THIS is one of the questions frequently asked whenever I speak in colleges and universities. In my recent lecture at an academic convocation, I was asked this question again. Some faculty members often find themselves the targets of anonymous posts by disgruntled students on social media platforms, in online chat communities, or on the school’s freedom walls. Aside from the difficulty of identifying the student or students, the faculty members are not directly named but are often identifiable in malicious posts.
Relevant to this issue is the right to freedom of speech and expression in the academe. In the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the United States Supreme Court held that, “It can hardly be argued that students and teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate.” This doctrine remains the prevailing legal principle governing the rights and freedoms of both faculty and students regarding speech and expression. As citizens, they do not remove the cloak of civil liberties and rights enjoyed by others simply because they participate in an academic environment. This was likewise followed by our Philippine Supreme Court in Ramento v. Malabanan and Non v. Danes, in resolving the rights of students to express grievances and the universities’ rights to regulate their conduct in accordance with their disciplinary policies. In Philippine jurisprudence, freedom of speech and expression is recognized as a “preferred” or fundamental right. It ranks highly in the hierarchy of constitutional rights because it is essential for a democratic society, serving as a vehicle for individual self-fulfillment and the pursuit of truth.
The freedom of speech and expression, however, is not an absolute right. For students, expression and speech must not violate the rights of others in the academic community, nor should they be immune from discipline standards and sanctions for violations, as established by the academic institution for all students. In Tinker, the court identified two instances when freedom of speech and expression cannot be invoked against the academic institution: 1) when the expression materially disrupts a school activity; or 2) when the expression materially interferes with a school discipline policy. Philippine jurisprudence supports these principles by holding that students may express their opinions on controversial issues, as long as they do so without “materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” and without infringing on the rights of others.
Nowadays, students rarely organize demonstrations or rallies to share their opinions or grievances. Expressions and opinions are mostly expressed on social media and the internet. But the same legal principles that date back to Tinker, long before the internet and social media, still apply today.
Therefore, when asked whether the faculty or the school can take action against students’ social media posts, the answer is “yes,” provided that such expression or opinion significantly disrupts classes, education, or materially interferes with the institution’s discipline policies. This indicates that the expression is not merely trivial or insignificant, but rather negatively affects the academic community and its ability to provide educational services, and seriously threatens the maintenance of peace and order.
Unfair criticism of a faculty member, combined with personal attacks, especially defamatory, malicious ones, or those that pose serious threats or promote violence, is clearly outside the scope of protected speech. The educational institution or faculty can invoke disciplinary policies to discipline the student or even pursue legal remedies outside the university, such as in cases of cyberlibel.
Freedom of speech and expression is vital in any democratic society, and this principle applies equally within an academic community. Educational institutions are encouraged to offer the broadest scope and maximum latitude for both faculty and students to freely express their views, even on highly controversial issues inside and outside the university. However, the institution must balance the interests of the entire academic community in values formation and discipline with the individual rights of students and faculty to free expression. This means that when conflicts arise between these interests, the institution should apply strict tests of substantial disruption or material interference to ensure that any restrictions and sanctions are reasonable and not more restrictive than necessary to prevent undue suppression.
“Unfair criticism of a faculty member, combined with personal attacks, especially defamatory, malicious ones, or those that pose serious threats or promote violence, is clearly outside the scope of protected speech. The educational institution or faculty can invoke disciplinary policies to discipline the student or even pursue legal remedies outside the university, such as in cases of cyberlibel.”
