By Lori A. Mayne
School administrators say they’re protecting a right even more important than freedom of expression – the right of students to attend school safely.
“Our primary responsibility is to provide a safe working and learning environment,” says Dan Wiseman, co-ordinator of student services at the Ottawa-Carleton District school board.
The case of a 16-year-old boy from Cornwall charged with uttering death threats in his school has generated debate about freedom of expression.
Although Wiseman won’t comment on that case directly, he says even such things as creative writing can convey a threat. “It’s not the communication. It’s the nature of it,” he says. “A threat is a threat is a threat. It’s not about freedom of expression.”
Wiseman compares uttering a threat in school to joking about hijacking in an airport, and says schools must take threats just as seriously. “The onus to protect . . . every child is very heavy, ” he says.
Mars Bottiglia, superintendent of schools at the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic school board, agrees threats must be taken seriously. He says schools have little choice but to look into each one. “Some of these you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. How are we going to justify it to the public if we knew and didn’t take a proactive approach?”
So how do schools deal with threats?
Both the Ottawa-Carleton District and the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic school boards issue binding policies for schools in their jurisdictions. These policies must incorporate any existing provincial laws such as the Safe Schools Act — which, among other things, spells out a standardized code of conduct. Boards also seek input from students, school organizations and parents in formalizing their policies.
Principals enforce these policies and a code of conduct at the school level.
When a student threatens someone, the principal weighs the nature of the threat, the student’s record and the likelihood the student will carry it out. According to board policies, the principal must inform the student that the threat has contravened school policy, and inform the student’s parents.
The principal then takes action ranging from an oral reprimand to referral for counselling. If the student threatens serious bodily harm, the principal must refer it to police. Under current legislation, principals have the authority to suspend a student, but only a board can expel one. Parents and students can appeal a suspension within seven days.
Principals have some discretion, mainly in determining the seriousness of the threat. “There’s everything from ‘we’ll beat you up after school,’ to ‘we will kill you,’” says Bob Dagenais, principal at Glebe collegiate. “We always take those that we hear of very seriously.” It’s also important to determine why a student makes a threat in the first place, says Angie Spence, principal of Lisgar collegiate. A threat may result from provocation from another student or from an ongoing problem of bullying, she says. “What seems like innocent ribbing and joking — if it goes on for a long period of time — has to be addressed,” she says.
Bernard Swords, principal of Immaculata high school, agrees. “Schools are there to help both sides,” he says.
But although he tries to determine the best solution for all students involved, he says his first concern is to ensure collective safety.
“The whole key of administering a school appropriately is to use common sense and good judgment. And parents typically work with the school to help promote a safe school climate,” Swords notes. “I wouldn’t do this job if I didn’t have that kind of support.”
Some parents say the main problem lies not in the policies but in their administration. “The policies themselves are good,” says Cynthia Pohran, a parent and chair of the Ottawa-Carleton Association of School Councils. The councils are made up of school administrators, teachers, parents and students.
Pohran says teachers often cannot monitor schools effectively — and ensure policies turn into practice — because of cutbacks and increasing demands placed on them by the province.
She also says she’s talked with parents who have had difficulty getting individual concerns addressed. Some will simply stop pursuing a matter if they get no resolution at the school level.
“A lot of parents don’t know where to turn from there,” Pohran explains. “But even if parents bring their concerns to a superintendent or trustee, she says, they don’t always receive a return phone call.
In terms of students, Pohran says she doesn’t think school policy stifles freedom of expression. And she says safety remains the most important issue. “As a parent, I would probably want something to be erred on the side of caution.”
Even outside schools, freedom of expression has its own boundaries.
“The right of freedom of expression is not absolute,” explains Ian Kerr, a University of Ottawa law professor.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms aims to protect against the state’s infringement of an individual’s rights.
But the charter also makes provisions to determine if any infringement is justified, reasonable, and if the ends are proportional to its means.
“Even if there’s an infringement, that won’t be the end of the matter,” Kerr explains. The state has the opportunity to prove its policies are reasonable to protect collective goals. If it can, Kerr adds, the freedom of expression shield offers little protection.
Additional provisions under the provincial Safe Schools Act will likely come into effect this month, giving principals the authority to expel students. It will also spell out a list of incidents in which principals must expel students, thereby removing some discretion, according to Wiseman.
But student safety doesn’t result from a new list of priorities or tinkering with policy he says: “It’s a daily, weekly, monthly commitment.”