ed820 telfer law media paperv2

8/9/2019 ED820 Telfer Law Media PaperV2

1/30

Speech and Technology 1

Freedom of Speech and District Technology

Public School Employee Freedom of Speech and District Technology

Chris Telfer

Edgewood College


2/30


Abstract

Since the Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court case 393 U.S. 503 (1969), freedom of speech, for

educators has been acknowledged. However, cases have shown a limitation on this first

amendment right for educators. This paper serves to give a background of protected speech, look

at acceptable use policies regarding electronic communication, then look at applying these

traditional freedom of speech tests with district technology. If a staff member warrants

disciplinary action based on these tests, is it the right thing to do when you consider potential

public and or media ramifications?


3/30


Public School Employee Freedom of Speech and Email

The first amendment of the United States constitution grants all individuals the right of

Freedom of Speech (United states house of representatives - amendments to the constitution,

2008). The true confirmation for public school employees came with the Tinker v. Des Moines

Supreme Court case in 1969, where the court ruled that neither teachers nor students lose their

constitutional rights to freedom of expression when they enter the public schools. (Fischer, L.,

Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 123; Roth, S. V., Bennett, B., 1997, p. 2). It should be

noted that the court also stated that teachers or students cannot say of write anything they wish.

(Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 123) Since then the courts have continued to

give a legal framework for protected speech.

One of the limitations on public employee freedeom of speech was famously stated in the

Bong Hits for Jesus case, where the Supreme Court supported the school district in

disciplining a student on the grounds that the banner violated school policy regarding the display

of any kind of drug message at school events (Neuburger, J.D., 2008, p. 2.) This right of

expression came to another milestone with the Pickering v. Board of Education case 391 U.S.

563, 568. This case gave a precedent setting legal basis to weigh the rights of the individual

against the rights of the government as an employer. (Jones Law Review, 2007, p.1; Supreme

Court of the United States, 1983, p. 3.) Later in Garcetti v. Ceballos, the United States Supreme

Court held that "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, ... the

Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline." (Jones Law

Review, 2007, p. 1; Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421. 2006, p12; United States District

Court District of Connecticut, 2008, p. 28-29).

The court case gave further tests to use if an employees free speech rights were involved.

However, it doesnt guarantee first amendment protection. " Nonetheless, as the Supreme Court

has held, when a public employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but

instead as an employee upon matters only of personal interest, absent the most unusual


4/30


circumstances, a federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a

personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employees behavior.

Connick, 461 U.S. at 147." (Unites States District Court District of Connecticut, 2008, p. 30;

Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 128.) Courts continued to grant the authority

school boards the broad authority to determine curriculum and control teacher speech in the

classroom. (Law Offices of Spector, Middleton, Young and Minney, LLP, 2005, p. 1.) "Only if

school authorities have by policy or practice opened those facilities 'for indiscriminate use by the

general public" or by some segment of the public, such as student organizations is their

protection, [if this is not the case], the district could restrict speech as it pertains to the materials

and curriculum used by the teacher." (United States District Court For The Northern District Of

California San Jose Division, 2005, p. 8;Northern District of California San Jose Division, 2005,

p. 9.)

In Teachers and the Law by Pearson (2007), contains a majority of the following

questions and their court based answers. These are interesting in that they demonstrate the

acknowledgement of protected speech but in many instances also establish limitations.

Can a Teacher Be Dismissed for Publicly Criticizing School Policy?

Not Usually" (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 123.) "free and open

debate is vital to informed decision making by the electorate. Teachers are, as a class, the

members of a community most likely to have informed and definite opinions as to how funds

allocated to the operation of the schools should be spent. Accordingly, it is essential that they be

able to speak out freely on such questions without fear of retaliatory dismissal." (Fischer, L.,

Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 124.)

"Can a School Board Ever Restrict Teachers' Rights to Publicize Their Views?

Yes. in Pickering, Justice Marshal wrote "it is possible to conceive of some position in

public employment in which the need for confidentiality is so great that even completely correct


5/30


public statements might furnish a permissible ground for dismissal."" (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D.,

Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 125.)

"Can Teachers Be Disciplined for Publicly Criticizing Their Immediate Superiors?

This depends on the circumstances. In Pickering, Justice Marshall wrote certain forms of

public criticism of the superior by the subordinate would seriously undermine the effectiveness

of the working relationship between themand thus justify appropriate discipline." (Fischer, L.,


Referencing an Alaska case where two teachers were dismissed, unlike Pickerings letter,

these false allegations "were not consistent with good faith and were made in reckless disregard

of the truth" (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 125.)

In a Texas case, the court concluded "society's interest in information concerning the

operation of its schools far outweighs any strain on the teacher-principal relationship" (Fischer,

L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 125.)

