Teachers, Students Fight To Be Facebook Friends

An anonymous reader writes "State Governor Jay Nixon recently signed Senate Bill 54, making it illegal for students and teachers to be friends online as of later this month. Now, a Missouri teachers group is fighting the state's new law that prohibits them from being Facebook friends with their students by filing a lawsuit. From the article: 'The Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA) filed a lawsuit on Friday, challenging a new law. MSTA is specifically asking the Circuit Court of Cole County to determine the constitutionality of the law’s social media portion.'"

Comments

Anybody else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody else feel like this is an incursion on freedom of speech?

Re:Anybody else?

[izomiac]

Not so much freedom of speech as freedom of assembly. Either way it's a first amendment issue.

Re:Anybody else?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call it friendship (as in a true sincere friendship like), but several teachers from the University definitely got into my social circles. It seems that again some of you are misunderstanding the meaning of social networks. You really don't have to go daily to have a beer o talk by phone to someone to consider having eventually contact with him/her, either physical or online contact.

Re:Anybody else?

[edumacator]

Many teachers use Facebook as a means of communicating with clubs, teams, and even classes. Since ninety-five percent of the students (a guesstimate) are on FB, it's an easy form of communication. Even more students have email accounts, but they never check them.

This wouldn't be such an issue if the term wasn't "Friend," but rather something without the same connotative value. But then, it wouldn't make us feel as warm and fuzzy if I had 5,000 associates instead of 5,000 friends.

Re:Anybody else?

[obarthelemy]

but it's nice to have 5,000 people in your circles !

Re:Anybody else?

[xaxa]

Aside from that, I can't help but wonder who in the hell wants to friend their teachers on a social network.

You might not, but it's still important to defend your freedoms.

Even if I can tolerate you until the school bell rings at 3pm or 4pm, that doesn't mean I ever want to have anything to do with you outside of class. You're a teacher; not my buddy.

Facebook didn't exist when I was at school, but there were several adults I knew that I might have added on Facebook. Some of them happened to be teachers -- parents of my friends. They were much more friendly towards me outside school.

Re:Anybody else?

[delinear]

Might work both ways too - a teacher might find it easier to engage and meet the learning needs of students if they understand more about what's happening in their life outside of school. Maybe there's some game or show that's popular and the teacher can hook into that to make class work more relevant. It feels a little odd to me as I'm from the generation that enjoyed privacy and the idea of a teacher being able to see my movements and social interactions is a little creepy, but for kids who have grown up in the current environment there are a lot of potential advantages.

Re:Anybody else?

[Marillion]

Does anyone know if the law has a parenting exemption? Some teachers are parents. I believe that it's a responsibility as a parent to periodically look at how his or her children use social media. As the parent of two teens, I know several other parents of teens who happen to be both a fellow parent and a teacher at the high school where my kids go. I believe those teachers should be able to "friend" their children just as I've "friended" mine.

Re:Anybody else?

[hairyfeet]

Actually i'm torn on this. Yes freedom of speech is great but as someone who was hit on by a not very attractive female teacher at 14 as well as watched a friend trade sex for grades with said teacher there is actually sometimes where you DO need to "think of the children" because one forgets how much power a teacher can wield over a student.

So lets not lose sight of the fact WHY bans like this have been put it place. it isn't like these school boards have gone "Oh its Tuesday, we need to be douchebags" it is because time and time again we have seen both male and female teachers use their position to have sex with their underage students.

While there are plenty of truly awesome teachers out there (Thanks Ms Edwards for being a great teacher that inspired my lifelong love of science!) there are also some VERY sick puppies out there that are using the profession for their own sexual gratification. So I'd say this is one of the VERY few cases where one actually does need to "think of the children" when weighing and deciding this.

Re:Anybody else?

[silentcoder]

FTFA - no it does not, the way it's written it makes it illegal for teachers whose children are students in the same schools where they work to be facebook friends with their own children.

Re:Anybody else?

[trum4n]

Mine was a 68 year old gay man. He was AWESOME, but not really my type...

Re:Anybody else?

