A teacher shows an R-rated Movie

1. A teacher shows an R-rated Movie A teacher has a blog that complains about school administration A teacher criticizes the Presidents handling of the BP oil spill

2. Two teachers raise their voices and argue in the staff lounge A group of teachers pray together before the school day but during their contract day A teacher works in his room after school with Christian music playing in the background

3. The First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

4. Fourteenth Amendment No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

5. Employee Speech School staff enter the profession with constitutional rights and freedoms School boards are required to establish compelling reasons to restrict these constitutional freedoms – the burden of proof lies with the school authorities

6. School authorities must demonstrate that their actions are not arbitrary, capricious, or motivated by personal and political objectives. When these types of cases are elevated to a level in which a legal hearing is required, the courts attempt to balance the public interest of the school district against the personal rights of each individual employee. Therefore, school staff are subject to reasonable restraints only if a legitimate, defensible rationale is established by the school district.

7. Freedom of Expression Free speech by teachers is limited to the requirement that such speech does not create material disruption to the educational interest of the school district. The level of protection for teachers is lower in cases where the teacher speaks about personal matters, in comparison to issues that are of interest to the larger community.

8. Speech Outside of the School Environment Teachers may speak on issues that interest them, even if their speech may not be deemed acceptable by school officials. However, this has not always been the case. Historically, there was a commonly held belief that public employment was a privilege and therefore teachers had a limited right to freedom of expression. The courts have failed to support this view, but in the past many teachers’ first amendment rights have been restricted by school officials.

9. Speech continued… Currently, freedom of speech outside the school environment is well established. However, a teacher should preface their comments by indicating that they are speaking as a private citizen and not as a school employee.

10. Substantive and Procedural Considerations Procedural due process – the state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In regards to teacher freedoms, a teacher must be given proper notice that they are going to be deprived of their personal rights. The teacher must then be given the opportunity to be heard in a fair manner. If these procedures are not followed it will be considered a violation of the teacher’s constitutional rights.

11. Due Process Continued… Substantive due process – requires that the state has a valid objective when it intends to deprive a teacher of life, liberty, or property.

12. Due Process Continued… Both procedural and substantive requirements must be met in teacher dismissal proceedings. (Interestingly, many administrative decisions that were correct in substance have been overturned on appeal due to procedural requirements not being met.)

13. Legal History - Precedence Pickering v. Board of Education (US 1968) Teacher wrote letter in the local newspaper criticizing how superintendent and board spent public monies. Pickering was dismissed for writing the editorial. This case established the limits on freedom of expression rights by school personnel.

14. Pickering continued… How do you balance between interests of the teacher as a citizen in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. Court held for teacher stating he had a protected right to speak to public concerns even if it contained unintentional inaccuracies which were offered in good faith.

15. Legal Guidelines Established as a Result of Pickering If the teacher’s speech disrupted superior-subordinate relationships or resulted in a breech of loyalty or confidentiality, the teacher may be disciplined. If the teacher’s speech created disruption of a material and substantial nature, affected the efficient operation of the school, or rendered the teacher unfit based upon the content of the speech, appropriate action against the teacher may be taken.

16. Guidelines continued… In employee speech cases one must consider: The impact on harmony, personal loyalty, and confidence among coworkers. The degree of falsity of statements. The place where the speech or distribution of material occurred. The impact on staff and students. The degree to which the teacher’s conduct lacked professionalism.

17. Connick v. Myers (US 1983) In this case the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent the discharge of a state employee for circulating a questionnaire concerning internal office affairs.

18. Connick v. Myers cont… The Court stated that whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the employee’s termination for distributing the questionnaire did not conflict with the First Amendment and therefore the lower court’s ruling was reversed.

19. Pickering Connick Test • 1. Determine if the speech was on a matter of public concern and is, therefore, protected by the First Amendment; and, if so • 2. Balance whether the employee's interest in speaking outweighs the employer's interest in maintaining the efficient function of its operations.