"Would Pickering Always Protect Teachers Who Make Unintentional False Public

Statements?

Generally, but not always. In Hartford Connecticut, for example, a tenured high school

teacher was dismissed for distributing leaflets that contained a number of false statements about

her principal.....However, a federal court ruled that her distribution of these leaflets was not

protected by the First Amendment because their basicpurpose was to cause dissension, and they

contained serious, damaging, and incorrect accusations that had an immediate and harmful

impact on the school." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 126.)

"Is Private Criticism Protected?


6/30


It depends on the circumstances. ...The Court rejected the notion that the First

Amendment does not protect criticism of a principal simply because of the close working

relationship between principal and teacher. The Court emphasized that freedom of speech is not

lost when a teacher arranges to communicate privately with his employer rather than to spread

his views before the public. On the other hand, a teacher's criticism might not be protected

when it specifically impedes classroom duties or the operation of the schools. In regard to

personal confrontations between an educator and an immediate superior, the Court noted that

judges may also consider the "manner, time, and place" confrontations when balancing the rights

in conflict. " (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 127-128.)

In [a] federal case, a teachers dismissal was upheld for telling her black principal and

assistant principal, "I hate all black folks." Unlike the Pickering case, Anderson' remarks created

tension between the teacher and her principals, they caused an adverse reaction among

coworkers, and they "cast serious doubt on her judgment and general competence as a teacher" in

a school district where most students were black. Under these circumstances, the court ruled that

the school board's interest in maintaining an efficient system and in employing effective teachers

outweighed Anderson's free speech interest and, therefore , that her dismissal was not

unconstitutional." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 128.)

"Are Personal Complaints Protected by the First Amendment?

No. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Connick v Meyers that "when a public employee

speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but instead as an employee upon matters

only of personal interest...a federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the

wisdom" of the public agency's personnel decision." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R.,

2007, p. 128.)


7/30


"When Are Teachers' Statements Matters of Public Concern?

According to Connick, when they relate to any matter of political, social, or other

concern to the communityit also depends on the content, form and context." (Fischer, L.,


"When Are Teachers' Comments Not Considered Matters of Public Concern?

In Illinois, a federal appeals court wrote that a series of sarcastic, unprofessional, and

insulting memoranda to school officials were not protected because the teacher was not

speaking as a citizen concerned with problems facing the school district, but was expressing his

own private disagreement with policies and procedures which he had either failed to apply or

refused to follow." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 129.)

In Washington D.C., a court did not protect a teacher's letters about overcrowding in her

classroom, which she claimed was a safety hazard. The court explained that if the reason for the

letters was the teacher's personal interests, a passing reference to safety will not transform a

private employee grievance into a matter of public concern. And a federal appeals court ruled

against a coach who was not rehired after controversial newspaper interview about his

termination. According to the court, a teacher's personal grievance does not become a matter of

public concern simply because there is a story about it in a newspaper." (Fischer, L., Schimmel,

D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 129.)

In Pittsburgh, a high school teacher alleged that she lost her coaching position in

retaliation for a faculty newsletter she published that included a discussion of staff problems such

as "undue stress" and "low esteem." A federal appeals court ruled that the teacher did not

comment on any broad social or policy issue" but "solely on employee morale." (Fischer, L.,


8/30



In Massachusetts, a court ruled that a coach's one-word response to a reporter - "cowards"

- describing his soccer team was not protected expression. Comments of public concern, wrote

the court, are limited to "information needed to enable citizens to make informed

decisions....disclose misconduct, or to generate debate about significant public issues." (Fischer,

L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 129.)

In sum, these cases illustrate the (1) all courts recognize that matters of public concern

are protected by the First Amendment, (2) judges do not always agree about what matters

concern the public, and (3) courts have granted school boards the right to control teachers' speech

that is related to their personal interests." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p.

129.)

"When Are Teachers' Public Comments Not Protected?

When judges consider the time, place, manner, context and consequences of a teacher's

expression and conclude that the school's interest outweighs the teachers. Example: Virginia

decision, Jeffry Newton, a Virginia high school English teacher, was ordered to remove the

banned books pamphlets he posted outside his classroom door. The pamphlets, listed and

described recently banned books that ranged from Catcher in the Rye and The Firm to the Joy of

Gay Sex. A federal court acknowledged that a discussion of censorship is "a matter of important

public policy." But the judge ruled that the posting of material on classroom doors is an


9/30


extension of the curriculum, the curriculum is the responsibility of school officials, and "teachers

may not claim constitutional rights in order to take control of the curriculum."" (Fischer, L.,


"What about Political Speech?