[gsmalleus]

I worked with a teacher who ended up having an inappropriate relationship with a student. None of the communication between the two happened on facebook or email, or even phone calls. It was all done with hand written notes. So lets ban pencils and paper from schools. Digital communication is so much easier to trace. I would rather have a log of emails exchanged, or Facebook conversations than having handwritten notes.

I myself am an educator, and work with multiple school districts. I have worked in districts where they have a policy of not friending students, and I happily comply. I had one district which wanted me to completely delete my FB and Twitter accounts, I declined that position. I have way too many friends that have moved or I don't talk to as much as I would like and Facebook is the only way to keep in touch with them. Other districts don't have such policies and I have accepted friend requests from students or made pages where all the students can get up-to-date info on changes in assignments and such. I must say that when I have the ability to communicate with students via Facebook, it makes life a whole lot easier. I also teach extra-cirricualr activities and if there is a change in schedule or place that we are practicing I can get the word out quickest on social media. I keep my FB profile clean, I don't have any pictures that would reflect upon me in an unprofessional manner. I also expect the same from any students who friend me. I have reported a few students who posted pictures of themselves drinking.

I live in a small town, and many of my students go to the same church as I do. I see students as I am running my errands around town, many of them are employed part time at restaurants and other businesses that I frequent. Passing laws to prohibit students and teachers from communicating outside of school is just plain stupid.

Re:Anybody else?

[spazdor]

Well, the queues should indicate that demand exceeds supply - meaning the 'expecting kids to procure their own internet access' objection stands. If some of your students have to stand 45 minutes in line to find out what their homework is and others can just read it off of their smartphone on the way home, I hope it's clear how this may influence their respective grades.

Re:Anybody else?

[BitterOak]

Many teachers use Facebook as a means of communicating with clubs, teams, and even classes. Since ninety-five percent of the students (a guesstimate) are on FB, it's an easy form of communication.

And do you feel it is appropriate that that other 5% should be required to create Facebook accounts just so they can get assignments or turn in homework? Many people choose not to have Facebook accounts for privacy reasons. Should students be denied that choice?

Something similar

[Errol backfiring]

I would welcome a law that would forbid anyone from entering my e-mail address (and any other personal data) on a web site without my permission.

Re:Question comes to mind

[alexhs]

1. Leave anonymity
2. Go to ~CowboyNeal page
3. Click on the white dot in the top right box. Sends you on alter relationship
4. Click "friend"
5. Click "Yup, I'm positive"
6. ...
7. Profit !

You're welcome.

It must be pretty tough

[Chrisq]

It must be pretty tough if your teacher is your dad, uncle, or even older sibling. Or if you belong to some sports club or similar and everyone else is a friend.

Also what's the proposed legal situation if a student and/or the teacher uses a psedonym and is unaware that their friend is a teacher/pupil?

Re:It must be pretty tough

[Opportunist]

Tough? Hell, that law is currently a godsend for kids of teachers. "Sorry, mom, I can't have you in my facebook friends, it's the law".

I bet a lot of kids would kill for that opportunity!

this is uber lameness

[FudRucker]

as if being friends in real life was an impossibility, forget facebook the human race survived for millions of years before the internet came along so you can survive and communicate with your friends without facebook too, give it a try, exchange phone numbers, meet for coffee, play a game of pingpong or pool, or a board-game like chess or checkers or dominoes...

Re:this is uber lameness

[Just Some Guy]

as if being friends in real life was an impossibility, forget facebook the human race survived for millions of years before the internet came along so you can survive and communicate with your friends without facebook too

Yes, you are being uber lame. Why edit stuff on Github when I just drive to the author's house, take a look at what he's working on, and suggest changes in person?

In the real world, my wife texted me to ask me to pick something up at the store on my way home. In what way is that morally inferior to a phone call?

And finally, why are you posting to a bulletin on the Internet instead of finding a topical corkboard in your local college student union and conducting a lively debate on it there?

OK its even worse

[Chrisq]

The bill says:

Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child’s legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.

