Elizabeth Hanke for Mankato School Board

Policy Proposal: Review and Amendment Internet Acceptable Use and Employee Use of Social Media

Policy Proposal: Review and Amendment of Policies 524 and 471

Submitted by: Elizabeth Hanke, Member, Mankato Area Public Schools Board of Education
Date: July 13, 2026
Status: Discussion draft for superintendent, Policy Committee, and legal review

Below is a policy proposal I submitted under District Policy 208 requesting a coordinated review of Policy 524, Internet Acceptable Use, and Policy 471, Employee Use of Social Media.

This proposal is intended to begin the policy-review process. The proposed language should be reviewed by district administration and legal counsel before a first reading or final adoption.

Dear Superintendent and Members of the Policy Committee:

As a member of the Mankato Area Public Schools Board of Education, I submit this proposal pursuant to District Policy 208 for the coordinated review and amendment of Policy 524, Internet Acceptable Use Policy, and the related provisions of Policy 471, Employee Use of Social Media.

This proposal is intended to begin the policy-review process. The proposed language should be reviewed by administration and district legal counsel before first reading or final adoption.

Background and Purpose

Policy 524 appropriately establishes rules governing district-owned systems, networks, accounts, school-issued devices, and technology used during school activities. Section V.B, however, extends the policy to off-campus internet activity by both students and employees and applies similar language to two legally distinct groups.

Student off-campus speech is governed primarily by the student-speech framework reflected in Tinker v. Des Moines and Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Schools retain authority to address genuine threats, severe targeted bullying or harassment, breaches of school security, conduct involving school-sponsored online activities, and speech that causes or is reasonably expected to cause a material and substantial disruption.

At the same time, a school generally has reduced authority over speech occurring away from school, outside school hours, and through personal accounts or devices.

Employee personal speech is governed by a different public-employee framework. Speech made pursuant to assigned job duties may be regulated more directly. When an employee speaks as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, the district must consider the employee’s protected-speech interests together with the district’s legitimate interests in efficient operations, safety, confidentiality, trust, and the performance of assigned responsibilities.

Separating these standards would provide clearer notice, reduce inconsistent enforcement, protect lawful expression, and preserve the district’s authority to respond to genuine safety, confidentiality, professional-boundary, and operational concerns.

Why Policies 524 and 471 Should Remain Separate

While reviewing Policy 422, the Board mentioned possibly eliminating Policy 524 and adopting a single policy covering both students and employees. Using one policy number is not inherently unlawful, but combining these subjects into one set of operative rules creates avoidable legal and operational risks unless the policy preserves clearly separated standards.

First, students and employees do not have identical speech rights or disciplinary frameworks. Student off-campus speech is evaluated under student-specific constitutional and statutory standards. Employee personal speech is evaluated under public-employee speech doctrine, employment law, professional-licensure requirements, collective-bargaining agreements, and personnel due-process rules.

A combined policy could cause administrators, students, employees, and families to apply the wrong legal standard to a particular situation.

Second, the policies serve different purposes. Policy 524 is primarily an acceptable-use and technology-security policy governing district systems, networks, accounts, filtering, monitoring, school-issued devices, and student technology use.

Policy 471 is primarily a personnel and professional-conduct policy governing employee social-media use, official duties, confidentiality, professional boundaries, and private-citizen speech.

Blending these subjects can make it unclear whether a restriction applies only to district technology and school activities or also reaches personal accounts and privately owned devices used away from work or school.

Third, the consequences and required procedures differ. Student discipline may require parental notice and coordination with Policies 506 and 542. Employee discipline may implicate Policy 403, collective-bargaining and grievance rights, professional licensure, personnel-data rules, and employment due process.

Placing both groups under a single undifferentiated enforcement section could obscure these protections and increase the risk of inconsistent application.

Finally, separate but coordinated policies are easier to administer and update. Technology requirements and student-speech law may change independently from public-employee speech, labor law, or professional standards. Shared definitions and cross-references can promote consistency without collapsing legally distinct subjects into one policy.

For these reasons, Policies 524 and 471 should be reviewed together, conflicting or duplicative language should be removed, and the policies should remain separate but coordinated.

If the Board ultimately prefers one umbrella policy, it should contain independent and clearly labeled parts for:

  • District systems and acceptable use
  • Student off-campus speech
  • Employee personal or off-duty speech

Each part should have separate standards, procedures, and cross-references for the affected group.

Requested Review and Action

  1. Request that district legal counsel review Policies 524 and 471 and the proposed amendments and provide the Board with a written summary identifying legal concerns, recommended revisions, and distinctions that should be maintained between student speech, employee speech made pursuant to official duties, and employee speech made as a private citizen.
  2. Review Policies 524 and 471 together to eliminate conflicting, duplicative, or overly broad standards, while retaining them as separate but coordinated policies with clear cross-references and distinct student and employee standards.
  3. Provide the Board, to the extent reasonably available and consistent with applicable data-practices requirements, an aggregate summary of how Policies 524 and 471 have been applied to off-campus speech during the previous five years, including:
    • Complaints received
    • Investigations conducted
    • Requests to remove content
    • Disciplinary actions taken
  4. Return both policies to the School Board for a first reading after the policy, legal, and operational reviews have been completed.
  5. Adopt written administrative procedures requiring viewpoint-neutral review, notice of the concern being investigated, an opportunity to respond, and documentation of the district’s legal or policy basis for intervention.