The First Amendment protects teachers' rights to participate in political activity as

citizens in the community. Teachers may put political stickers on their cars that are parked at

school...However, they must be careful not to try to persuade students to adopt their personal

political views. Furthermore, teachers may be prohibited from using school time to engage in

partisan politics. Thus a federal decision upheld a school policy that prohibited political activity

by employees on school grounds during school hours." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman,

L.R., 2007, p. 132.)

Consciously or otherwise, teachers... demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse

and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class. Inescapably, like

parents, they are role models..." (La Morte, M.W., 2008, p. 220.)

"When Discussing a Contract at an Open Meeting, Can a School Board Prohibit

Nonunion Members from Speaking?

No. During contract negotiations in Madison, Wisconsin, a nonunion teacher was allowed

to address the school board concerning a controversial contract provision, over the objection of

the union.... The Court wrote "when the State has opened a forum for direct citizen involvement,

it is difficult to find jurisdiction for excluding teachers...who are most vitally concerned."

Whatever its duties as an employer, when a school board sits in public meeting to hear the views

of citizens, it cannot be required to discriminate against speakers who are not members of the

union." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 132-133.)

"Are Teachers at Private Schools That Receive State Funds Protected by the First


10/30


Amendment?

No. This was a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in a case concerning teachers who were

dismissed from a private school for publicly opposing policies of the administration and

publishing a letter protesting the school's picketing policy. Although the state paid over 90

percent of the school's budget, the Court ruled that the acts of the school in dismissing the

teachers did not become acts of the government because the government did not influence those

actions. Thus the First Amendment did not apply to this case because the discharge of the

teachers was not a state action." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 133.)

"Do Whistleblower Statutes Protect Teachers?

Yes. All 50 states have Whistleblower protection statutes. Generally, they cover teachers

and other public employees who in good faith report a violation of law. Many also cover

employees who report gross waste of public funds, or specific dangers to public health, safety or

welfare." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 133.)

Academic Freedom

Academic freedom is an are of free speech that some teachers taught as a fundamental

right and no one can dictate what they can or cannot do in a classroom. The following cases

illustrate some court cases that shed some light on exactly where the courts see academic

freedom.

Academic freedom includes the right of teachers to speak freely about their subjects, to

experiment with new ideas, and to select appropriate teaching materials and methods. Courts

have held that academic freedom is based on the first Amendment and is fundamental to our

democratic society. It protects a teacher's right to evaluate and criticize existing values and

practices in order to allow for political, social, economic, and scientific progress. Academic

freedom is not absolute, and courts balance it against competing educational values." (Fischer,


11/30


L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 134

"A review of modern case law dealing with academic freedom reveals that it is no longer

as strong a defense as it once was for teachers. Recent decisions suggest that the concept of

academic freedom provides more protection for what is said outside the school as a private

citizen that for what is said inside the classroom. For the academic freedom defense to prevail for

classroom conduct, it must be shown that the teacher did not defy legitimate state and local

curriculum directives, followed accepted professional norms for that grade level and subject

matter, discussed matters that were of public concern, and acted professionally and in good faith

when there was no precedent of policy." (La Morte, M.W., 2008, p. 223.)

For example, in Boring v. Buncombe County Board of Education, 136 F.3d 364 (4th Cir.

1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 813 (1998) a drama teacher's reassignment due to her choice of

plays for a statewide competition was upheld

The controversial play dealt with a single-parent family including a divorced mother, a

lesbian daughter, and an unmarried pregnant daughter. The teacher claimed a First Amendment

right to participate in the development of the school curriculum through the selection and

production of the play; however, the majority opinion held that curriculum development should

be left to the local school authorities rather than to teachers. In its decision, the court held that the

play was a part of the curriculum and the choice of plays was not a matter of public concern,

consequently, not protected speech.

"Conduct that materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion

of the rights of others is not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."

(Roth, S. V., Bennett, B., 1997, p. 2.)

"In summary, there is a difference between the free speech rights of a university professor

when expressing his or her point of view in Sproul Plaza and those of a fifth grade elementary

school teacher in expressing a point of view as part of classroom instruction." (Northern District

of California San Jose Division, 2005, p. 9.) "Indeed, the Court takes judicial notice that a K-12

classroom in a public elementary school is a nonpublic forum. " (Northern District of California


12/30


San Jose Division, 2005, p. 9.)

"Does Academic Freedom Allow Teachers to Disregard the Text and Syllabus?

No. A federal court considered this question when a biology teacher was not rehired

because he overemphasized sex in his health course. The teacher explained that his students

"wanted sex education and mental health emphasized," and he agreed to "only touch on the other

topics covered by the assigned text and course syllabus."The court concluded that academic

freedom is not " a license for uncontrolled expression at variance with established curricular

content." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 138.)

..a federal court held that a history teacher had no right to substitute his own reading list

for the school's official list without seeking administrative approval as required by school

policy." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 138.)