For a teacher who works in a small town for a few decades that will be a large number of people they can never friend on facebook. It could even prevent someone friending their husband or wife. A teacher/pupil can have an age difference of four years, which a few years after they younger one graduates will seem an insignificant difference.

Re:OK its even worse

[vlm]

What if a former student becomes teacher at the same school? Is then the school no longer allowed to have a teachers-only web site for their administration?

Its even weirder, because "work related websites" must be made available for parents.

This would seem to include online performance evaluation websites for the teachers and admins. I guess their annual review must now be made public?

Where I work, we have boring HR training classes, online with video, quizzes, etc. Apparently if a school district offers mandatory online "fundamentals of diversity" class at $100 per viewer or whatever ripoff cost, the district MUST pay for parents if they want to take the class.

Also there are HIPAA violations galore... So my public school teacher sister in law takes an online training class on teaching kids with "fill in the blank mental health issue", that information must be provided to all parents, thus all the parents know at least one kids mental health diagnosis. Or medical diagnosis, ranging from who cares ("bee sting allergies") to the privacy types go freaking bonkers ("pediatric aids")

Re:OK its even worse

[_0xd0ad]

There most certainly is. Here is the immediately following sentence, which was for some reason omitted in the original quotation:

SECTION 162.069 - By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication ... Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.

I suggest people go and read the bill itself.

Was this not the norm?

[qxcv]

In Australia, teachers aren't allowed (and this is a rule rather than a law) to contact you electronically using any means other than your school-supplied mailbox. From a teacher's point of view it works out quite well, because they can often be harassed by students (anonymously, of course) and sometimes visa-versa. I do admit that it would be hard for relatives who are teachers/students in the same state, but I think that is a bit of a corner case and unlikely to be pursued by the government. This bill seems to be simply to protect one party in the case online relationships between students and teachers become abusive/a threat to privacy.

Open and shut case

[Loki_1929]

I can't begin to imagine a less defensible violation of the first amendment. Here we have a law which directly prohibits the free association of citizens for no justifiable reason. The prohibition does nothing to prevent inappropriate contact between students and teachers (nullifying any possible compelling reason to uphold this unconstitutional garbage) while directly attacking a right so critical to basic human liberty that the founding fathers chose to spell it out in plain English for all the world to see in the Bill of Rights. The first amendment was crafted specifically to ensure that exactly this kind of thing would never happen in this country.

Not even in the 9th Circus would this kind of absurdity pass the smell test. Assuming this makes it to the SCOTUS, the lawyer defending it is going to find the justices incredulously shaking their heads at his every word.

Re:Open and shut case

[Loki_1929]

Now who's picking and choosing?

Out of 7,200,000 teachers (US Census 2008), you come up with a list of a couple hundred bad people and declare all of them "state sanctioned child molesters" who "spend their days preying on" their students?

The only possible compelling interest the state could claim would be protecting children from the likes of people on the list you linked, yet it's completely impossible to show how this law accomplishes that. If the law is an utter failure at preventing undesirable contact between teachers and students (and it is), then it loses the one compelling reason to even consider allowing its complete and utter disregard for the first amendment. Teachers aren't limited to Facebook and MySpace to meet and seduce their students. Believe it or not, they actually sit just a few feet apart for much of the year and nearly all of them have absolutely no interest in molesting anyone.

Re:Open and shut case

[Loki_1929]

Who is advocating a teacher being able to force students to add them as friends on any social media site? Nobody.

Your argument is a strawman.

Re:Open and shut case

[silentcoder]

>I'm sure these same schools also have all sorts of dress codes that prevent students from exercising their constitutional right to free speech while at school or attending school functions.

