|
|
Post by coachks on Jun 24, 2021 19:15:05 GMT -6
There is also a key difference in what the student did. She didn’t specifically mention individuals or the school by name. To the hypothetical above - she didnt cuss out the coach, teammates or the school. She vented frustration in a non-specific way. So the idea that a kid can blast a coaches play calls with no punishment is not an apples to apples. I think a more accurate hypothetical would be - you lose a game and you have a kid make a video that says “We need to run the f*cking ball”. And then you suspend the kid off the team for 365 days. Not sure that is right, or at least it is slicing it thin. She said "F--k school f--k softball f--k cheer f--k everything.” On the other hand, as one of the Justices said at argument, if using swear words off campus can be punished (including by suspending you from the team), then schools/teams would be doing nothing but punishing. You are more qualified then me, so I am not arguing - just sharing the interpretation I heard from other people more qualified then myself. It emphasized that she said “F school, cheer ect..” which is not the same as saying “F Valley HS, F Coach Johnson, F Lisa Smith” which is a distinction between what’s protected speech and/or disruptive. So in the hypothetical above, a player blasting his coach by name on social media is not a direct comparison to what this girl did. Or atleast that’s how other people involved in educational law interpreted this based on the details. |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 24, 2021 20:13:41 GMT -6
In every SCOTUS decision, context and nuance is everything, of course. But, as I said previously, the biggest problem the school was going to have to overcome in their arguments to the Court was first, the comments were not made at school or on a school-issued device and second, this was the student's first offense for something of this nature. For the vast majority of infractions, the approach to student discipline should be tiered. So, subsequent infractions or more serious infractions should result in greater penalties than first-time offenders or minor offenses. Regarding your hypothetical scenario, my thoughts are that if a captain or a starter is publicly making statements like that, he's probably right. I am not good at my job if I have encouraged and allowed such negativity and disrespect. I would like to think that if I was in that situation, I would try and find another resolution short of a virtual death penalty, which is what the school in this case imposed on the cheerleader. Come on... if a person reacts emotionally to a loss and says F you and you are the reason they lost that person is probably right? Because kids, adults, parents, and professionals don’t make a comment in haste? Because people don’t try to protect their egos or try to find a reason whether it’s realistic or not i take player and parent comments and reflect on them always but many times it is protective and reactive not fully factual. Some truth, probably, fully right, rarely. but I guess your program has eliminated human nature fully, congrats That's not what I said. Not even close. I said if team captains or the best players are recording videos of themselves denigrating or criticizing the coaches and then posting those videos on social media, then that is a huge culture fail. Seriously...how is that even a controversial statement? |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 24, 2021 21:08:27 GMT -6
Come on... if a person reacts emotionally to a loss and says F you and you are the reason they lost that person is probably right? Because kids, adults, parents, and professionals don’t make a comment in haste? Because people don’t try to protect their egos or try to find a reason whether it’s realistic or not i take player and parent comments and reflect on them always but many times it is protective and reactive not fully factual. Some truth, probably, fully right, rarely. but I guess your program has eliminated human nature fully, congrats That's not what I said. Not even close. I said if team captains or the best players are recording videos of themselves denigrating or criticizing the coaches and then posting those videos on social media, then that is a huge culture fail. Seriously...how is that even a controversial statement? Some might say that getting rid of that player would go a long way toward improving the culture. |
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on Jun 25, 2021 5:37:06 GMT -6
She f*cked up, the consequence should've fit the f*cking action, as a former school admin I would've made her apologize to her coaches and teammates and would've put her on a f*cking behavior contract (which is total fake bullsh*t) and had her meet with guidance to see where the f*ck she's at / return to play. She's 14? Impulse control is low. She been an issue otherwise? Grades? Etc? Might've been a bad f*cking week.
Off-campus
On her Snap that people filmed and sent out
Social media has changed society, and people, on all ends in all ways
But young adults make mistakes (as do reglar adults)
Apologize and move on.
More embarrassing to go back to JV and have to be a model citizen than to win a SCOTUS case on TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 25, 2021 5:42:12 GMT -6
14-year old freshmen are not human yet.