Notes on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 US 274

The Court's opinion in Doyle reaffirms the doctrine that non-tenured teachers have First

Amendment rights, and they may established claim to reinstatement if the reason for not being

rehired was in violation of these rights. However, as the Court stressed, engaging in

constitutionally protected conduct may not prevent an employer from dismissing a teacher on the

basis of his or her total performance record." (La Morte, M.W., 2008, p. 214-215.)

"Can Teachers Be Punished for Discussing topics or Distributing Materials That

Are Not Relevant?

Yes. Academic freedom does not protect materials, discussions, or comments that are not

relevant to the assigned subject." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 138.)

"Is Academic Freedom the Same in Public Schools and in Colleges?

No. The scope of this freedom is broader in colleges and universities than in public

schools. In Mailloux v. Likey, Judge Wyzanski explained that his is so because in secondary

schools "the faculty does not have the independent traditions, the broad discretion as to teaching

methods, nor usually the intellectual qualifications, of university professors.... Some teachers and


13/30


most students have limited intellectual and emotional maturity... While secondary schools are not

rigid disciplinary institutions, neither are they open forums in which mature adults, already

habituated to social restraints, exchange ideas on a level of parity. Moreover... a secondary

school student, unlike most college students, is usually required to attend school classes and may

have no choice as to his teacher." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 143.)

"School facilities may be deemed to be public forms only if school authorities have "by

policy or by practice" opened those facilities "for indiscriminate use by the general public," ..or

by some segment of the public, such as student organization." (Roth, S. V., Bennett, B., 1997, p.

4.)

"Does Academic Freedom Protect the Assignment of Controversial Materials?

[a] 1969 appeals court decision concluded that the sensibilities of offended parents "are

not the full measure of what is proper in education."" (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R.,

2007, p. 135.) Parducci and Keefe reflect the views of those courts that place a high value on

academic freedom. But these decisions do not man that teachers have the right to use any

language in the classroom. Even the Keefe case acknowledged that some regulation of classroom

speech "is inherent in every provision of public education." Thus, a judge's decision about

whether offensive language can be prohibited might depend on the specific situation - the age of

the students, the word used, its relevance to the curriculum, the purpose of its use, and whether

teachers know of its prohibition." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 135.) In

Colorado, for example, a federal appeals court upheld a reprimand against a social studies

teacher, John Miles, for discussing a rumor about "two students making out on the tennis courts"

to illustrate his belief that the quality of education is declining. In rejecting the teacher's claim

that his remarks were protected by the First Amendment, the court wrote that "case law does not

support Miles' position that a secondary teacher has a constitutional right to academic freedom.""

(Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 135.)

"Are a Teachers' Controversial Responses to Students' Questions Protected?


14/30


They might be if they relate to a matter of public concern and are not disruptive."

(Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 138.) According to this judge.."if a question

involves math [certification area of teacher], so much the better. But if the question involves an

important social issue... the teacher need not remain silent, or as [the school's] counsel

suggested., refer the student to a guidance counselor. Rather, the teacher had the right, and

perhaps duty, to respond... I do not believe a public school teacher, when asked by a student for

guidance on important social issues of the day, must stand mute." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D.,

Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 139.) In contrast, a Missouri appeals court upheld the dismissal of an

eighth-grade teacher who responded to a student's questions about whether she was for or against

interracial relationships. " I'm totally against it.", she replied. She also stated that interracial

couples should be 'fixed' so they don't have children." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R.,

2007, p. 139.)

"Can Teachers Be Punished If Their Use of Approved Materials Causes Substantial

Disruption in the Community?

No." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 139.)

"Can a Teacher Be Punished for Showing an R-rated Film to Students?

Probably, although it may depend on the students, the movie and how it is shown. An

example of how not to do it is provided by the case of Jacqueline Fowler, a tenured Kentucky

teacher, who was fired for showing an R-rated film, Pink Floyd - The Wall, to students in grades

9 and 11.

Fowler argued that the film contained "important, socially valuable messages." But a

federal appeals court held that showing the film was not a constitutionally protected educational

activity. The judge concluded that by introducing a "controversial and sexually explicitly move

into a classroom of adolescents without preview, preparation, or discussion," Fowler "abdicated

her function as an educator" and demonstrated a "blatant lack of judgment" that constituted

"conduct unbecoming a teacher."" (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 139-140.)

"Can a Teacher Be Punished for Using a Controversial Method That is Not Clearly


15/30


Prohibited?

Not usually." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 140.)

