Authoritarianism Breeds Abuse of Authority

At first glance there may seem little similarity between endless instances of police misconduct and an education case to be argued on April 28th before the Supreme Court (SCOTUS).  I suggest a common root.

The police-related instances are front and center with the trial of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd, the manslaughter charges for the killing of Daunte Wright, and the lawsuit filed by a Black Lieutenant who was pepper sprayed during a routine traffic stop in Virginia.  These are just a tiny fraction of incidents of police abuse of authority.

I wrote about the case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., several months ago, before SCOTUS agreed to hear it.  This case arose from a school’s disciplinary action taken against a high school freshman, Brandi Levy, who sent a Snapchat message to friends expressing her disappointment at failing to make the varsity cheerleading squad.  She wrote, “Fuck school. Fuck softball. Fuck cheer. Fuck everything.”  She and several friends punctuated the verbal message by flipping the bird to the camera.   

Levy and her parents sued, claiming that her message was free speech, protected by the First Amendment.  They prevailed in lower court, the school district appealed, and the case will be finally decided by the Supreme Court.

The germane question is whether the Court’s landmark 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District applies to off-campus speech. Tinker sided with students who had worn black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, deciding that student speech is protected under the First Amendment as long as school is not substantially disrupted.  

The Court of Appeals decided that Tinker did not apply to “speech that is outside school-owned, -operated, or -supervised channels and that is not reasonably interpreted as bearing the school’s imprimatur.”  They offered no opinion as to whether Levy’s Snapchat message was disruptive to the school’s mission.

The Supreme Court decision, anticipated in several months, will decide one issue but not the other.  If the school district prevails it will extend schools’ authority over out-of-school speech and behavior, but would defer the issue of “disruptive” to schools’ discretion or to other cases.

In my previous post I opined that schools needed authority to deal with outside incidents because of the rise in online bullying and/or things like racist slurs.  After reading the many briefs in this case, I respectfully recant.  SCOTUS should uphold the lower court ruling and limit the reach of school authority.

My change of heart is for several reasons.  The dangers of further erosion of First Amendment rights are substantially more severe than the risks posed to the targets of bullying or other student behavior taking place outside of school.  Such behavior can be dealt with by schools using counseling, peer mediation and emotional and social education.  If the behavior happens within “school-owned, -operated, or -supervised channels,” a school’s ability to act will not be limited. 

If a threat of violence, or an incident of actual violence is involved, the issue is quite different.  I particularly acknowledge cases of sexual assault, where a school has a more acute responsibility to respond rather than depend entirely on criminal referral.  My analysis is limited to expression, not to actions outside First Amendment protection.  In  instances involving violence or threats of violence, both a school and the justice system must have authority.

The other reason, finally getting to the “common root” I mentioned above, is that environments rife with adult authority, combined with the inarguable effects of implicit racial bias, breed the kind of incidents we see so often in policing.  

In the Levy case, the adults were aghast that a 14 year-old would dare express such an opinion, in or out of school.  Frankly, I would have been sympathetic to Levy even if she said these things in school, to me, in a school assembly!  The need for unquestioned authority blinds too many teachers and administrators to feelings that should elicit understanding, not the use of “power over.” 

And in nearly every case of excessive use of police force, the precipitating issue is perceived non-compliance, not crime.   In the Floyd case it is abundantly clear that former officer Chauvin was furious that he was not being “obeyed.”  It had nothing to do with George Floyd’s alleged crime.  Further along, including after Floyd had taken his last breath, Chauvin was not about to surrender his “power over” to a few horrified bystanders.  

The officer in the Daunte Wright case was similarly insistent on making the frightened 20 year-old comply, regardless of his alleged offense.  And unambiguously, the cops who stopped and pepper-sprayed Lieutenant Caron Nazario were livid that their power was questioned.

I don’t want to overstate the connection, but an authoritarian environment breeds authoritative behavior.  Children who are abused are far more likely to be abusers.  I would wager that most people, especially police officers, who aggressively impose authority are people on whom unquestioned authority was exercised.  Now it’s their turn.

I wrote above that the need for unquestioned authority blinds too many teachers and administrators to feelings that should elicit understanding, not the use of “power over.”  

And the need for unquestioned authority blinds too many police officers to feelings or life experiences that should elicit understanding, not the deadly use of “power over.”

Consider whether one might lead to the other.