Massive overreaction by school.
|
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 6:14:07 GMT -6
That's not what I said. Not even close. I said if team captains or the best players are recording videos of themselves denigrating or criticizing the coaches and then posting those videos on social media, then that is a huge culture fail. Seriously...how is that even a controversial statement? Some might say that getting rid of that player would go a long way toward improving the culture. Lou Holtz had a great quote about this...something like "Motivation is easy. Find the people who aren't motivated and get rid of them."  I think he had another good one...something about not hiring assistant coaches if they owned golf clubs or a boat.  |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 7:12:33 GMT -6
She f*cked up, the consequence should've fit the f*cking action, as a former school admin I would've made her apologize to her coaches and teammates and would've put her on a f*cking behavior contract (which is total fake bullsh*t) and had her meet with guidance to see where the f*ck she's at / return to play. She's 14? Impulse control is low. She been an issue otherwise? Grades? Etc? Might've been a bad f*cking week. Off-campus On her Snap that people filmed and sent out Social media has changed society, and people, on all ends in all ways But young adults make mistakes (as do reglar adults) Apologize and move on. More embarrassing to go back to JV and have to be a model citizen than to win a SCOTUS case on TV. My question is that based on this ruling- couldn’t she have sued and won given your punishment too ? |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 8:41:43 GMT -6
She f*cked up, the consequence should've fit the f*cking action, as a former school admin I would've made her apologize to her coaches and teammates and would've put her on a f*cking behavior contract (which is total fake bullsh*t) and had her meet with guidance to see where the f*ck she's at / return to play. She's 14? Impulse control is low. She been an issue otherwise? Grades? Etc? Might've been a bad f*cking week. Off-campus On her Snap that people filmed and sent out Social media has changed society, and people, on all ends in all ways But young adults make mistakes (as do reglar adults) Apologize and move on. More embarrassing to go back to JV and have to be a model citizen than to win a SCOTUS case on TV. My question is that based on this ruling- couldn’t she have sued and won given your punishment too ? Yes. The school failed to meet the required legal standard. So any "punishment" should theoretically result in the Court ruling in the cheerleader's favor. With that being said, I would argue that if the school had imposed a less severe penalty or simply issued a warning, the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed would be considerably lower. I think that's the biggest reason that I agree with the Court's decision. The severity of the punishment handed down by the school left the family with no alternative other than a lawsuit. Given the 8-1 ruling, I think it is fair to say that the school district received poor counsel from their lawyers. |
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jun 25, 2021 8:50:49 GMT -6
We preach not to do anything that makes the team look bad... for years I have wondered how I can get in trouble for music in weightroom that even when on "clean" version offends some Karen, yet now it seems like kids can say stuff that I will lose my mind over...
No use of any version of "n___" will be allowed in my program as long as I'm coaching, and if I lose my job over it... that's fine.
