Abstract
During the months leading up to and immediately following President Donald Trumpâs election, the unique intersection of classroom academic freedom and teacher and studentsâ first amendment rights would be duly tested, as headlines reminded citizens, parents, and pundits that the reach of raw emotions and political viewpoints did not stop at the schoolhouse door. School and classroom-based events would eventually test the norms of community, the interpretation of legal precedents, the resolve of district and school leadership, and the rights or limits thereof of the teachers themselves. This analysis is grounded on case studies of eight such incidents, all of which occurred at the high school level in public school districts. These eight cases are analyzed in terms of the incidents, the teacherâs actions or speech, the consequences, the relevant legal precedents surrounding academic freedom, the parental, student, and community reaction, and the short- and long-term impacts moving forward.
Keywords: Academic freedom; case study; classroom conflict; law and education; politics in the classroom; school leadership; student freedom
Introduction
As established through the First Amendment of the Constitution and later interpreted through the 1968 landmark Pickering Supreme Court ruling, public school teachers have a constitutional right to speak out freely on issues of concern or interest to them, just as all citizens do. Likewise, students have the same rights regarding free speech and their First Amendment protections, as supported by the landmark Tinker case. It is recognized as a norm and a professional expectation that teachers conduct themselves not only as role models but also in ways that do not influence students nor infringe on studentsâ own fundamental rights and freedoms. It is also generally expected and even considered by the courts that a studentâs speech not present a danger to anyone and not cause any substantial disruption to the school climate or the learning environment of other students. Yet at what point or in what situations might teacher speech or decisions, specifically those related to political advocacy or beliefs, under the cloak of âacademic freedom,â infringe on the rights of students, the effectiveness of the learning environment, or the execution of official school functions? The point at which the academic and personal rights and freedoms of the teacher may collide with any or all of these tasks is that hallowed place known to all as the American classroom.
In examining this topic, it is relevant to emphasize the difference between public school teachers and private school teachers regarding free speech issues. While the speech of all teachers is afforded constitutional protections under the First Amendment, the degree to which this is applied or by which the school may regulate the teacherâs speech varies depending on private or public status.
The First Amendment provides free-speech protection to public, not private, employees because the Bill of Rights applies only to governmental actions. This means that a private employer generally can discipline an employee as he sees fit âŚ. While the private employer probably can fire an employee whose speech he dislikes, the First Amendment governs the circumstances under which public employers may discipline employees for their speech. On the other hand, government has more authority to regulate the speech of its employees than it does to regulate the speech of the general citizenry. (Hudson, 2002, p. 2)
A careful analysis of the predominant legal precedents that relate to teacher speech and freedoms and the application of such to specific incidents of teacher speech reveals quite a bit about the sanctity of the classroom and the teacherâs approach to such. As demonstrated through the California Teachers Association ruling, as well as other cases on this topic, the Supreme Court and other courts have consistently recognized the significant influence, persuasion, and power that instructors, especially K-12 teachers who work with elementary and secondary age students, have in in their classrooms (Superior Court of San Diego, 1996). For this very reason, it is vital that cases and situations involving academic freedoms and teacher speech in the K-12 classroom be examined.
Historical Context
While this analysis will focus primarily on academic freedom, teacher free speech, and classroom integrity in the age of President Trump, challenges involving these topics are not limited to Mr Trumpâs presidency. For example, in 2010, a math teacher in Alabama was suspended following a geometry lesson in which he shared the correct angles to use if one were planning on assassinating President Barack Obama (Adams, 2010). In 2006, a Denver teacher was placed on administrative leave after comparing President George W. Bush to Hitler following the State of the Union address (Associated Press, 2006). The debates and discussions regarding the appropriate exercise of teacher academic freedoms and the minimal classroom culture that should be accessible for student learning have a longstanding history. Yet, it is a topic that appears even more relevant in light of the close presidential election of 2016 and the heated political battle that preempted and followed its result.
