As a public school teacher in New Jersey, I have been following the case of a teacher, Viki Knox, who has been suspended for allegedly making anti-gay comments on her personal Facebook page. Click here for details on her alleged statement (I'm not going to restate the alleged words in this blog.)
Before I discuss my personal views on this issue, let me state that I am one of the faculty advisers for the Gay-Straight Alliance at the public high school where I teach. My concern about this case stems solely from the intersection it has with free speech issues, not an endorsement of her alleged statements.
In the wake of this story breaking I have heard many people make statements to the effect that "Teachers are held to a higher standard." And for that reason we ought not to voice our personal opinions in public fora (that's the plural of forum, by the way, I'm a Latin teacher).
Visit my author page at Lingua Sacra Publishing. You'll find everything from espionage thrillers, young adult adventure, and ways to learn new languages.
Here are some of the ways this view has been publicly stated.
From the Star-Ledger: "Hateful public comments from a teacher [emphasis my own] cannot be tolerated," wrote [John] Paragano, also a former Union Township Municipal Court judge. "She has a right to say it. But she does not have a right to keep her job after saying it."
From the same article: The case raises broader questions about rights of teachers [emphasis my own] to speak freely in the age of social media.
A letter to the editor from a retired teacher: "the right of Ms. Knox to her private beliefs does not grant her the right to go public [emphasis my own]. All of the words and actions of a teacher serve as a great example to children."
In these statements there is the assertion that teachers may not possess the same constitutionally protected right to free speech that non-teachers have.
Let me therefore state, for the record and as a matter of legal reality. Yes, I do. I have the exact same right to free speech that you do. And I'm a teacher.
I did not surrender any of my constitutional rights when I became a teacher. And I am not held to a "higher standard." I am held to the same standard of conduct as everyone else. It's called the law.
And I wasn't surprised that the ACLU has injected some legal sanity into this case by again consistently siding with free speech, even free speech they hate.
From the Star-Ledger: "Although we do not agree with the sentiments expressed on Ms. Knox’s personal Facebook page, her comments are protected by the First Amendment," stated Ed Barocas, the group’s legal director. "The ACLU believes that the response to offensive speech is not the restriction of speech, but more speech."
Free Speech Hurts. I do not dismiss the possibility that someone could read what this teacher allegedly wrote and be hurt by it. But she has the right to say that, even out loud and on Facebook, in her private life. If she had ever expressed such opinions in the classroom, that would be an entirely different matter.I'm a teacher. And on this blog I've made direct statements that some disagree forcefully with. For instance, I recently stated that I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I understand that people who ascribe to a literal view of Creationism might be offended by that statement. And if their child is in my Latin class, perhaps they would then be uncomfortable with the notion of a liberal non-literalist biblical scholar teaching their child. But they needn't worry. Because I don't discuss my personal views on such matters in my Latin class.
But unless I want to worry that my free expression will get me fired, I will need to support the right of everyone to make personal views publicly.
Even if I don't like it...and if they're a teacher.
Hi Keith,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to hear your take on my analysis of a different teacher related free speech issue I wrote about recently.
It's in the second half of the blog post I've linked, starting at the fifth paragraph.
http://accordingtothemom.blogspot.com/2011/09/greed-versus-wealth-and-those-pesky.html
I had a hard time myself on the Mr. Bryant episode, because I do agree with what you posted about teachers in the classroom, versus teachers out of the classroom. But what about those times when a teacher has gathered students for a civic activity? Or when a teacher is present in a public setting where students have gathered themselves?
I think there is a bit of gray, but it is not a legal gray, so much as an ethical one. Perhaps that is where the distinction needs to be made and discussed. There may be some who have spoken on the Ms Knox issue for whom that distinction is not clear; and additionally, there may be others for whom such a distinction is clear, but who did not make such a distinction clear in their writings and speech.
There are several angles on the episode I linked, with Mr. Bryant, that deal with the non-ethical angle, such as his logical fallacies and blatantly pejorative comments, which I think are stupid. But I also took the position that Mr. Bryant ought to have been more responsible simply because he was a teacher, speaking in a public setting in which his students were present. And I do stand by that, still. But I wouldn't say he behaved illegally.