Don't know when having standards that teach kids to be better people and having to live up to them to be a member of a group became a bad thing, but I'm gonna keep trying to teach kids how to be better and if a community decides they don't want that, then they can fire me and let the chaos reign.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 8:55:48 GMT -6
My question is that based on this ruling- couldn’t she have sued and won given your punishment too ? Yes. The school failed to meet the required legal standard. So any "punishment" should theoretically result in the Court ruling in the cheerleader's favor. With that being said, I would argue that if the school had imposed a less severe penalty or simply issued a warning, the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed would be considerably lower. I think that's the biggest reason that I agree with the Court's decision. The severity of the punishment handed down by the school left the family with no alternative other than a lawsuit. Given the 8-1 ruling, I think it is fair to say that the school district received poor counsel from their lawyers. I agree with you regarding what happened. What I am saying is that going forward, this ruling essentially says that those coaches who have stated "I would have ________" would be not be supported in doing so should situations arise in the future. Again, I argue that based on this ruling, the speech is protected correct? It is protected from being suspended for a year, it is protected from being told to apologize to the team, it is protected from having to run an extra gasser or two. My concern is that now who will be the deciding factor how different something has to be to NOT be protected. Could this lead to off campus "cancers" suing because of playing time if indeed a coach reduces playing time because of that? |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 25, 2021 9:02:30 GMT -6
My question is that based on this ruling- couldn’t she have sued and won given your punishment too ? Yes. The school failed to meet the required legal standard. So any "punishment" should theoretically result in the Court ruling in the cheerleader's favor. With that being said, I would argue that if the school had imposed a less severe penalty or simply issued a warning, the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed would be considerably lower. I think that's the biggest reason that I agree with the Court's decision. The severity of the punishment handed down by the school left the family with no alternative other than a lawsuit. Given the 8-1 ruling, I think it is fair to say that the school district received poor counsel from their lawyers. The court did not rule that all punishment of off campus behavior is unlawful. The legal standard just says whether, and to what extent, the first amendment applies, but once it applies there still are other standards like due process, proportionality, whether she signed a code of conduct/social media policy, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 9:21:14 GMT -6
Yes. The school failed to meet the required legal standard. So any "punishment" should theoretically result in the Court ruling in the cheerleader's favor. With that being said, I would argue that if the school had imposed a less severe penalty or simply issued a warning, the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed would be considerably lower. I think that's the biggest reason that I agree with the Court's decision. The severity of the punishment handed down by the school left the family with no alternative other than a lawsuit. Given the 8-1 ruling, I think it is fair to say that the school district received poor counsel from their lawyers. The court did not rule that all punishment of off campus behavior is unlawful. The legal standard just says whether, and to what extent, the first amendment applies, but once it applies there still are other standards like due process, proportionality, whether she signed a code of conduct/social media policy, etc. I didn't make any of those claims. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 9:27:21 GMT -6
Yes. The school failed to meet the required legal standard. So any "punishment" should theoretically result in the Court ruling in the cheerleader's favor. With that being said, I would argue that if the school had imposed a less severe penalty or simply issued a warning, the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed would be considerably lower. I think that's the biggest reason that I agree with the Court's decision. The severity of the punishment handed down by the school left the family with no alternative other than a lawsuit. Given the 8-1 ruling, I think it is fair to say that the school district received poor counsel from their lawyers. The court did not rule that all punishment of off campus behavior is unlawful. The legal standard just says whether, and to what extent, the first amendment applies, but once it applies there still are other standards like due process, proportionality, whether she signed a code of conduct/social media policy, etc. But from a coach's or school site administrators perspective, how does this ruling now affect the support you may receive in similar issues? Who is going to make a decision that saying "F Coach Spreadattack" is substantially different than just "F school, F football"? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 9:29:25 GMT -6
The court did not rule that all punishment of off campus behavior is unlawful. The legal standard just says whether, and to what extent, the first amendment applies, but once it applies there still are other standards like due process, proportionality, whether she signed a code of conduct/social media policy, etc. I didn't make any of those claims. I believe he was replying to me and my statement that based on the ruling, those saying "one year suspension was ridiculous, this is what I would have done" would still have found themselves losing this ruling. |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 9:30:02 GMT -6
