is not what college is supposed to be like. College is supposed to make us feel excited about our futures and finally learn what we are interested in, not ditch class because we know we won’t learn anything. You don’t need to keep your complaints and troubles private; this is what the evaluations are for. They’re online; the link to fill them out appears when you log into Blackboard, they take only a couple of minutes, are anonymous, and the more detail is said the better. Every issue you’ve had, every complaint? This is when the faculty and university is listening and wants to hear them. Students, including myself, who have dropped the class won’t be able to fill out an evaluation- our voices cannot be heard unless we speak to the deans directly, but I know for a fact that many are afraid to speak face-to-face.
Please, take the few minutes to review this chemistry class and be honest- make the faculty listen to you so that this class can change for the better. If not for yourself, than for those who have had to drop the class, feeling worthless and stupid, or for students who will have to take this class after you. Hang in there- you’re almost done and then you can leave this semester behind you! ? ?
-Rowan
This plea for action on her behalf (and on behalf of other students who may have been treated unfairly or were too intimidated to bring their complaints directly to the dean) resulted in this extreme overreaction by the college's administrators:
On April 25, Thompson received a letter from [Associate Director of Student Conduct Thomas] Ragland informing her that “the Dean of Students Office received reports that [Thompson] may have violated provisions of the Student Code of Conduct”; that these reports concerned “the disagreement between [Thompson] and Dr. Lazorski”; that, specifically, Thompson’s email to her former classmates “may have violated the Student Code of Conduct”; that Thompson had to meet with Ragland; and that Thompson was subject to a “No Contact order” restricting her from communicating with Dr. Lazorski. Ragland’s letter specifically cautioned: “Further, due to the persistent communication and disruption your communication is about Dr. Lazorski (sic), you are restricted from discussing Dr. Lazorski with any student in the CHE 1800 course or any of Dr. Lazorski’s classes, as this would be a violation of the this No Contact Directive (sic).”
There's your prior restraint. And there are the baseless accusations about "persistent communication" and "disruption," neither of which the school was able to provide evidence of when defending against this lawsuit. Going back to Tinker (1969) and tracing procedural history forward, the Tenth Circuit says denying qualified immunity is a no-brainer. This right is clearly established.
We think the foregoing precedents clearly establish that Thompson’s complaint adequately states a First Amendment violation. Indeed, this case is, at least at the present stage of the proceedings, an easy one. Thompson’s speech was restricted. And there is no apparent legitimate basis for this restriction.
As for the argument that school "disruption" justified Ragland's prior restraint, the court is having none of it.
He relies in part on the disruption caused to the two classes Thompson attended when she sat on the floor. Those two classes were in early February 2019. Ragland’s letter to Thompson was in late April. In the interim (sometime after the mediation on March 18) Thompson sent her email to fellow students. A reasonable factfinder could readily determine that the discipline was imposed on Thompson because of the email, not just because of the two classroom incidents that caused minimal disruption and had apparently been resolved by Thompson’s dropping the class.
Nor was Thompson's email disruptive.
The other possible cause of disruption was Thompson’s email to fellow students. But there is no evidence of any disruption caused by the email; on the contrary, the complaint alleges that there was no disruption to the work of MSU, and none was mentioned in Ragland’s letter imposing the discipline. Nor could disruption be reasonably anticipated. Thompson merely sent a respectful, noninflammatory email expressing her dissatisfaction with a professor’s performance and encouraging her former classmates to submit “honest” reviews about the class and the professor.
The court's harshest criticism is reserved for that particular argument:
What Ragland argues in his appellate brief is remarkable. He claims that Thompson’s “efforts to encourage other students to give negative evaluations would disrupt Dr. Lazorski’s career and her relationship with her students, as well as [MSU’s] efforts in employing faculty to conduct the class.” [...] If we were to accept that rationale, there would be no First Amendment protection for criticism of government employees.