The First Amendment speaks for itself, but the idea of academic freedom as a First Amendment right was first established by the US Supreme Court in the 1967 Keyishian v. Board of Regents ruling. During the age of McCarthyism, as states were seeking to dismiss through legal means public school employees for words or ideas that may be viewed as treasonous, the Supreme Court justices overturned such laws and clearly established the classroom as âa marketplace of ideasâ and an environment for which constitutional freedoms must be protected (Sadler & Oats, 2013, p. 349). In establishing the school as this haven for ideas, the court also clearly rejected the notion that schools can be a place of âviewpoint discrimination.â As shared in Hudsonâs (2002) analysis:
[A] law prohibiting citizens from criticizing elected officials would be impermissible because it would discriminate on the basis of content, allowing praise of government officials but not allowing criticism. Nor could the government enforce a law prohibiting criticism of the Republican Party but allowing criticism of other parties, because this would be an even more egregious constitutional violation known as âviewpoint discrimination.â In other words, the First Amendment, above all else, rejects laws that favor some ideas or viewpoints while excluding others. Such laws limit the scope of the âmarketplace of ideas,â the metaphorical public forum whose protection has been the focus of First Amendment jurisprudence for the past 80 years. (p. 3)
The school leaderâs role is significant in how incidents of this nature are addressed, managed, or worsened. While Standard 2 of the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders requires principals and superintendents to respect the rights of teachers to freely express their thoughts and opinions, Standard 3 also requires that any speech or actions by teachers that are disruptive to student learning must be addressed (NPBEA, 2015). As stated by Sadler and Oats (2013), âthe balance between the rights of a teacher to express her or his opinion and the interest of the board of education in promoting harmony and efficacy to support quality instruction and student learning is often a matter of perspectiveâ (p. 340).
Leaders faced with situations involving employees who engage in speech that disrupts the learning climate or otherwise makes it difficult for teaching to be carried out effectively must carry out dual roles: (1) effectively providing public services and (2) leading an educational institution that is governed by the First Amendment. Determining whether a teacherâs individual speech is actually protected under the First Amendment or is more predominantly an act of insubordination can be a tricky scenario through which a leader must navigate (Hudson, 2002).
In examining the teacherâs expansive umbrella of academic freedom and general First Amendment rights, the courts and the public in general must always consider the balance between public interest and private interest. In discovering where the teacherâs rights end and the schoolâs interests begin, the courts often consider the degree to which a teacherâs expression or conduct may prevent or affect their ability to carry out their teacher responsibilities, whether through the actual conduct or through the repercussions of that conduct, such as notoriety or parental concerns (Alexander & Alexander, 1985). In fact, âbasic free-speech rules that apply outside the workplace sometimes have little relevance for public employeesâ (Hudson, 2002, p. 2). In writing the opinion of the court in Pickering v. Board of Education, Justice Marshall stated:
the problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interests of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. (Alexander & Alexander, 1985, p. 568)
There are many landmark cases, including Pickering and Kiyishan, which together set precedents that âlimit somewhat state school power in favor of individual freedom of choice for the teacher and studentâ (Alexander & Alexander, 1985, p. 250). Thirteen such rulings are highlighted here, many of which guide the actual academic protections of teachers while teaching in their classrooms and First Amendment protections while living their lives outside of their classrooms.
Precedents in Academic Freedom Case Law
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
This case was one in which the US Supreme Court ruled on the ability of schools and teachers to require students to participate in a flag salute. One of the most important parts of this case decision, as it relates to teacher and student rights, was the establishment of the teacher as exactly that â teacher. This ruling clarified that this role does not place a teacher in the position of supreme controller of all classroom thoughts, convictions, or ideas (National Education Association, 2007). The courtâs ruling included this critical direction:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to restrict from all official control. (Alexander & Alexander, 1985, p. 204)
Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire, 354 US 234 (1957)
This court ruling established the far-reaching possibilities inherent in academic freedom (National Education Association, 2007). The Court decision in Sweezy deemed it as unconstitutional to âimpose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universitiesâ and that âteachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and dieâ (Alexander & Alexander, 1985, p. 250).
Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967)
In 1953, a New York law which included a loyalty-oath requirement was extended to state colleges and universities. A provision in the law allowed for dismissal for state employees who refused to sign the loyalty-oath agreement. In this landmark case involving academic freedom, the US Supreme Court established a teacherâs academic freedom as a First Amendment right. In doing so, the Court defined the classroom as âthe marketplace of ideasâ (Alexander & Alexander, 1985, p. 587) and emphasized that in no way should anyone be in the position to be âcasting a pall of orthodoxy over the classroomâ (Sadler & Oats, 2013, p. 339). As part of this ruling, the court recogniz...
