[1]The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled June 20 that the University of Minnesota did not violate a mortuary student’s free speech rights by punishing her for Facebook posts about the school cadaver she was working on, which included “satirical commentary and violent fantasy.”
But the court, in what might be the nation’s first state high court decision addressing college students’ online free speech rights, said the sanctions imposed by the university on Amanda Tatro were justified by “narrowly tailored” rules directly related to “established professional conduct standards.”
Although Tatro lost her case, some free speech advocates said they were relieved by the ruling’s limits, which they said applied only to the online conduct of a student in a professional program.
University of Minnesota General Counsel Mark Rotenberg said he was “very pleased” by the court’s decision, which he said marks the first time either a state supreme court or a federal appellate court has decided whether a public university can discipline a student for an online posting.
“The university is not interested in restricting free speech in general,” Rotenberg said.
“This is a case about enforcing professional standards and norms” in professional disciplines that also could include law, medicine, or teaching, Rotenberg said.
In November and December 2009, while a junior in the university’s mortuary science program, Tatro referred to the cadaver on Facebook as “Bernie,” a reference to the movie “Weekend at Bernie’s.”
She also wrote, “I still want to stab a certain someone in the throat with a trocar though,” and “Give me room, lots of aggression to be taken out with a trocar.”
A trocar is a long, hollow needle used during embalming to release gas and fluids from the body.
Tatro also wrote “Hmm, perhaps I will spend the evening updating my ‘Death List #5,’ ” and that she would soon stop seeing “my best friend, Bernie,” adding “Bye, bye Bernie. Lock of hair in my pocket.”
After learning about the Facebook postings, the university filed a formal complaint, alleging that Tatro engaged in “threatening, harassing, or assaultive conduct.”
In addition, the university said she violated the anatomy laboratory course rules, which included using respectful language when discussing cadavers and refraining from “blogging” about the anatomy lab or the cadaver dissection.
The postings caused university staff members to be concerned for their safety, according to officials, and faculty members suggested that Tatro should have been expelled from the mortuary science program.
But the university gave her an “F” for the anatomy class and required her to take a clinical ethics course and undergo a psychiatric exam. Tatro also was placed on academic probation for the rest of her undergraduate career.
Tatro received her diploma in her chosen field in November 2011.
But she appealed the university’s punishment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and, upon losing there, asked the state Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that her free speech rights were violated and the Facebook posts were “outside her professional education activities.”
Tatro said her Facebook page was a “literary device to express her emotions,” and that she did not reveal personally identifiable facts or information about the cadaver she was studying.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted that it was grappling with a novel issue.
“The factual situation presented by this appeal has not been addressed in any published court decision—a university’s imposition of disciplinary sanctions for a student’s Facebook posts that violated academic program rules. Consequently, the constitutional standard that applies in this context is unsettled,” Justice Helen Meyer wrote for the court.
In its ruling, the court rejected some arguments made by the university. It said the university can’t say it was right to limit a student’s Facebook postings to meet a “legitimate pedagogical objective,” because the postings aren’t “school-sponsored” speech.
The court also said Tatro’s postings didn’t meet a standard that has allowed high schools and junior high schools to limit off-campus speech likely to cause a “substantial disruption” of school activities.
But the court noted that state law requires mortuary professionals to treat the dead “with dignity and respect.” It said the university could discipline Tatro for the postings because they violated narrowly tailored program rules “directly related to established professional conduct standards.”
The court also noted that university’s rules and policies governing treatment of cadavers are essential to making sure people are willing to donate their bodies to the university.
Tatro’s lawyer, Jordan Kushner, said he was disappointed in the ruling. But he said the standard set by the justices on whether a university can discipline a student for Facebook postings was narrower than that of the appellate court.
Raleigh Levine, a William Mitchell College of Law professor who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court rejected the idea that a student could be forced to waive free speech rights as a condition of attending a course.
Levine also said the court rejected the chance to extend limits of speech placed on high school students to the college level.
“The facts of this case were so unusual and so particular,” Levine said. “In many ways, the university won this particular battle, but it lost the war.”
“I’m looking at it as a glass-half-full decision,” said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief out of concern that a ruling in the case might affect the free speech rights of student journalists.
“We would prefer there would be a bright line that says what students say on their own time is their own business,” LoMonte said.
But, he said, “It’s a huge relief that [the state Supreme Court decision] is narrowly limited to a small subset” of students in professional programs.
Kushner argued that Tatro’s Facebook postings did not violate professional conduct standards “unless you interpret them to mean you can’t joke about your work.”
But the court wrote that the postings weren’t just a joke among friends, because “the widespread dissemination of Tatro’s posts on Facebook and through the news media undermined her professional conduct obligations of respect and discretion with regard to human cadavers.”
“We are very pleased with the results,” said Abigail Crouse, a lawyer representing several educational groups that supported the university’s position in the case, including the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
Crouse said professional standards that apply to university students can extend to online behavior. She said it is crucial for universities to be able to enforce those standards in cases that might jeopardize the willingness of the public to donate bodies to schools for education and research.
Copyright (c) 2012, the Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.). Visit the Pioneer Press online at www.twincities.com [2]. Distributed by MCT Information Services.