Proposed Replacement for Policy 524, Section V.B

Off-Campus Student Internet Speech and Conduct

1. Scope

This section applies to student speech or conduct occurring away from school, outside school hours, through a personal account or privately owned device, when the activity is not part of a school-sponsored program, assigned school activity, district account, or online educational activity.

The school district’s authority over such off-campus speech is limited and shall be exercised consistently with the First Amendment, applicable law, and the reduced authority schools ordinarily possess over student expression occurring outside school supervision.

2. Grounds for Review

The district may review off-campus student internet activity when it receives:

a. A credible concern involving student, employee, or public safety;

b. Information presenting a credible concern involving student or staff safety;

c. An allegation of unlawful conduct;

d. Information concerning unauthorized access to, disclosure of, or interference with district technology, accounts, records, or security systems; or

e. Identifiable facts indicating an actual or reasonably foreseeable material and substantial disruption of school operations or substantial interference with the legal rights of another student or employee.

The district shall not engage in routine monitoring or surveillance of students’ personal accounts or personal off-campus social-media activity.

This limitation does not restrict the ordinary administration, security, or monitoring of district-owned systems, accounts, networks, or devices.

3. Conduct Subject to District Action

The district may investigate and take appropriate action regarding:

a. A true threat directed toward a student, employee, school, school activity, or district property;

b. Serious or severe targeted bullying or harassment that substantially interferes with a student’s access to education or an employee’s ability to perform assigned duties;

c. Unauthorized access to, disclosure of, or interference with district systems, accounts, records, data, or security devices;

d. Conduct occurring through school-sponsored online instruction, district accounts, or district-issued technology; or

e. Speech or conduct supported by identifiable facts demonstrating an actual or reasonably foreseeable material and substantial disruption of school operations.

4. Protected Expression

Disagreement, discomfort, criticism of district policies or employees, unpopular opinions, the mere use of profanity without more, political expression, religious expression, philosophical expression, or community controversy alone shall not constitute a material and substantial disruption or sufficient grounds for disciplinary action.

A finding of material and substantial disruption must be supported by identifiable facts. It may not be based solely upon:

  • Speculation
  • Anticipated criticism
  • Subjective reaction
  • The number of complaints received
  • The fact that members of the school community disagree with or are offended by the expression

5. Investigation, Notice, and Opportunity to Respond

Before imposing discipline based upon off-campus speech, the district shall:

a. Provide the student and parent or guardian with notice of the alleged policy violation;

b. Identify the content or conduct under review;

c. Provide a reasonable opportunity to respond;

d. Document the connection between the off-campus activity and the district’s legally recognized interest; and

e. Document the facts supporting any finding of material and substantial disruption, targeted harassment, threat, security violation, or other misconduct.

Discipline shall be consistent with Policy 506, Student Discipline; Policy 542, Bullying Prohibition; applicable due-process requirements; and state and federal law.

6. Requests to Remove Online Content

A district employee shall not direct, pressure, threaten discipline, or condition a benefit upon the removal of lawful off-campus content without a documented legal or policy basis.

When an administrator requests that content be removed, the administrator shall clearly state whether the request is voluntary or mandatory.

A mandatory request must identify the policy or legal authority relied upon. A voluntary request shall not be used to avoid the notice and procedural protections contained in this section.

Proposed New Policy 524, Section V.C

Employee Personal Off-Campus Speech

Policy 524 governs employee use of district systems, district networks, district accounts, school-issued devices, and technology used in the performance of assigned employment responsibilities.

Employee speech made in an official capacity or pursuant to assigned job responsibilities may be subject to district direction, supervision, and regulation.

Employee personal speech occurring outside working hours, away from district property, through a personal account or privately owned device, shall be governed primarily by Policy 471, Employee Use of Social Media, and applicable law.

Nothing in Policy 524 shall independently enlarge the district’s authority over an employee’s lawful personal off-duty speech.

Suggested Replacement for Policy 471, Section IV

Personal Use of Social Media by Employees

A. General Rule

Employees do not relinquish rights protected by the United States Constitution or applicable state and federal law because they are employed by the school district.

Lawful speech made as a private citizen on matters of public concern, or speech otherwise protected under applicable law, shall not be restricted or disciplined solely because it is controversial, unpopular, critical of district policies or officials, or the subject of disagreement within the community.

This protection does not apply in the same manner to communications made pursuant to an employee’s official responsibilities, communications represented as official district statements, or conduct otherwise prohibited by law, professional standards, or district policy.

B. No Routine Monitoring

The district, its administrators, and its technology staff shall not engage in routine monitoring or surveillance of employees’ personal accounts or personal off-campus social-media activity.

