Federal appeals court backs district's expulsion of student over letter

By The Associated Press

09.26.02

Printer-friendly page

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A boy who wrote a letter during summer vacation threatening to rape and murder his ex-girlfriend was properly expelled from school, a divided federal appeals court ruled yesterday.

The Pulaski County School District learned of the threat after one of the eighth-grader's friends stole the letter. Northwood Junior High Principal Bob Allison expelled the boy, citing the district's conduct rules.

The boy's parents sued. A federal judge at Little Rock ruled the letter was not a true threat, concluding that the boy, identified in court papers as J.M., did not intend to communicate it to the girl. A split three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed last year.

But in a review by the full court, judges split 6-4 yesterday in ruling in John Doe v. Pulaski County Special Dist. that the district could expel the boy, who was 14 when he was disciplined in 2000.

"I suppose the other side could construe this ruling as a blow against the First Amendment," school board lawyer Greg Jones said. "The way I look at it, to extend constitutional protection to a revolting and depraved threat, that does not extend to the First Amendment."

The American Civil Liberties Union said the school district had no right to expel the boy over what he wrote during summer vacation.

"They are cutting the parent out of the picture," said Rita Sklar, the executive director of the Arkansas chapter of the ACLU. "And if it's not under the parents' purview, law enforcement did not act. That should have been good enough for the school district."

The ACLU said it didn't know whether the family would appeal the decision.

In its opinion, the appeals court said a reasonable person would view the letter as a threat, particularly his ex-girlfriend, identified as K.G., and that the boy intended to communicate the threat to the girl because he let a friend read the letter.

"J.M.'s previous portrayal of himself as a tough guy with a propensity for aggression made his threat more credible and contributed to K.G.'s reaction," David R. Hansen wrote for the majority.

But in a dissent, Gerald W. Heaney said that, while the content of the letter was chilling, J.M. wrote the letter as a private response to his breakup with the girl.

He also said that, had the girl truly felt threatened, she would have contacted an adult about it rather than having J.M.'s friend take it through "what appears to be a complicated tangle of teenage networking."

Further, Heaney wrote, the school district failed to exercise sound judgment in expelling J.M.

"The board's draconian punishment is unprecedented among the school threat cases across the nation," Heaney wrote, citing instances where children who went to court were still allowed to attend classes.

"J.M., of all people, belongs in school," Heaney wrote.

Jones, the school district attorney, said the board properly stood up for K.G.'s rights.

"I guess on the one hand, expulsion is a severe punishment," Jones said. "But when you're faced with a situation where the child has threatened to sodomize, stab, rape, murder and injure one of your students, I think the ... district is justified in taking that very seriously."

Sklar said the appeals court undermined First Amendment rights.

"Are none of us free to write unpleasant, even hateful thoughts, without fear of it falling into the government's hands?" Sklar asked. "None of us should feel safe writing something in our journals. Many of us have written angry letters to a lover that we've never intended to send."

In a separate dissent, Judge Theodore McMillian said the writings were protected speech because they were made in the privacy of his home.

"I question whether the school had any legitimate authority over such a statement, made in the privacy of his home ... which was stolen from his home by one of his friends, at the request of another, and then turned over to school officials," he wrote.

"If anything, the statement was arguably a police matter, for which I note, the local prosecuting attorney refused to issue any charges."

After his expulsion, the boy attended an alternative school for two weeks. At that point, the school board upheld the expulsion and said the boy could no longer attend the alternative school.

Previous

Boy's letter wasn't true threat, says federal appeals panel
ACLU representative says ruling in Arkansas case helps clarify when speech containing violent thoughts or images is protected by First Amendment.  08.29.01

Related

Pennsylvania high court upholds student's expulsion over Web site
Court said that while it didn't appear that 14-year-old intended to hurt teacher, the site disrupted school environment, which justified the expulsion.  09.27.02