This reverses the lower court's decision, which inexplicably sided with Ragland and his argument that criticism of government employees isn't protected speech. The administrator loses his qualified immunity and will have to continue defending himself against Thompson's lawsuit. This doesn't mean the addition of more facts to the case might result in a delayed win for Ragland (although, given what's detailed here, I don't see how he possibly walks away from this), but the onus is now on the administrator to defend his apparent rights violation, rather than simply claim he had no idea ordering a student to stop talking about an instructor might violate the student's rights.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 10th circuit, 1st amendment, college, free speech, megan lazorski, prior restraint, reviews, rowan thompson
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Accreditation boards take the ability for students to provide feedback about instructors and course design into account when reviewing educational institutions. If the students can't provide feedback, positive or negative, then courses can be adjusted in response to the student experience.
The other angle at play here is that it seems like the student didn't request an ADA accommodation, but even then, that doesn't make the instructor's response to her sitting on the floor valid. The admin should have told the student how to file for an accomodation to prevent that issue in the future. Could have saved the college a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. I wonder if the instructor's response can be considered a failure of duty to accommodate and that the student has a good case for an ADA lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No ADA lawsuit here. The school made an accommodation and the student was failing to show up on time to use it.
The ADA NEVER requires you change anything, just that you give the person seeking an accommodation a chance to use it.
This self entitled student, figured she can show up when she wants and demand other be made to submit to her inability to show up on time.
Whilst she has a right to speak her mind about this, her behavior shows how the ADA can be abused if not well known.
The ADA requires AN accommodation, not the one YOU want, just an accommodation and it also requires the user follow all the rules to exercise it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are free to point out where she demanded others to submit to her wishes. It seems to me that she didn't do that at all, which is why she actually sat on the floor.
How did she abuse it? Be specific.
In this instance it shows how a bad teacher handles situations, instead of trying to resolve the problem in a smart way he went full idiot. The same can be said of the school who apparently is so fucking terrible it doesn't even know how the constitution works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
She - Megan Lazorski.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're definitely wrong about this and clearly haven't worked at an educational institution, much less in a role facilitating accessibility. If the accommodation is useless or contingent on the student being on time, then it's not an accommodation at all. If the student had requested one, the disability services personnel would have done something like insisting the instructor reserve a seat for the student. Otherwise, it could be contingent not on the student being late but other students being early and taking all the accommodating seats. It's not difficult to reserve a seat. Needing an accommodation is not being self-entitled. The law entitles the student to accommodation as long as it's not unreasonable. It's not unreasonable to reserve a seat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So the optimal course for the college is to provide a means of feedback, but ensure that it is used as seldom as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
light sensitive?
How the hell did she get from class to class?
She should have registered her disablitity with the university and they'd have assigned her one of those front-row seats. Of course, if it wasn't a disablity but a symptom of her goth lifestyle, then they would have told her to grow up, i.e. what college is for.
The instructor should have kicked her out every time she sat on the floor.
As for her plea to have the instructor downrated by other students, the appropriate course of action would have been to contact the univerisy and have them provide a way for her to review that instructor seeing as she lost that ability when she dropped the class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: light sensitive?
What relevance does that have to her legal case?
It doesn't matter if you think it was "appropriate" or not, it wasn't illegal and the school can't make the law up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: light sensitive?
Sunglasses, no doubt. Wrap-arounds, with special lenses.
Allow me anticipate the next question: It is not practical to take notes indoors while wearing sunglasses.
It should be well within the instructor's authority to assign a seat or, perhaps, as to ask for a volunteer in the first three rows to move to the fourth row.
This is not a problem that seems to require an administrative solution.
Not to mention the fact that she may well have "registered" -- the story does not say.
The alternative offered presumes that the student is a liar. Have you grounds for such a charge?
If it is, in fact, a disability: One does not "grow up" from a disability.
Why was the action she chose inappropriate? You don't explain.