Routine monitoring does not include the ordinary administration, maintenance, security, public-records management, or legally authorized review of district-owned systems, networks, accounts, or devices.

C. Grounds for Review

The district may review personal off-campus social-media activity when it receives:

a. A credible concern involving student, employee, or public safety;

b. Information presenting a credible safety concern;

c. An allegation of unlawful conduct;

d. Information concerning the unauthorized disclosure of protected student, personnel, medical, or district data; or

e. Identifiable facts indicating that the speech or conduct may materially interfere with assigned responsibilities, working relationships requiring confidentiality, safety, or the efficient operation of district services.

D. Objective and Viewpoint-Neutral Review

Any review shall be conducted using objective and viewpoint-neutral standards. The political, religious, philosophical, or personal viewpoint expressed shall not serve as the sole basis for investigation or discipline.

The existence of disagreement, criticism of district policy, political expression, religious expression, community controversy, offense, or the number of complaints received shall not, standing alone, constitute sufficient grounds for disciplinary action.

E. Conduct Subject to District Action

The district may investigate and take appropriate action regarding:

a. True threats involving students, employees, schools, school activities, or district property;

b. Unlawful harassment or severe targeted conduct that substantially interferes with a student’s educational environment or an employee’s workplace;

c. Unauthorized disclosure of educational, personnel, medical, or other legally protected information;

d. Criminal conduct directly affecting the employee’s ability to perform assigned responsibilities;

e. The false representation that the employee is communicating on behalf of or with the endorsement of the district; or

f. Speech or conduct that materially interferes with the employee’s performance of assigned responsibilities, impairs working relationships requiring trust and confidentiality, threatens safety, or interferes with the efficient operation of district services, when the district’s legally recognized operational interests outweigh any applicable protected-speech interests.

Any finding of operational interference shall be supported by identifiable facts and shall not be based solely upon discomfort, disagreement, speculation, offense, subjective reaction, or anticipated controversy.

F. Personal Attribution and District Identity

Employees are encouraged, but not required, to clarify that opinions expressed through personal accounts are their own and do not necessarily represent the district.

Employees may not use district logos, official accounts, titles, or communication systems in a manner that falsely implies district authorization or endorsement.

The ordinary identification of an employee’s job title or employer, without more, does not by itself imply district endorsement.

G. Procedural Protections

Before imposing material discipline based substantially upon personal off-campus speech, the district shall:

a. Notify the employee of the content and conduct under review;

b. Identify the law, professional standard, or policy allegedly violated;

c. Provide the employee with a reasonable opportunity to respond;

d. Document the relationship between the speech and the employee’s duties, working relationships, safety, confidentiality obligations, or district operations; and

e. Document the basis for concluding that the district’s legally recognized operational interests outweigh any applicable protected-speech interests.

Before imposing suspension, termination, or another material employment sanction based substantially upon personal off-campus speech, the administration shall ensure that the proposed action has been reviewed for compliance with applicable constitutional, employment, collective-bargaining, and due-process requirements.

Legal counsel should be consulted when constitutional protections are reasonably implicated.

Nothing in this section limits employee rights under an applicable collective-bargaining agreement, grievance procedure, whistleblower law, professional-licensure standard, or other state or federal protection.

Additional Recommended Changes to Policy 471

  1. Remove or revise the statement that employees are responsible for the content of “anything” communicated online. That phrase is broader than necessary and does not distinguish official misconduct from lawful private speech.
  2. Replace the general “positive ambassador” and “role model” disciplinary standard with specific standards tied to:
    • Professional boundaries
    • Student and employee privacy
    • Safety
    • Confidentiality
    • Assigned responsibilities
    • Workplace trust
    • Legally sufficient operational interference
  3. Move case names and detailed judicial tests to the legal-reference section or supporting administrative guidance rather than embedding them throughout the operative policy text. This will allow the policy to remain readable while legal interpretations evolve.
  4. Clarify that monitoring and searching district-owned systems is distinct from monitoring personal accounts or privately owned devices used outside school and outside assigned duties.
  5. Coordinate any final amendments with Policies 403, 406, 506, 515, and 542 and with applicable collective-bargaining agreements.

Conclusion

These proposed amendments clarify the limited scope of district authority over off-campus speech, distinguish student and employee legal standards, retain separate but coordinated policy structures, protect lawful private expression, and provide clear, viewpoint-neutral review procedures.

They preserve the district’s ability to address genuine threats, severe harassment, confidentiality violations, security breaches, professional misconduct, and legally sufficient interference with school operations.

I respectfully request that this proposal be reviewed by the Superintendent, the Policy Committee, administration, and district legal counsel and then returned to the School Board for discussion at a first reading.

Respectfully submitted,

Elizabeth Hanke
Member, Mankato Area Public Schools Board of Education
ehanke1@isd77.org

Legal and Policy References for Review

  • U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
  • Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), and Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. 180 (2021)
  • Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)
  • Minnesota Statutes section 121A.031 and other applicable state and federal law
  • District Policies 208, 403, 406, 471, 506, 515, 524, and 542

Leave a comment