A Batavia (Ill.) High School social studies teacher has been reprimanded because he reminded students of their Fifth Amendment rights not to make potentially self-incriminating statements on a substance abuse and emotional intelligence survey the district had asked them to take, the (Arlington Heights, Ill.) Daily Herald reports.
Students were given the 34-question survey, a commercial assessment by Multi-Health Systems Inc, which seems reputable enough. According to a script obtained by the Daily Herald, students were told that it was important to be “open and honest” and answer every question. Their names were printed on the top of the survey.
The Chicago Tribune reported that some people in Batavia were calling John Dryden a “folk hero.” He’s the teacher who said in his first three classes on the day of the survey that students didn’t have to fill out the survey because of their Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate themselves. The school board, however, was not pleased with his reminder of the Constitution and inserted a “letter of remedy” in his employment record.
Such a letter spells out the actions the employee must take and those from which he must refrain in order to avoid further disciplinary action. Mr Dryden was suspended for one day without pay and has been unavailable for comment to both the Tribune and the Daily Herald ever since the letter was issued. He must stop “giving students legal advice,” the Daily Herald reported, “not discuss his employment with students, and not use sarcasm nor make flippant remarks with students.”
Mr Dryden’s side of the story is that he was protecting students. The surveys, with students’ names and answers to questions about substance abuse and their emotions, could potentially harm students if they were released from the custody of a private corporation, we concede. The district claims the very presence of students’ names on the surveys is what renders Mr Dryden’s legal analysis inaccurate: once a student name is on a document, it’s protected by school and child privacy laws, which would supersede any contract between the district and Multi-Health Systems.
Although putting names on the surveys does indeed protect the documents from any legal release to the public or to authorities, it doesn’t help the company or school district collect reliable data about students’ social-emotional intelligence. Published research, for example, here, suggests that “anonymity [is] crucial to collecting honest answers,” but the validity, quality, or cost of the survey isn’t really the issue here. The real issue is whether or not students can be arrested based on a chance, accidental, profit-seeking, or malicious release of their data to the police or school officials. In a word, no, they can’t. The survey responses would almost certainly not be admissible in court, since no one can verify a proper chain of evidence.
Finally, I realize we’re talking here about a great history teacher who has inspired many students in his career, exciting them about history. Many former students and other community members spoke out in his favor last week at a board meeting. Published minutes, however, here, don’t mention Mr Dryden’s name. But just because a teacher has a folk hero-like following doesn’t mean he’s right about the law or the Constitution.
A deeper analysis would find that students have not created any documents that could be used against them in a court of law, because their names are on those documents. Release of the information by some malicious individual or company, though, could irreparably harm their reputations. Ironically, also because students’ names are on the surveys, the school district has likely learned absolutely nothing about students’ social-emotional intelligence and well-being.