Maybe I missed something, but I thought the university's proposal was essentially: Go do this thing that is impossible -- don't call us until you do. That seems to offer no way to, quoting the First Amendment, "...petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That is not only what the university intended, but it has fought a legal battle to assert its "right" to do so.
Appeals Court says: Nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: light sensitive?
Thanks. This anon was wrong on so many I wouldn't have known where to start.
One detail though:
The student didn't ask that. She implied it, I agree, but what she did was: tell her story then ask for "honest reviews". No call for negative reviews, despite how you probably think so by the story attached to the call. No call for flaming, no call for trolling... no call for disturbance. Just a call for review.
If the teacher is so bad that the school knows that such a call would indeed lead to a flood of bad reviews that can break the teacher's career... then maybe it's time to reconsider the teacher's employment. One is not entitled to a job as a teacher, particularly when he has no consideration and respect for his students.
Good teachers are generally liked and supported by their students. If he's a good teacher that is unfairly portrayed by this one students, he probably has no need to fear honest reviews.
And given the system in place, it seems like the "goth girl" cannot ask random unrelated people to leave bad reviews. They have to be registered as actual and current students of this teacher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: light sensitive?
This. Calling for people to pursue legitimate grievances using proper procedures though school-approved official channels is not disruption of the school.
If it were, then ANY communication to the school of anything but fawning praise would also be disruption - even asking for a class schedule or campus map.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: light sensitive?
i think others have probably already responded to the "merits" of your "argument", so here's my synoptic version: Get bent, you authoritarian fuckwit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: light sensitive?
You know, employers regularly do this to prospective employees to decide if they're good enough. Parents regularly do this to kids. Hell, teachers regularly compare students and complain about the ones they think deserve to be passed over. It's petty as fuck but there's nothing stopping them from doing it. This idea that teachers can't be given the same treatment is hypocritical and elitist.
And here's the thing, other students are entirely free to agree or disagree with her. If they decide the teacher warrants the downvoting they'll do it. If they think the student is full of shit they'll ignore her. This is literally the exact same thing that happens on the playground when one kid tells the other kids not to play with another kid. Whatever happens the children all get told to get over it. This instructor will survive the insignificant blemish on their record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: light sensitive?
If doing it were disruptive to a school, it would also ban report cards and even graded tests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: light sensitive?
Thanks for your input, Ms. Lazorski.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: light sensitive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: light sensitive?
They are called sunglasses, perhaps one you get your head out of your ass you might learn about them.
Oooh and you get to decide if her disability is or is not real.
Are you one of those assholes who demand people parked in handicapped spots prove their disability to you?
You know they faked it to get the permit hanging from the rearview & now they have to answer to you...
On the upside your entire rant really highlights why many people with disabilities often just suck it up because they really don't feel like explaining to petty able bodied tyrants the exact nature of their disability and having to perform like a circus animal to meet your mental requirements for being disabled enough.
Did you read a different letter?
No where was there a request or demand to give bad reviews, merely honest reviews.
I offer you a big hearty fuck off from someone who sometimes is light sensitive, sometimes doesn't need his cane, sometimes needs to park closer to the entrance who is fed up with assholes like you who think unless your missing limbs you aren't disabled & are required to prove it on demand by every fucking Karen who is just pissed that there are a couple spaces they can't use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: light sensitive?
Being required to explain your medical condition(s) to random strangers would also violate HIPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: light sensitive?
screams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: light sensitive?
I hope you’re joking, because no it doesn’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: light sensitive?
I have light sensitivity, always have, and I have never been known as "goth". But I would have really pissed this teacher off because I would have worn my sunglasses.
While I agree that it's best to arrive to class on time, I don't see how sitting on the floor, which doesn't require disturbing anyone to move or for the teacher to stop what she's doing is a problem. I'm not sure that light sensitivity would be covered by the ADA, but it hardly seems like the sort of thing worth this profs time to make an issue out of.