In a Massachusetts case, a federal appeals court explained that a school may restrict a

teacher's classroom activities if two conditions are met. First, the restriction must be "reasonably

related to a legitimate pedagogical concern" According to the court, this will depend on "the age

and sophistication of the students, the relationship between teaching method and valid

educational objective and the context and manner of the presentation." Second, the school must

have notified the teacher about what conduct was prohibited....However, the court did not hold

that schools must "expressly prohibit every imaginable inappropriate conduct," since such a

requirement would be an "impossible and undesirable burden." Rather, the question is: Was it

reasonable for the teacher to know that her method was prohibited?" (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D.,

Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 141.)

"When Are Controversial Methods Not Protected?

When methods are inappropriate for the age and maturity of the students., when they are

not supported by any significant professional opinion, or when they are prohibited by reasonable

school policy, they are not protected by academic freedom. " (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D.,

Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 141-142.)

A New York court upheld the punishment of a tenured high school English teacher for

repeatedly using the words "penis," "clitoris," and other sexual imagery and for failing to follow

administrative directives to de-emphasize the sexual aspects of the literacy works he dealt with in

class. In rejecting the teacher's academic freedom defense, the court ruled that school officials

must be permitted to establish the curriculum in a way that does not offend community values."

(Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 142.)

In a court case involving MySpace, the defendant, Spanierman's behavior on his

MySpace page was determined that it was "likely to disrupt school activities." It is on this point

that the court drilled down to Spanierman's contacts with his students. Excerpts of a number of

exchanges with students were included in the opinion. And while to some these exchanges may


16/30


seem innocuous, the court concluded as follows:

In the court's view, it was not unreasonable for the Defendants to find that the Plaintiff's

conduct on MySpace was disruptive to school activities. The above examples of the online

exchanges the Plaintiff had with students show a potentially unprofessional rapport with

students, and the court can see how a school's administration would disapprove of, and find

disruptive, a teacher's discussion with a student about "getting any" (presumably sex), or a threat

made to a student (albeit a facetious one) about detention." (Neuburger, J.D., 2008, p. 2.)

"The school district judged that Spanierman's behavior on his MySpace page was "likely

to disrupt school activities." It is on this point that the court drilled down to Spanierman's

contacts with his students. Excerpts of a number of exchanges with students were included in the

opinion. And while to some these exchanges may seem innocuous, the court concluded as

follows:" (Neuburger, J.D., 2008, p. 2.)

"This is not the first case in which a teacher, or an aspiring teacher, was discharged or

disciplined for conduct involving a MySpace page. In another recent case, the so-called "drunken

pirate" case, a teacher in training was denied a teaching degree just prior to her graduation when

officials at her teaching school found a photo on her MySpace page showing her in a pirate hat,

drinking alcohol. In Snyder v. Millersville University, filed in federal court in Pennsylvania (the

case documents are available here), there was apparently no contact with students, and it is

disputed whether any students at the school ever saw the photo or the MySpace page. The school

district contends that Snyder's conduct as a student teacher was unprofessional in ways unrelated

to her MySpace page" (Neuburger, J.D., 2008, p. 3.)

"Can a School Board Require or Prohibit the Use of Textbooks?

Yes...Thus when teachers and school boards have a legitimate disagreement about what

tests to use, the boards have the ultimate authority to make these decisions in elective as well as

in required courses." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 135.)


17/30


"Are Curricular Disputes Matters of Public Concern?

Recent decisions indicate that courts do not consider disagreements between teachers and

school officials about curricular and curricular - related issues to be matters of public concern"

(Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 135.) The court noted that academic

freedom "has never conferred upon teachers the control of public school curricula."" (Fischer, L.,


"But the court ruled that he could not be fired for discussing controversial issues. The

judge acknowledged that a teacher has a duty to be "fair and objective in presenting his

personally held opinions" and to ensure that different views are presented." (Fischer, L.,

Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 136-137.)

"On the other hand, teachers have no right to promote views in school that contradict the

curriculum. This was illustrated by the 2000 case of Robert Dawns, a Los Angeles high school

teacher who wanted to post material in opposition to the school's bulletin boards that promoted

tolerance during Gay and Lesbian Awareness Month. A federal appeals court ruled that a school

may not only advocate tolerance but also may prohibit contrary speech by its teachers. The court

concluded: "Just as a school can prohibit a teacher from posting racist material" during Black

History Month, "it may prohibit [Downs] from posting intolerant materials during Gay and

Lesbian Awareness Month."" (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 137.)

"Do Teachers Have the Right to Preach Their Religious Beliefs in School?

No." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 137.)

"Can a Teacher Be Punished for Failing to Submit Lesson Plans?

Yes. In New York State, Richard Meyer, a tenured high school science teacher, was fined

$8,000 for repeatedly "failing to provide comprehensive weekly lesson plans." According to the

court, the teacher's lesson plans "were seriously deficient despite repeated counseling directives"


18/30


over an extended periodthe school district had "final authority to review and assign grades"

and therefore did not violate [teacher's] academic freedom by requesting her lesson plans and

grade book." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 142.)

