Plum officials: District won’t inhibit ‘constitutionally protected speech’ |

Plum officials: District won’t inhibit ‘constitutionally protected speech’

James Knox | Trib Total Media
The student-led protest at Plum High School Monday April 27, 2015.
James Knox | Trib Total Media
Dylan Kinlough, 15 sophomore organizer of the Monday April 27, 2015 student-led protest at Plum High School.
James Knox | Trib Total Media
The student-led protest at Plum High School Monday April 27, 2015.

Just a few hours after student protesters at Plum High School left for the day with the promise to return Tuesday morning, school board members huddled in closed-door discussions.

The meeting ended at about 9:20 p.m. Monday with the board not commenting, but member John St. Ledger saying it would make a statement at an open meeting 7 p.m. Tuesday at Oblock Junior High School.

“You’ll find out (Tuesday),” solicitor Bill Andrews told reporters.

The closed-door meeting capped a day of protest by Plum students who felt their First Amendment rights have been infringed upon.

Police and administrators on Friday cautioned students against publicly discussing an ongoing sexual abuse investigation at Plum High School. Police have arrested two teachers and charged them with having sex with students. Both teachers and a third colleague also are charged with witness intimidation. Police and administrators told students they could be arrested for “irresponsible” and “immature” talk, tweets, texts, emails, or posts to Facebook.

The district and police walked back those statements Monday after a day of student unrest and threats of court action by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.

“The district will not prevent or inhibit any individuals from engaging in constitutionally protected speech,” said Superintendent Timothy Glasspool in a letter the district released Monday. Glasspool did not respond to requests for comment.

The superintendent entered the high school meeting room where school board members had gathered Monday evening but left before the session started at 7 p.m.

Board members Joe Tommarello and Tom McGough did not attend.

The ACLU said the district’s statement was “more cryptic than we would have liked,” but the group said it accepted the clarification of the issue, according to ACLU-PA legal director Witold Walczak.

Walczak and ACLU officials had given the district until noon Monday to clarify its statements. The district issued Glasspool’s statement just before noon.

Between the ACLU’s threat of court action and the district’s response, some students staged a protest over what they perceived to be a violation of their First Amendment free-speech rights.

Fliers placed over the weekend invited students and parents to meet outside the high school Monday morning.

“It’s freedom of speech for us to give our opinion,” said one sophomore who joined students gathered outside the high school about 7:15 a.m. “We shouldn’t feel like criminals for expressing our opinion.”

By the noon deadline, more than three dozen protesters had converged.

Another sophomore who arrived at school about 10 a.m. on a bus from Forbes Road Career and Technology Center said he initially wanted to see what the protest was about.

“Teens are ignored a lot,” he said. “You have to listen to your superiors to an extent, but when they abuse that power, it becomes a tyranny.”

Students said administrators said the participants would be marked as having skipped class that day. School officials did not respond to requests for comment.

One sophomore’s mother came to the school to try to talk her son into going to class.

“I told her I’m done with this school district,” said the student, whose mother tried to talk him and others into returning to school. “I’m not going. I’m going to fight for this.”

Megan Guza and Karen Zapf are staff writers for Trib Total Media. Reach Guza at 412-380-8519 or [email protected]. Reach Zapf at 412-871-2367 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.