In the center is Northrop High School social studies teacher, Robb Robinson. The student panel at right includes, from left, Jacob Stiefel, Vincent Riddle and Samuel Thomas. (buscovoice.com photo)

By Vivian Sade for buscovoice.com

FORT WAYNE, Ind. (Nov. 2009) – When high school social studies students from four area schools gathered for a symposium Thursday to discuss constitutional rights, the current ACLU case involving Churubusco High School became the centerpiece for debate of those very rights.

We the People

Dozens of students, attorneys and judges gathered  Nov. 5 at The Chapel on Hamilton Road in a special hands-on program called “We the People … The Citizen and the Constitution,” a 9-week class offered as part of some schools’ social studies curriculum.

“We the People” is a national civic education program that helps elementary and secondary students understand the history and principles of U.S. constitutional government. The program is administered nationally by the Center for Civic Education through a network of 435 congressional district coordinators and 50 state coordinators.

In several different rooms, groups of students from Elmhurst, Homestead, Fairfield and Northrop high schools watched as three students and three judicial representatives held a question and answer/debate session involving the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In one room, the panel – made up of Fort Wayne attorneys, Dan Roby and Bob Grubbs, and U.S. Federal Social Security Judge Bryan Bernstein – began the day-long session by asking three students if they thought the Churubusco ACLU case violated any Constitutional rights.

Low chuckles rippled through the audience of high school students. They knew the case.

About the case

The Churubusco case made national headlines two weeks ago when the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on two sophomore girls’ behalf against Smith-Green School Corporation (Churubusco High School) after the girls were punished for posting sexually suggestive photos on Facebook while on summer break.

The lawsuit states that the girls’ free speech rights were violated by Churubusco High School after administrators banned the girls from participating in sports for what the teens said, “was just a joke.”

The two girls, along with several others, according to reports, were attending a sleepover during summer break and took photos of each other posing in lingerie and holding phallic-shaped suckers. The girls did not wear anything that identified them as students of Churubusco High School and said they had set the privacy settings on Facebook so that only friends could view the photos. Allegedly, the parent of another student searched the site, downloaded the photos and then turned them over to school officials.

From left: U.S. Federal Judge Bryan Bernstein and attorneys Dan Roby and Bob Grubbs. (buscovoice.com photo)

The ACLU argues that the incident had no effect on the school, since it happened during summer break. The lawsuit said the principal went too far after kicking the teens off of all sport teams – first for the entire school year – and later reduced to just the fall semester. The girls were also required to apologize to an all-male board and to undergo sexual addiction counseling, which the suit stated was “humiliating.”

What do other students think?

Samuel Thomas, a member of the “We the People” student panel, said whether or not it was wise to post such photos on Facebook was not the issue. “Obviously, it was not,” he said.

“But the event was not related to school events and the school should not have gotten involved,” Thomas went on to say. “It was in the privacy of one (of the girls’) home, although posting it on the Internet does take away somewhat from the issue of privacy.”

But Jacob Stiefel, also a member of the panel, said he agreed with the school’s position. “Although I do not think it was right for the school to force the girls to make a formal apology to a board made up of all-male coaches,” Stiefel said.

From the courtroom side, Roby noted that most schools have no written restrictions on what is acceptable use of the Internet off campus, and are dealing with such issues on a case-by-case basis.

“Maybe a proactive stance would be for schools to think about educating kids – perhaps in middle school, at an early age – on the correct and incorrect use of the Internet,” Roby said. “A lot of kids don’t realize when they post something (to a social networking site) that it’s out there for the entire world to access, regardless of privacy settings.”

A tough one

Roby, Bernstein and Grubbs also raised the question of what defines a right and what defines a privilege.

“A driver’s license is a privilege and can be revoked if the rules are not followed,” Roby said. “Is sports, an extracurricular activity, also a privilege?”

In every session, Bernstein, Grubbs and Roby raised the same questions regarding the Churubusco/ACLU lawsuit, and said all of the students were aware of – and eager to discuss – the case.

At a later session, a Homestead student voiced her observations. “We’re a generation blessed with the wonders of technology, but with this new weapon comes the burden of using it responsibly,” she said. “Some of us may not be mature enough to know what we’re doing, and while this (incident) may have ranked high on the stupidity scale, the Constitution will back them up in the long run.”

“Suddenly (teens) are thrust into a world with Facebook, My Space, Tweet, YouTube … and most have not thought seriously about the consequences of what they are doing,” she said.

Although several students said the school did not infringe upon the girls’ First Amendment rights and that participation in extra-curricular sports is a privilege, not a right, the general consensus of most of the students who spoke up was that while the girls may have behaved inappropriately, the school should not have gotten involved, but instead should have referred it back to the girls’ parents for further action.

“This case is very interesting, and raises questions on both sides of the issue,” Bernstein said, agreeing with Roby and Grubbs, who said they were glad they were not a judge presiding over the case.