"Is It Legal for a School to Refuse to Rehire a Teacher Because of Disagreement

over Teaching Methods and Philosophy?

Probably. .. The issues in this case, wrote a federal court, is not which educational

philosophy has greater merit but whether a school "has the right to require some conformity" to

its educational philosophy and whether it may decline to hire a teacher whose methods are not

conducive "to the achievement of the academic goals they espoused" In ruling for the

administration, the court wrote that academic freedom does not encompass the right of a non

tenured teacher to have her teaching methods insulated from review ." (Fischer, L., Schimmel,

D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 143.)

"How do Courts Rule When Some of a Teacher's Speech Is Protected and Some is

Not?

(1) Are the complaints involved matters of public concern; (if yes then) (2) Pickering

Test - balancing the teacher's interest as a citizen in discussing public issues against the board's

interest as an employer in promoting efficiency. (3) Was the protected speech a "substantial or

motivating factor" in the board's action against him/her, if yes, then judgment usually goes to the

teacher if other evidence is involved and the decision would have been the same then judgment

goes to the board." (Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L.R., 2007, p. 130.) "When employee

expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other

concern to the community, government officials should enjoy wide latitude in managing their

offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the First Amendment.

"However, the majority reiterated the following caveat from Pickering: "Because of the

enormous variety of fact situations in which critical statements by...public employees may be

thought by their superiors...to furnish grounds for dismissal, we do not deem it either appropriate

or feasible to lay down a general standard against which all such statement may be judged."" (La


19/30


Morte, M.W., 2008, p. 210-211.)

[T]he government, as an employer, must have wide discretion and control over the

management of its personnel and internal affairs. This includes the prerogative to remove

employees whose conduct hinders efficient operation and to do so with dispatch." (Jones Law

Review, 2007, p. 1.)

In summary there is a two-step process to determine whether a teacher's speech enjoys

First Amendment protection. First, the disputed speech must address a matter of "public

concern." Second, the interests of the teacher must be balanced against the interests of the state

as employer in rendering a public service through its employees. This second determination,

known as "Pickering balancing," may be based on:

(1) the need for harmony in the workplace;

(2) the need for a close working relationship between the speaker and superiors and

whether the speech in question undermines that relationship, especially if personal loyalty

and confidence are involved;

(3) whether the speech impedes an employees ability to perform his or her daily

responsibilities;

(4) the time, place, and manner of the speech;

(5) the context in which a dispute arises;

(6) the degree of public interest in the speech;

(7) and whether the matter was one on which debate would be vital to informed decision

making." (La Morte, M.W., 2008, p. 211; O'Day, T.,2008)

Acceptable Use Policies

The Spanierman case dealt with current technology and social networking as it relates to

Freedom of Speech. Social networking and email are new facets of look at when considering

protected speech. The Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASBO) had a brief developed

by Lathrop and Clark for guidance on what an acceptable use policy or AUP should contain.


20/30


Such policies dictate the parameters school district employees have when using district

technology. These qualities will then be tested against the AUP for the Oregon School District.

The following issues highlight a well written AUP:

"elements of an effective AUP, which should include the following:

(1) a purpose statement;

(2) a descriptions of security measures;

(3) an explanation of the limitations on user privacy rights;

(4) a statement prohibiting use related to discrimination, harassment, and defamation;

(5) copyright infringement prohibitions,

(6) a description of other unacceptable uses;

[7] an explanation of monitoring, supervision, enforcement, and penalties, and

(8) acknowledgement by the users of receipt of the AUP." (Lathrop & Clark, LLP, 2008,

p. 1.)

These eight qualities will be further explained using the legal brief followed by the

portion of the Oregon School District AUP that meets that criteria.

(1) Purpose Statement

The introduction of the AUP should have an explanation that covers all the internal and

external systems that make up the system. This would include cell phones, pda systems, laptops,

the routers, printers, etc. as well as externally contracted providers and the systems they use to

assist the district in fulfilling the mission of educating students. Furthermore it should state that

students and staff use the various systems to meet and support the district mission (Lathrop &

Clark, LLP, 2008, p. 1.)

Limitations are also highly recommended. Starting with the explicit purpose of

supporting the districts mission, limiting use of these systems is crucial. This will help reduce

the chance of personal use such as selling items for any kind of economic benefit. (Lathrop &

Clark, LLP, 2008, p. 2.) In the Oregon School District the technology department has developed

forums for staff to place items for sale and or purchase, sort of an internal electronic swap meet.


21/30


However, enforcement of this is haphazard, especially when it comes to Badger Football Tickets.

This is an important point, having a policy prohibiting economic gain, yet not enforcing it,

creates a problem when a staff member is disciplined for something and others have not.