Yes. The school failed to meet the required legal standard. So any "punishment" should theoretically result in the Court ruling in the cheerleader's favor. With that being said, I would argue that if the school had imposed a less severe penalty or simply issued a warning, the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed would be considerably lower. I think that's the biggest reason that I agree with the Court's decision. The severity of the punishment handed down by the school left the family with no alternative other than a lawsuit. Given the 8-1 ruling, I think it is fair to say that the school district received poor counsel from their lawyers. I agree with you regarding what happened. What I am saying is that going forward, this ruling essentially says that those coaches who have stated "I would have ________" would be not be supported in doing so should situations arise in the future. Again, I argue that based on this ruling, the speech is protected correct? It is protected from being suspended for a year, it is protected from being told to apologize to the team, it is protected from having to run an extra gasser or two. My concern is that now who will be the deciding factor how different something has to be to NOT be protected. Could this lead to off campus "cancers" suing because of playing time if indeed a coach reduces playing time because of that? I didn't read the opinion in entirety. But typically, these kinds of decisions are tailored narrowly to fit the specific facts of the case at hand. The Supreme Court usually tries to avoid setting precedents. Not every Supreme Court decision qualifies as a "landmark" case. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 25, 2021 9:32:30 GMT -6
The court did not rule that all punishment of off campus behavior is unlawful. The legal standard just says whether, and to what extent, the first amendment applies, but once it applies there still are other standards like due process, proportionality, whether she signed a code of conduct/social media policy, etc. But from a coach's or school site administrators perspective, how does this ruling now affect the support you may receive in similar issues? Who is going to make a decision that saying "F Coach Spreadattack" is substantially different than just "F school, F football"? How about "Jimmy Quarterback sucks" or "Our linemen are pu$$ies"? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 9:34:21 GMT -6
I agree with you regarding what happened. What I am saying is that going forward, this ruling essentially says that those coaches who have stated "I would have ________" would be not be supported in doing so should situations arise in the future. Again, I argue that based on this ruling, the speech is protected correct? It is protected from being suspended for a year, it is protected from being told to apologize to the team, it is protected from having to run an extra gasser or two. My concern is that now who will be the deciding factor how different something has to be to NOT be protected. Could this lead to off campus "cancers" suing because of playing time if indeed a coach reduces playing time because of that? I didn't read the opinion in entirety. But typically, these kinds of decisions are tailored narrowly to fit the specific facts of the case at hand. The Supreme Court usually tries to avoid setting precedents. Not every Supreme Court decision qualifies as a "landmark" case. I agree there. My point is how much support will a district now give coaches/school site administrators who are faced with similar (but not exact) situations? Who is going to make the decision that the narrowly tailored 8-1 ruling here would not cover a new situation. I guess what I am asking is who is going to trust that a lower level court will side with the coaches/schools in similar situations, vs just saying "we are not going to support/fight this" |
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on Jun 25, 2021 9:42:14 GMT -6
She f*cked up, the consequence should've fit the f*cking action, as a former school admin I would've made her apologize to her coaches and teammates and would've put her on a f*cking behavior contract (which is total fake bullsh*t) and had her meet with guidance to see where the f*ck she's at / return to play. She's 14? Impulse control is low. She been an issue otherwise? Grades? Etc? Might've been a bad f*cking week. Off-campus On her Snap that people filmed and sent out Social media has changed society, and people, on all ends in all ways But young adults make mistakes (as do reglar adults) Apologize and move on. More embarrassing to go back to JV and have to be a model citizen than to win a SCOTUS case on TV. My question is that based on this ruling- couldn’t she have sued and won given your punishment too ? You can sue for anything and have the potential to win any case. But if I asked you to apologize and move on I doubt you would've sued me, especially if I said, "Hey people make mistakes, just apologize and let's move on and make it a great season." Being in admin sucks. That's why I quit. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 9:56:55 GMT -6
My question is that based on this ruling- couldn’t she have sued and won given your punishment too ? You can sue for anything and have the potential to win any case. But if I asked you to apologize and move on I doubt you would've sued me, especially if I said, "Hey people make mistakes, just apologize and let's move on and make it a great season." Being in admin sucks. That's why I quit. I agree. I am talking about going forward. Based on this ruling, I am certain that SOME student/parent/family/group is going to decide that they don't need to apologize. "You can't make this child apologize based on 'Levy' ". |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 9:58:15 GMT -6
