Schools aren’t called to solve crime; they should defer to the police.
Similar to the US military's idea of Non-Judicial Punishment[0] (drop and give me 50!), school administration often also has the lee-way of assigning punishment to students [1]. This punishment often does not rise to the level of a crime, but still requires action. Things like detention, cleaning toilets, scrubbing hallways, etc. Often, the bully is a minor themselves, and may not understand the implications of their effects. Giving them a police record may not be appropriate if a talking-to will stop the behavior.
SCOTUS's ruling will flesh out this idea a bit more, maybe. If they rule that school administration is able to punish as they see fit for this case, then cyberbullying may be seen as something that does not typically rise to the level of a crime. If they do not, then cyberbullying may need to be revisited as a more serious action on the part of minors.
If you believe your vigilanteism is justified (because, and only because, the police won't or can't do their jobs) the onus is on you to clearly communicate that your actions are because the police won't or can't do their jobs, and to support that assertion with resonable evidence, in every single case.
If students know that then what exactly is the disincentive to engage in bullying that doesn't rise to the level of criminal harassment?
Shouldn't a school be a place someone learns appropriate behaviours with less risk of criminal sanctions? It seems that some form of punishment imposed by schools would be reasonable in some circumstances.
If they're making a nuisance of themselves at school, the school would presumably give them a detention, with repeat offences eventually resulting in expulsion. If they're making a nuisance of themselves elsewhere, the school is not involved. (Note that the latter applies to criminal actions as well; that's what the police are for.)
0: That is, from "X implies Y" to "Y implies X".
This distinction doesn't really exist. Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports? Bullying that extends from school to out of school?
Traditionally, schools have always been responsible for these things or have taken actions that occurred out of school grounds into account.
I finished school in the early 1990s and students were expelled then for graffiti attacks out of the school, out if school hours, not in school uniform.
I don't see what is different or new here.
That's fair as far as it goes, but I'm not claiming it's different or new; I'm claiming it's bad and needs to be stopped.
> Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports?
Probably. Probably. Debatably and depends on the mode of transport.
> Bullying that extends from school to out of school?
That's two items; yes to the former, no to the latter.
Expulsion is not really on the table, at least in the U.S.
But expulsion is something that will affect the person for the rest of their life. There should be significant burden of proof before such an action can be taken, and we already have a system (courts) to deal with that.
Going to parents is probably unwise for a variety of reasons. Possible could solve the issue but more likely will increase the drama without providing any real punishment.
The article goes into one of the possible problems: cyberbullying.
Especially with young women, cyberbullying is a bit of a problem. Though the people involved in this case are not involved with cyberbullying, it's not difficult to jump to that issue with the people involved.
Though it depends on local laws, schools often have the mandate to stop bullying and other such behaviors. Courts have been mixed thus far on how cyberbullying is legalistically different than regular bullying and where the mandates/responsibilities (if they exist) start and end for the school administration, especially with mixed minor-adult populations. It is, admittedly, a very difficult line to draw.
As the article states, SCOTUS rarely gets into school-student speech issues, so this decision is expected to set the stage for the next 25-50 years of US policy in the now digital era
EDIT: It's not just young women, cyberbullying is more of an universal problem.