What I see here is a prof with an attitude problem, who thinks they are teaching a young person whom they arbitrarily determined is lacking in character & maturity (maybe she was late because dawdled a little too long drawing on her eyeliner, or maybe she came from a job or caring for an elderly relative, we don't know), a lesson about the "real world". She gave an ultimatum just to be hard ass (I see nothing saying where the student sat posed a safety hazard) instead of having a brief conversation after class about punctuality like a reasonable adult in the real world. It's a class, that this student is paying for, not a job, so please save that stupid comparison.
The truth is, the teacher looks immature and lacking in character here. Issuing ultimatums, not initiating a dialogue with the much younger adult, then going to the dean to tattle about a student encouraging other students to utilize the tools they were given to review the profs, and demand a "no contact", as if the student harassed her!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just the tip of an iceberg? That college seems like a bad place!
The gag order aside, one wonders if the college and specififically Student Conduct officer [Thomas] Ragland are up for the job.
If the student does have a medical condition, the college should - and perhaps even has to - make sure that she can find adequate seating. Since none of this is mentioned in the article, one wonders if the college even investigated if there was a medical condition (the case would probably collapse if there wasn't). One wonders, too, why a qualified teacher is not able to sort this out herself, by simply asking someone to free up a seat.
As for the email asking to voice concerns, there are two options: The student might be wrong, students might feel comfortable raising concerns and grievances, and the college might have adequate procedures to deal with them. In which case they can simply ignore the email, it would not change a thing.
Or the student might have a point. In which case the college, notably the Student Conduct officer [Thomas] Ragland and his fellow administrators, have failed miserably.
In which case the college has a much bigger problem than the dispute between a student and a teacher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just the tip of an iceberg? That college seems like a bad pl
Hence the lawsuit to cover it up and subsequent Stressand effect.
This happens far more often than not in education for multiple reasons. Often it's just the administration wanting to avoid adding another problem requiring immediate addressing to to their already overflowing plate of problems requiring immediate addressing or else.
I've worked in one school where an after school program didn't have anyone handling student behavior. The coach wasn't a teacher and was incapable of classroom management. Anytime the coach asked for help, the principal only gave the coach the option of kicking the students out of the program. Which, if the coach had done, would mean the after school program would be shut down for a lack of students. As such the coach had to go it alone, which lead to under performing students and angry parents. (Because this is America where after school sports are more important than the schooling itself.) The principal quit their position three months into the next year due to all of the issues they had to deal with on a regular basis, and the lashing they got from the parents of those kids.
TL;DR: It's not just colleges, the problems with school administrators exist at every level of the US educational system, and the problems themselves are often preventable given enough resources to do so. Sadly, most of the time the resources are just not there to handle things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as students are the ones paying for professors to be there in the first place, students should be the ones deciding who gets to sit where, among many other things. Some professors seem to view themselves as masters and the students as slaves, when they should be viewing students as their employers and behave accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah... this is not happening, and I doubt will ever happen in the near or even long-term future. Education is entirely built on the premise of students being empty vessels and sponges meant to absorb everything that gets thrown their way. The idea of students being in control is something that will simply not sit well with school administration or society as a whole, especially when it might inconvenience them or give youngsters more bargaining power than their elders are comfortable with.
This is even more so in a university setting, when the establishment's aim is, by and large, churning out graduates to get thrown into factory lines. Or commit to research and pet projects of whoever managed to get tenure as a professor. Students are always the bottom of the food chain, flagellated for not groveling hard enough at the opportunity of potentially standing on the shoulders of giants. And I don't see that changing, because asking society to not treat the youngest generation as an adversary is akin to asking them to saw off their own collective leg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As much as you may (may) be right in this case, as a general rule neither professors nor administrators should be viewing students as their employers. Otherwise, "I'm paying your salary so give me an A" is implicitly a valid argument.
There is a medium between the authoritarian professor and the authoritarian student. The one in the OP ain't it, but neither is your rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]