I didn't read the opinion in entirety. But typically, these kinds of decisions are tailored narrowly to fit the specific facts of the case at hand. The Supreme Court usually tries to avoid setting precedents. Not every Supreme Court decision qualifies as a "landmark" case. I agree there. My point is how much support will a district now give coaches/school site administrators who are faced with similar (but not exact) situations? Who is going to make the decision that the narrowly tailored 8-1 ruling here would not cover a new situation. I guess what I am asking is who is going to trust that a lower level court will side with the coaches/schools in similar situations, vs just saying "we are not going to support/fight this" I just got done reading the majority opinion (written by Breyer) on Oyez. The school lost their case at the district level, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. That's all three levels of the federal judiciary kicking the school district in the nuts. Additionally, after making the decision to suspend the student for the next year, the student offered to apologize for what she had said. However, the school told her to go pound sand and upheld the suspension. The lesson school officials should take away from this decision is that discipline should be meted out precisely and proportionately. The only one to blame for the school district's defeat is the school district officials themselves, whose heavy-handed and uncompromising punishment gave this student no recourse other than filing a lawsuit. Long story short, if I was a superintendent and found my school in a similar circumstance, the decision-making process would begin with the idea that we don't want to end up in the Supreme Court. 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 10:03:17 GMT -6
You can sue for anything and have the potential to win any case. But if I asked you to apologize and move on I doubt you would've sued me, especially if I said, "Hey people make mistakes, just apologize and let's move on and make it a great season." Being in admin sucks. That's why I quit. I agree. I am talking about going forward. Based on this ruling, I am certain that SOME student/parent/family/group is going to decide that they don't need to apologize. "You can't make this child apologize based on 'Levy' ". And when that happens, you can blame the Mahanoy Area School District for taking this nonsense all the way to the Supreme Court. B.L. (the cheerleader) offered to apologize after the suspension was handed down. The school district told her that they were going to impose the suspension anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jun 25, 2021 10:13:30 GMT -6
Every school and "culture" has kids that aren't happy about something and get pissy and bitch on social media. Heck, in our area alone Maroa Forsyth and SHG has had kids bitch and eventually move because they weren't happy about something. That is in no way an indication of those school's "culture".
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 10:16:01 GMT -6
I agree there. My point is how much support will a district now give coaches/school site administrators who are faced with similar (but not exact) situations? Who is going to make the decision that the narrowly tailored 8-1 ruling here would not cover a new situation. I guess what I am asking is who is going to trust that a lower level court will side with the coaches/schools in similar situations, vs just saying "we are not going to support/fight this" I just got done reading the majority opinion (written by Breyer) on Oyez. The school lost their case at the district level, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. That's all three levels of the federal judiciary kicking the school district in the nuts. Additionally, after making the decision to suspend the student for the next year, the student offered to apologize for what she had said. However, the school told her to go pound sand and upheld the suspension. The lesson school officials should take away from this decision is that discipline should be meted out precisely and proportionately. The only one to blame for the school district's defeat is the school district officials themselves, whose heavy-handed and uncompromising punishment gave this student no recourse other than filing a lawsuit. Long story short, if I was a superintendent and found my school in a similar circumstance, the decision-making process would begin with the idea that we don't want to end up in the Supreme Court. 😆 All of this is about a past case though coach. I am not arguing about the court's ruling on this case, but rather on how it will impact coaches and school site admin going forward. I believe that the school district and school associations pushed the appeals on the grounds of finding out "ok, what is the landscape here" regarding first amendment and schools in our new online social media world. Not just because they thought they were right. |
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on Jun 25, 2021 10:24:30 GMT -6
You can sue for anything and have the potential to win any case. But if I asked you to apologize and move on I doubt you would've sued me, especially if I said, "Hey people make mistakes, just apologize and let's move on and make it a great season." Being in admin sucks. That's why I quit. I agree. I am talking about going forward. Based on this ruling, I am certain that SOME student/parent/family/group is going to decide that they don't need to apologize. "You can't make this child apologize based on 'Levy' ". And that's why I can't be an admin in this day and age. Too much BS, worse than being a HC by far! And I was both at the same time. Stupid on my part. When people refused to help paint the wall they spray painted I just sent them a bill. For this apology one I guess you'd just say "Well that's a shame, see you later" and let them back on. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 10:30:27 GMT -6
I will say this, I think school systems are ridiculously overreaching in some aspects. This case here is not even close to the most ridiculous case I have heard recently.
In Jefferson Parish in Louisiana- a boy was suspended, FROM VIRTUAL ONLINE SCHOOL, because there was a bb gun visible while he was in an google meet lesson.