And another thought I've had,...Is there any place in either of these situations, for a discussion of the rights of a local school district to choose what kind of non-classroom behavior they expect from their teachers? Do local school districts have any such rights these days?
I'd appreciate your input. Thanks.
Mary Abrahamson
Hi Mary,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting case, because it highlights the different situations in which a person exercises their rights and also should understand that it may be inappropriate to do so.
When a person, whether a teacher or an auto mechanic, posts an opinion on their Facebook page, the context makes it clear that they are expressing those opinions in their capacity as "Facebook" user. And that is a forum in which I insist that whatever legal exercise of free speech a person makes cannot affect their employment.
The case you've presented has some important differences. It seems that the event is taking place outside the time when his union contracts his teaching to be taking place. But he identifies himself as a teacher and the presence of his students at the event implies that they have come as either an extension of the lesson or in support of his speaking at this public forum.
I consider the use of the "Nazi" title to be irresponsible and quite immature. It demeans those who actually suffered and died under the Nazis, as well as not contributing to a constructive discussion on important issues.
I agree with you that in the end what he said was legally protected free speech. But it was also childish. But inasmuch as it may be true that he did not "set a good example for his students" as one of the panel members said, I would still push back and assert that his job, if he accurately self-described himself, is to teach government, not "set an example." He may teach government very well, while also not setting a good example in other areas of his life. I worry that anyone can get in trouble based on someone else's opinion of the example one should be setting.
For instance, I go to Church every Sunday. That fact is never part of my Latin lesson, but it is a part of my life outside of my school duties. In some places, a school board could theoretically be controlled by people that are quite contrary to the practice of religion and even believe that my lifestyle does not set a good example to students for how to live a life free of religion. While you and I agree that calling someone a Nazi sets a bad example, I don't want his job to be tied to it.
Now, on the ability of school boards to choose what kind of non-classroom behavior they can expect from teachers. I would assert that school boards, as entities, don't have any rights because they are not persons under the law. They have jurisdictional authority over certain matters, such as the curriculum to be taught.
Now, a school district can terminate an employee for immoral or obscene behavior that would interfere with the conduct of their job. What the teacher in this video did I think does not reach the threshold of that. But school boards would not have the right to forbid non-classroom behaviors that would otherwise be legally protected.
The situation is different in the military, because there the very State which granted those rights can make employment conditional on voluntarily surrendering otherwise legally protected rights.
(As a former intelligence officer at the NSA, I surrendered my right to publish things without first submitting it to pre-publication review. I have a book I want to release right now, but they have been processing it now for two months.)
But the school board didn't give me my right to free speech. And therefore the school board can't legally tell me I can only have a job if I curtail it in specified ways.
In the end, we agree that he should have acted more responsibly. But I am not holding teachers to a higher standard simply because they're teachers. I'm holding everyone to a high standard. An auto mechanic who called a panel member a Nazi should also have acted more responsibly. And I would probably still hire him to fix my car, if he were the best person available to do the job. But I wouldn't socialize with him.
Good on ya, Dr. M., sticking up for your fellow teacher this way. What is happening in the schools is bad enough; that you risk your job even criticizing it, chills the blood.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughts. We mostly agree.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, think an entity, such as a business or group which is composed of individuals ought to be able to make it's own rules.
So, for instance, if a business or group wants to set rules for their employees that would affect some aspect of such an employees life outside of work, they ought to have that right to do so. But they need to be up front about it, and it needs to be clearly in a contract.
So, therefore, a school district, composed of local families, acting through elected school board members, ought to be allowed the freedom to set whatever standards they want for those who are teaching the youth of their communities. But that needs to be clear at the time of hire, not something that can be debated by everyone and his or her uncle after something happens.
So to apply that to either of these situations, if there was nothing in a contract clearly stated regarding outside of school time behavior, then the general population free speech rule must apply.
But if such school districts and the families they represent choose, oughtn't they be allowed to include in future contracts whatever stipulations they might find most conducive to the education of their youth? If a teacher does not want such stipulations, he or she could seek work elsewhere.
Cogent, Dr. Massey; and very well put.
ReplyDelete