Within the purpose statement it should be very clear that the system is a privilege and that

there is no expectation of privacy. It should be clear that Internet Use and E-Mail are not private

in nature and subject to district oversight. In addition, it should state that all aspects of the system

used by district officials can (a) inspect information stored on its computer system, including

district computers, whether desktop or laptop (b) search and read e-mail messages stored on

either the district's computer network or by the district's contracted computer services; and (c)

review electronic communications, including the current range of electronic communication

devices owned and used by the school district, as well as new devices and communication

methods that bay be put in use." (Lathrop & Clark, LLP, 2008, p. 3-4.) Furthermore, rules should

be established for governing behavior when using personally identifiable information as well as

student records (Lathrop & Clark, LLP, 2008, p. 2-3.)

School officials have an obligation to provide employees and students with a work and

school environment free of discrimination and harassment (a form of discrimination)

Defamation is an intentional publication of a false communication that injures another person's

reputation or good name. If this information is distributed by an employee despite its known

inaccuracy, the employee's actions could be attributed to the district." (Lathrop & Clark, LLP,

2008, p. 4.)

[W]hen the employer knows or has reason to know that such harassment is part of a

pattern of harassment that is taking place in the workplace and in settings that are related to the

workplace, "employers have a duty to take effective measures to stop co-employee harassment."

(Lathrop & Clark, LLP, 2008, p. 5.)

"An AUP, therefore, should contain a statement that is consistent with the district's

general policy against discrimination, including harassment." (Lathrop & Clark, LLP, 2008, p.

5.)


22/30


"Employees should be warned against the excessive use of e-mail during the work day

and the potential for interference with their ability to perform their job responsibilities

Whether a restriction on e-mail use is a violation of employee rights will largely depend on the

specific facts of a particular case." (Lathrop & Clark, LLP, 2008, p. 6.)

"School boards will also need to review any collective bargaining agreements to make

sure that any policy they adopt is not in conflict with any provision in the agreements regarding

the use of e-mail by bargaining unit members." (Lathrop & Clark, LLP, 2008, p. 7.)

"School officials should, therefore, establish procedures to systematically and regularly

monitor the computer usage by all of its users." (Lathrop & Clark, LLP, 2008, p. 7.)

"With regard to students, school officials should require staff supervision of students

computer usage." (Lathrop & Clark, LLP, 2008, p. 7.)

"School officials should (1) identify the person(s) in the organization who should be

notified upon discovery of a violation of the AUP; (2) state how the person is to be notified of

the violation; and (3) emphasize the need to preserve a hard-copy version of a document, such as

e-mail message or images on a monitor screen, that substantiate the violation." (Lathrop & Clark,

LLP, 2008, p. 7.)

"Users should be reminded that all rules of conduct and acceptable behavior in other

board policies, employee contracts or collective bargaining agreements, and student handbooks,

as well as applicable statutes, apply to the use of the district's computer system." (Lathrop &

Clark, LLP, 2008, p. 7.)

Oregon School Districts policy contains all of the following and some of the exceptions

Purpose Statement

771.02 ECS is provided to staff/employees to assist in instruction, perform work

assignments, conduct research, and communicate with others. Access to ECS is a privilege and

not a right. The district expects the staff/employees will use the ECS in a responsible and ethical

manner and in conformance with the following rules. The district reserves the right to restrict or


23/30


revoke any staff member/employee authorization for use and access to ECS at any time for any

reason. (Oregon Schl.Dist. B.O.E., 2007, p. 1)

771.07 The District shares responsibility for control over access to inappropriate Internet

materials. In light of that responsibility the District utilizes hardware and software that is

designed to filter and block inappropriate sites and high risk activities. The District reserves the

right to block sites that do not enhance classroom activities. This filtering will at a minimum

meet the requirement of the Childrens Internet Protection Act to provide protection from

obscene, pornographic and other materials considered harmful to minors (Oregon Schl.Dist.

B.O.E., 2007, p. 3)

771.04K The districts ECS is the sole property of the district. All electronic

communications transmitted by, received from, or stored in the districts ECS are owned by the

district. Employees should have no expectation of privacy with regard to the use of the districts

ECS or information, messages, files and other data stored on these systems. The district may

access, search, monitor and/or disclose to appropriate authorities any communication at any time

without prior notice being given. Nothing residing in an employees computer system or files or

the districts e-mail system will be deemed personal, private or confidential. (Oregon Schl.Dist.