And those of us who sincerely believe in free speech find that abominable. Here in South Africa about two years ago, an Indian girl was told by the teachers of her (largely Christian) school that she was not allowed to wear multiple sets of earings.
She stated that the extra earings had religious signifance to her as a Hindu and after an investigation the school declared that since their wearing is not MANDATORY in Hinduism (meaningful but not required behavior) prohibiting her from wearing them during school hours due to a rule about girls not having any piercings except one-per-ear was perfectly fine.
She took them to the constitutional court - and won. The court found that voluntary actions in religions are MORE meaningful than those compelled by the religion and thus a school rule that prevents the excercise of such actions is a GREATER infringement on freedom of religion and not only ordered the school to change the rule, but made it mandatory for ALL public schools to abholish all rules about earrings. It's also worth noting that the South African constitution considers freedom of religion to be a specific part of freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech rule covers religious expression (though religion gets additional extra protection which not all other speech gets).

For context: it's worth noting that a few years before this another case was brought by a young Rastafarian after the school insisted he cut his hair to comply with hairstyle rules - this of course going directly against his religion which forbids males from cutting their hair. At the time - the court ruled that the school was in the wrong and made it illegal for any public schools in South Africa to have hair rules that could interfere with religious expression.

The bible-thumping parents of South Africa and their schools did what they always do - in the name of discipline they acted without discipline. In the name of authority they did not adhere to the authority over themselves. They didn't abholish rules on hairstyles. They merely made an exception allowing the hair rules to be over-looked in the case where a child's religion requires it (with a letter to that effect from their parents - which in itself is a gross violation of freedom as children SHOULD have the right to change religion without their parent's permission, permission that would often be impossible to obtain and if you don't grant them that freedom then freedom of religion effectively stops existing altogether.)
Parents can, and should have the right to, teach their religion to their children - but if those children later choose a different path they should not require permission (for starters all you biblethumpers: do you want to live in a world where if you preach the gospel to a muslim classmate he would need his orthodox dad's permission to before he could consider believing you ?)

It was - basically - a dodge and the later hearing about earrings affirmed the position of the constitutional court here: that while there may be some restriction on constitutional freedoms in a school setting these restrictions MUST be kept to the bare minimum needed and if they cannot be adequately justified they cannot exist. That children have a right to believe, dress and decorate themselves as they choose to and that the school does NOT have the right to enforce a tyranny of the majority (even if it's just the majority of parents and wealthy citizens in the neighbourhood) on these matters.

School (and those parents and wealthy citizens) continue to attempt to find ways around this out of a leftover belief that the old appartheid brainwashing system was somehow noble and that it is bad for children to be allowed to have opinions and express them - longing for a time when the very PURPOSE of schools was deemed to be to ensure all who passed through them would

When they get those rights

[ciderbrew]

Expect to see child kicked out of class due to Facebook posts.

And in the "grown up" world, a person who brings a camera to any event now ruins the night as far as I'm concerned. Social web and beer doesn't mix.

Re:When they get those rights

[slackbheep]

So anyone with a phone unfortunately.

More importantly...

[denzacar]

On Slashdot, not only can you be his friend - you can be his FOE.

AND we have "I hate" buttons too.
They come in flavors of "Offtopic", "Flamebait", "Troll", "Redundant" and "Overrated".

Complete logic fail

[lexsird]

If teachers are some how unfit to communicate with students online, then shouldn't they be unfit to communicate with them IN PERSON AT SCHOOL?

It seems that it would be intelligent that teachers should welcome a chance to be let into the social circles of students online. This is where they could influence them in a positive way. For example the case of cyber bullying. If there is a teacher in the circle of friends, wouldn't this hamper cyber bullying? Don't we have enough disconnect from the youth of the country as it is? We have both parents trying to work 2 jobs each trying to pay the bills, this leaves kids disconnected to a point of being criminally negligent.

It's ok that we we let kids be influenced by Rap music, MTV, and free run of the Internet with all the filth involved in these elements, but we balk at a teacher being around? It sounds like we need drug testing for politicians.

Does that include every teacher in your school?

[cvtan]

Can you friend a teacher in your school that does not have you in any of his/her classes?

Freedom of Association

[DanielRavenNest]

The United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others:

"We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment" ( NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 US 449 - Supreme Court 1958 )

The casus belli for this law

[Nimey]

was a teacher who had an inappropriate sexual relationship with his student.

Thirty years ago, well before the time of social media.