Student activism became a global media issue in the western world when in 2018 Greta Thunberg, then aged 15, went on strike from school in Sweden to draw attention to the climate change crisis. This resulted in protests across the world by young people which in Australia led to protests in 2018 and 2019 organised by the School Strike 4 Climate Action. Primary and secondary school students from across the nation went on strike during school hours, demanding that the Australian Government take more action to address climate change.

The Reaction from Some Politicians and Educators

Some schools and politicians including the Prime Minister voiced their opposition to students failing to attend school in order to attend the protests. As reported in The Guardian, the Prime Minister stated that, although climate change was “a very real and serious issue”, “kids should go to school”. The Prime Minister’s comments, which were echoed by both some politicians and some educators, highlight the traditional segregation between education and politics. See our 2019 School Governance article about student activism.

Taking the Environment Minister to Court

Student environmental activism ascended to a new level of sophistication in 2020 with the lodging of a class action by eight high school students with the help of a ‘litigation guardian’ (required where the class action is on behalf of minors) who was a former teacher. They argued that, by approving Whitehaven Coal’s extension to its Vickery coal mine, the Environment Minister Sussan Ley would be breaching a common law duty of care owed to young people. Although an injunction was not granted to block the expansion of the coal mine, the Federal Court of Australia found that the Minister owed a duty of care to prevent future harm to young people and hence protect young people from the climate crisis.

The Federal Court’s acknowledgement of the existence of a duty of care in these circumstances is considered groundbreaking for a senior court in Australia and opens the way for future actions by young people to claim breaches of a duty of care by governments. These may not necessarily be limited to environmental matters. By pursuing legal action, the students took control and exercised their rights as citizens with significant public interests, demonstrating how student activism is now evolving to give students legal standing in relation to global issues.

It should be noted that any future action based on this new duty of care is of course open to challenge, and may in fact be disavowed if matters proceed to a higher court.

Risks and Risk Management

The school’s duty of care is an obligation to protect students from reasonably foreseeable physical or psychological harm. As we know, this is not confined to school hours and arises where a ‘student-teacher’ or ‘student-school’ relationship can be established. The developing nature of student activism challenges the orthodox understanding of a school’s duty of care and its responsibilities.

For a school, students may sometimes publicly express views that are at odds with the official ethos of the school or aspects of it and it can be very challenging for a school to deal with a significant risk of reputational damage. However, students bringing legal action for a generally well-supported cause such as addressing climate change is less of a risk for schools than different types of activism in relation to a more controversial or sensitive issues. In the case of more physical student activism such as participating in marches and protests during school time, students can be exposed to injury and harm, as well as reputational damage to the school where protesters wear school uniforms that may directly affiliate the students’ views and actions with those of the school or indicate poor attendance and poor supervision by the school.

So where are the limits of the school’s duty of care and how can schools manage the foreseeable risks of student activism?

Perhaps the first step in mitigating the risk to students’ safety is by a school acknowledging student voices: the second of the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations, which reflects the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, states:

“Children and young people are informed about their rights, participate in decisions affecting them and are taken seriously”.

The stories and responses to the petition initiated by Chantal Contos this year for sexual consent to be a significant part of education in schools demonstrated the importance of this principle. Many of those stories following the media exposure of the petition involved past and current students and their issues not being taken seriously, reiterating the concerns raised in the Royal Commission.

By providing a voice to students in relation to controversial issues such as environmentalism, risk management by a school does not necessarily mean that teachers or schools should take sides. Rather, teachers can guide discussions, teach critical assessment of issues, offer alternative types of action and, in the case of protests and marches, explain the students’ school attendance obligations and the potential dangers. At the more extreme end, teachers may suggest ways for the students to stay safe while engaging in protests and marches.

Further, the involvement of parents by the school allows the parents and guardians to make more informed decisions about whether they support their child in participating in these types of activities. The school may consider preparing a letter to go out to parents if the school community becomes aware of any planned protests and include reminders about the school’s attendance policy and the legal requirement for parents to ensure that their children attend school. The school may also take managing foreseeable risk further by planning for any engagement with the media and the school community that may arise from their students participating in protest action.

Where a school decides that they will provide supervision for students attending protests and marches, the school will have a duty of care to ensure the safety of those students who attend the activity, and potentially their safe return to school or home. This requires the same risk assessment and planning as with any excursion but with the additional risks of rogue protesters, potential police action, violence, and reputational damage. At this point the involvement of parents and guardians becomes even more critical in ensuring that they are fully informed and consenting.

What Lies Ahead for Schools and Student Activism?

Whether the new governmental duty of care to young people survives or not, schools can be sure that student activism will continue in some form. Forewarned is forearmed- so as we recommended in a previous School Governance article, a prudent school will monitor news and key sources especially social media for any potential initiatives or relevant issues that could give rise to student activism.

Authors

Svetlana Pozydajew

Svetlana is a Principal Consultant (NFP) at CompliSpace. She has over 20 years of experience in strategic and operational human resource management, occupational health and safety, and design and implementation of policies and change management programs. She has held national people management responsibility positions in the public and private sectors. Svetlana holds a LLB, Masters in Management (MBA), Master of Arts in Journalism, and a Certificate in Governance for not-for-profits.

Rhea Gounder

Rhea is currently studying a Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Laws at the University of Technology, Sydney.