> This very clearly serves as a chilling effect on free speech even when they speech is done away from the school. The message is loud and clear - do not criticize the administration or they will seek retribution against you. If this isn’t exactly what the first amendment was supposed to protect against I don’t know what is.
Could a case be made that the Superintendent was merely exercising his right to Freedom of Association by declining to spend his after-school hours with somebody who thinks he’s a Douche-bag, and was rude enough to say it on the Internet?
It’s one thing to decline to, say, teach her Math — that would be clearly wrong — and another thing to decline to spend his own unpaid free time working with her arranging sock-hops and the School Prom.
Nobody has a “right” to sit on the Student Government. No school is required to have Student Governments. That’s all extra-curricular, after-school optional stuff that happens because Staff organize it out of the goodness of their own hearts, in their unpaid personal time.
So the lesson to you is what? Don’t criticize the school, even if you think they are wrong, if you want to participate in extra-curricular activities. That doesn’t seem like it creates a very healthy environment. Especially if you can’t even criticize them away from school.
This should have opened a dialogue on why the even the student had planned was canceled. Instead, punitive action was taken to serve notice to all students that at no time and under no circumstances can the authority of the school be questioned. They are always right, the student is always wrong and that is the way it will always be. That teaches a very dangerous lesson.