In that case, Louisiana's own Attorney General even joined the suit AGAINST the school district. Earlier this month the case was settled.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 25, 2021 10:51:23 GMT -6
I agree there. My point is how much support will a district now give coaches/school site administrators who are faced with similar (but not exact) situations? Who is going to make the decision that the narrowly tailored 8-1 ruling here would not cover a new situation. I guess what I am asking is who is going to trust that a lower level court will side with the coaches/schools in similar situations, vs just saying "we are not going to support/fight this" I just got done reading the majority opinion (written by Breyer) on Oyez. The school lost their case at the district level, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. That's all three levels of the federal judiciary kicking the school district in the nuts. Additionally, after making the decision to suspend the student for the next year, the student offered to apologize for what she had said. However, the school told her to go pound sand and upheld the suspension. The lesson school officials should take away from this decision is that discipline should be meted out precisely and proportionately. The only one to blame for the school district's defeat is the school district officials themselves, whose heavy-handed and uncompromising punishment gave this student no recourse other than filing a lawsuit. Long story short, if I was a superintendent and found my school in a similar circumstance, the decision-making process would begin with the idea that we don't want to end up in the Supreme Court. 😆 Well said. (And I wasn't criticizing before, just agreeing that that the case doesn't mean that *anything* that qualifies as punishment is unlawful. Also I will say that the Supreme Court generally *does* try to provide broad legal rules/guidance for future cases, but in this case they basically treated it as a fact specific example and are letting others go out and test these boundaries. Definitely an evolving and tricky area.) |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jun 25, 2021 11:31:22 GMT -6
I posted this earlier, but it was a long post so i imagine it got skipped over. So i will reiterate, one of the cheer coaches claimed that the students actions werent disruptive. The school board apparently intimated as such as well.
So for all hypotheticals being bandied about, for them to be apt, it would have to involve you stating to the investigators that the incident wasnt that disruptive.
So, If lil Johnny cusses you out on the sideline and calls you out as a coach, just make sure you let it be known that his actions are disruptive to the team, and you can punish
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 25, 2021 12:50:48 GMT -6
I posted this earlier, but it was a long post so i imagine it got skipped over. So i will reiterate, one of the cheer coaches claimed that the students actions werent disruptive. The school board apparently intimated as such as well. So for all hypotheticals being bandied about, for them to be apt, it would have to involve you stating to the investigators that the incident wasnt that disruptive. So, If lil Johnny cusses you out on the sideline and calls you out as a coach, just make sure you let it be known that his actions are disruptive to the team, and you can punish Keep in mind that this ruling concerned off-campus speech. The real problem will be in the way that it will be interpreted by the amateur lawyers in school administration. Those people could screw up a two car funeral. |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 13:39:12 GMT -6
I just got done reading the majority opinion (written by Breyer) on Oyez. The school lost their case at the district level, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. That's all three levels of the federal judiciary kicking the school district in the nuts. Additionally, after making the decision to suspend the student for the next year, the student offered to apologize for what she had said. However, the school told her to go pound sand and upheld the suspension. The lesson school officials should take away from this decision is that discipline should be meted out precisely and proportionately. The only one to blame for the school district's defeat is the school district officials themselves, whose heavy-handed and uncompromising punishment gave this student no recourse other than filing a lawsuit. Long story short, if I was a superintendent and found my school in a similar circumstance, the decision-making process would begin with the idea that we don't want to end up in the Supreme Court. 😆 All of this is about a past case though coach. I am not arguing about the court's ruling on this case, but rather on how it will impact coaches and school site admin going forward. I believe that the school district and school associations pushed the appeals on the grounds of finding out "ok, what is the landscape here" regarding first amendment and schools in our new online social media world. Not just because they thought they were right. If that's what they were doing, then they are even dumber than I initially thought. |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 13:46:08 GMT -6
Every school and "culture" has kids that aren't happy about something and get pissy and bitch on social media. Heck, in our area alone Maroa Forsyth and SHG has had kids bitch and eventually move because they weren't happy about something. That is in no way an indication of those school's "culture". Team captains and starters? I find that really hard to believe at those two schools you used as examples. |
|
