A two-pack of webcam covers on Amazon is $6.99, pretty cheap. How much would you pay to not be watched? For two students, their fight for privacy has ended up in court. 

In June 2021, after a four-year legal battle, B. Levy (a minor whose name was censored in the press) finally brought her lawsuit against the Mahanoy Area School District in front of the Supreme Court. The case started when Levy didn’t make the varsity cheer team at her school, and posted a photo to Snapchat captioned, “F— school fuck softball f— cheer f— everything.” As reported in the Supreme Court decision, several students showed the “inappropriate” post to Levy’s J.V. cheer coach, who then suspended her for the rest of the year. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that public schools generally do not have the authority to regulate off-campus speech unless the speech is directly disruptive to the school environment, which Levy’s post did not do. 

A landmark case  like this fundamentally changed what it means to have privacy as a student. It seems obvious now that Levy’s post to Snapchat did not harm the school environment, yet there were dissenting opinions to the Court’s decision. Levy was clearly frustrated, as teenagers often are, and her emotions were not directed to anyone specifically. Those should not have been used against her to damage her reputation or image. Who is to say that this blemish on Levy’s transcript did not affect her future–whether that means going to her dream school, finding mentorship opportunities, or any achievement that is dependent on your success in high school? By choosing to punish Levy, the school blurred the line between protecting their student’s learning environment and invading their privacy. 

The bigger picture here is that the right to privacy seems to be dwindling more quickly than we realize. At first, with platforms like Instagram and Facebook, we essentially agreed to give up some privacy by posting our lives for others to see. But what happens when we don’t agree, or unknowingly agree, to our privacy being invaded? 

Although Levy’s team rules may have been explicitly stated, how many students are actually deeply considering the rules and contracts that they are agreeing to? Reportedly, only 9% of adults read the terms and conditions on user agreements before clicking “agree”. And among young people that number drops to a  staggering 3%. Students, specifically minors, cannot be expected to protect their own rights against systems or authorities that are supposed to be protecting them in the first place. Even further, schools (or any organization for that matter) should not try to infringe upon protected rights like free speech and privacy, doing it through legal means or not. 

More recently, in August 2025, the Merrill family sued the Marana Unified School District (UFSD), claiming that their son was wrongfully suspended, violating his First Amendment rights. The case is still under litigation but the basic facts are publicly known. Karalee Merrill’s son was reportedly upset about his grade on an English project and told his mother. She then suggested that he send his English teacher an email to voice his concerns. While at home before school hours, the student reportedly used his school issued Chromebook, opened his school email, and then typed several phrases–which the district later defined as threats–into the email window before hastily deleting them. The phrases ranged from silly references (such as Skibidi Toilet) to more alarming statements like, “GANG GANG GIMME A BETTER GRADE OR I SHOOT DA SKOOL HOMIE.” The school’s monitoring software, Gaggle, picked up the message, and the student was reportedly suspended later the same school day. 

To me and to Merrill’s mother, the most disturbing part of this incident is the fact that every action her son takes on his computer is closely monitored and, most importantly, taken at face value.  Gaggle, which is powered by artificial intelligence, couldn’t interpret the student’s supposed threats for what they likely were: obvious jokes. 

Gaggle and similar monitoring software are used in schools across America, supposedly to keep students safe. My own school district uses similar monitoring software on student devices, tracking our activity like time spent on documents or mirroring student screens. It’s not George Orwell’s 1984–surveillance like this isn’t a hypothetical. It’s inside classrooms across the country, under the guise of protection. 

But did it protect this student? Merrill’s education and future may have been put in an unsafe situation. Because of his suspension, Merrill reportedly missed 11 days of instruction during October 2024 and has a note on his transcript that may set off red flags for his prospective colleges. 

Now, when students in any district agree to use a school-issued device they do agree to 24/7 surveillance regardless of the location. USFD is using this to say that Merrill’s suspension was justified, but is this really just? It isn’t like a student can just opt out of not using a computer for doing their schoolwork. In reality, there are two clear options: purchase your own device or use a school-issued computer. It is unfair that a student must pay for basic privacy. It is equally unfair that any action that a student makes is constantly being watched by their school’s district sponsored “Big Brother.” 

The feeling of constant surveillance can also create a “chilling effect,” a concept widely discussed during the McCarthy era, where individuals censor themselves out of fear that their monitored words could have negative repercussions for them. During the Cold War this led many people to remain silent rather than risk being accused of disloyalty, and today similar surveillance can cause students to second-guess harmless jokes or criticisms. 

There is no doubt that safety in schools is a problem in America–the country with the most school shootings by far. But invading students’ privacy or turning privacy into a class defined privilege is not the solution.  

The solution? Holistic monitoring. Stop relying on artificial intelligence or other unreliable tools to solve issues with students and instead turn to good old fashioned in-school staff. Whatever happened to the days where students who got in trouble were sent down to the principal’s office to talk things out? Today it seems like all punishments for students are decided without the student ever being part of the conversation, a conversation that can decide their future.  Schools, even with the best intentions, risk alienating their students and worsening the school environment that they are trying to protect.