The Progression of Student Rights: Has Virtual Learning Changed Them?

Story by Abigail Portnoy, photograph by Victoria Heath

When Horace Mann created the concept of “school” as we know it today, he intended for schools to be centers of education where students could gain necessary life skills to be influential members of society. School is meant to be a safe place for students — a place that promotes diversity, encourages understanding of each others’ differences, and stimulates intellectual conversation about various ideas. School is meant to be a place where students can express themselves, connect with other students’ with similar interests, and engage in healthy debate to gain a broader, more well-rounded perception of the world. Of course, this is all in addition to learning the basic subjects and exploring academic interests.

With the transition to virtual education as a result of the Covid-19 Pandemic, students’ rights have been more frequently called into question. Teachers are now able to see into the homes of their students, getting an inside look into their personal lives. The question that now arises is whether or not the limitations on students rights’ inside school is also applicable to their rights when taking classes from home.

Let’s take a look at some prior Supreme Court rulings that ultimately defined students’ rights at school, before we jump in to their applicability to current situations. In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Court upheld the students’ rights to wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. This ruling protected students’ 1st Amendment rights, as long as they did not cause a “substantial disruption” to the school environment. One of the most important things to note from Tinker is that student expression cannot be silenced simply because a school official disagrees with their beliefs. Later, in New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985), the Court established that students have a “legitimate expectation of privacy” as long as it does not conflict with a safe learning environment. This is especially applicable to the modern day, where virtual learning may infringe on the privacy of students inside their own homes. In Morse v. Frederick (2007), a student was suspended for displaying a banner that said: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. The Court upheld this suspension, stating that messages that promote drug use can be prohibited by the school.

Now, let’s apply these cases to the modern day, since your home has basically become your school. Can a teacher force you to take a banner down in your room? Can you be punished for an illegal substance inside your home, despite not physically bringing it to school? Can a teacher claim that a political poster or a controversial sign hanging on your wall causes a “substantial disruption” to the classroom?

Recently, a New Jersey student was kicked out of his virtual class for refusing to take down a Trump banner hanging behind him, simply because his teacher did not agree with his political message. While this did not make it to the Supreme Court, it stirred debate about whether political messages, such as this student’s, could be displayed. The students’ right to free expression was being silenced in the very confines of his own home where he should have the right to freely express himself. The school district quickly sided with the student. However, issues like this are free to arise frequently with virtual education because student speech inside their own homes doesn’t necessarily face the same limitations as when students are physically in school.

Now that teachers have more access to our personal lives at home, it is increasingly important for students to be fully aware of their rights. Each of you should know what kind of expression you are entitled to so you can stand up for your rights if they are ever violated. As students, we should feel free to speak out and express ourselves to make change, communicate our ideas, and enact progress in the world.