We must first make clear that we, as a paper, neither condone nor condemn the actions of the administration in regards to the Facebook crackdown. That debate will get us nowhere, and both sides could carry on indefinitely if given the chance. It is first necessary to accept that this Facebook crackdown has taken place. We understand that some students take issue with the actions of the administration, and we understand that others feel the administration was justified in its treatment of the 13 students. That said, nothing can be accomplished without first conceding that there appears to be considerable legal merit to the school’s actions.
If you are anything like us, you never want to hear the words, “Facebook,” “photos,” or “gone too far” ever again. While we will not comment on the act of the investigation itself, we must take issue with the manner in which the investigations and punishments were carried out. The administration’s refusal to comment on the investigation may have, in fact, fanned the flames of speculation. By making even the briefest of statements, the EPHS administration could have helped defuse the situation before it became so tense.
The statement need not be elaborate. Explain the basics of the situation, assure students that all punishments will be in line with the Minnesota State High School League, remind the student body that those called down to the office are not necessarily suspected of wrong-doing and tell us we will know more when the investigation has concluded.
The sad fact of the matter is that a lack of communication between school and student created a vacuum in which rumors were allowed to propagate. It is now known that there were no arrests made, no 107 students, and no district-wide crackdown on Facebook. Unfortunately, this information was not made clear during the investigation, and the administration’s refusal to comment may have contributed to the frenzy of media coverage, which may have in turn limited the administration’s ability to continue its investigation.
While the act of investigation should have been more transparent, however, the school should have been more subtle about the subjects of the investigation. It has come to our attention that the administration has continued its investigation by pulling some students from classes and asking them to—pardon the vernacular—“tattle” on their friends. We cannot expect the suspects to be dealt with in complete secrecy, but we feel the present circumstances are unacceptable, and the administration must be honest about its long-term plans regarding teen drinking investigations. It is not enough to know what the school has done, but also what it will do in future cases.
The Facebook incident only highlighted the blurring of the line between school and home. It is an unavoidable fact that today’s youth is better-documented than any other demographic in history. When this happens again (and it will happen again), it is our hope that the administration will keep in mind the lessons it has learned over the past month. We believe that future incidents must be handled with additional transparency and sensitivity. If one positive is to come from this situation, it must be the establishment of an honest dialogue between staff and students concerning district investigations of underage drinking.
And finally, we would like to offer the following advice to our fellow Facebook users: nobody wants to see you drunk, crunk, or cradrunk. Untag your photos.
Comments?