B.O.E., 2007, p. 2)

771.03 The following uses of ECS are prohibited:

771.03A Downloading, displaying, viewing, accessing or attempting to access, storing or

transmitting any images, cartoons, messages or material which are sexually explicit or that may

be construed as threatening, harassing, offensive or intimidating to others based upon gender,

race, national origin, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation or any other basis protected by

applicable law; (Oregon Schl.Dist. B.O.E., 2007, p. 1)

771.03E Use which is illegal, including the violation of copyright, gambling and

pornography laws; (Oregon Schl.Dist. B.O.E., 2007, p. 1)

Taking the Pickering case, were Pickering to write that letter via email, using the school


24/30


25/30


lacking factual evidence?

Scenario two, a staff member in a school building questions the competency of another

staff member. In frustration, the staff member emails others in the building asking for their input

on the competency of this other staff member. The person sending the email is also a member of

the bargaining unit for the local union. What do you do?

Regardless of where speech takes place it is not the person who determines whether it is

protected or not, the court determines that based several factors. If dismissing an employee and

the speech is protected it cannot be the sole reason for dismissal. If speech is not protected then it

is not the courts place to decide the outcome of a situation. If it is protected speech then the

balancing tests must be used.

As online tools of communication continue to expand through blogs, forums and social

sites, these will continue to bring more challenges with speech as it flows between the various

constituents of a school district. (Neuburger, J.D., 2008, p. 3.)


26/30


References

Banach, W. J. (2001). The ABC complete book of school marketing (2nd ed.). Lanham, Md:

Scarecrow Press.

Branti v finkel. Retrieved 10/26/2008, 2008, from

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/branti.html

cbs3.com - pa. teacher fired for inappropriate E-mails

. Retrieved 11/9/2008, 2008, from http://cbs3.com/topstories/Spring.Ford.Area.2.664508.html

Connick v myers. Retrieved 10/26/2008, 2008, from

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/connick.html

The constitution of the united states of america - fourteenth amendment. Retrieved 10/26/2008,

2008, from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt14.html

Williams v Vidmar Et Al, 5:04-cv-04946-jw (United States District Court For the Northern

District of California San Jose Division 2005).

Education Trust (American Association for Higher Education). (2005). Gaining traction, gaining

ground : How some high schools accelerate learning for struggling students. Washington,

DC: Education Trust.

Egelco, B. Supreme court denies hearing for fired 'honk for peace' teacher | CommonDreams.org.

Retrieved 10/26/2008, 2008, from

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/02/4253


27/30


Employee use, misuse, and abuse of social network sites. Retrieved 11/15/2008, 2008, from

http://www.nsba.org/SecondaryMenu/TLN/TechnologyrelatedarticlesfromSchoolBoardN

ews/SocialNetworkSitesIA08.aspx

Employpunishment. Retrieved 10/26/2008, 2008, from

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/employpunishment.html

Essex, N. L. (2006). What every teacher should know about no child left behind. Boston:

Pearson.

Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., & Stellman, L. (2007). Teachers and the law (7th ed.). Boston:

Pearson/A & B.

Free speech rights of government employees. Retrieved 10/26/2008, 2008, from

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publicemployees.htm

Harris V racine unified school district 01-1440. Retrieved 11/15/2008, 2008, from

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/IG1FG7RR.txt

'Honk for peace' case tests limits on free speech. Retrieved 10/26/2008, 2008, from

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/14/MNG9PPQGVV1.DTL

Hyman, R. T. (2002). Protected classroom speech of public school teachers: Pickering, its

progeny, its conflicts and policy issues. Illinois School Law Quarterly, Retrieved from

http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/eafdept/islq/issues/ISLQ23no2.pdf


28/30


Jones Law Review. The garcetti test: Limiting a public employee's freedom of speech and the

constitutional implications on academic speech: Garcetti v. ceballos. (22-MAR-07) jones

law review. Retrieved 10/26/2008, 2008, from

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33791399_ITM

Journal of law and education: Legal standard on the scope of teachers' free speech rights in the

school setting, the. Retrieved 10/26/2008, 2008, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3994/is_200210/ai_n9085282/print?

tag=artBody;col1

La Morte, M. W. (2008). School law : Cases and concepts (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and

Bacon.

Law offices of Spector, Middleton, Young & Minney, LLP. (2005). Teachers' right to freedom of

speech in the classroom. Sacramento, CA: www.smymcharterlaw.com.

MediaShift . teacher fired for inappropriate behavior on MySpace page. Retrieved 11/9/2008,

2008, from http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/10/teacher-fired-for-inappropriate-

behavior-on-myspace-page289.html

Meyer v. nebraska. Retrieved 10/12/2008, 2008, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-

bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=262&invol=390

Mount healthy school district v doyle. Retrieved 10/26/2008, 2008, from

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/mthealthy.html

O'Day, T. (2008). Public employee speech in the workplace. Unpublished manuscript.


29/30


Oregon Schl.Dist. B.O.E. (2007). 771 electronic communications policy. Paper presented at the

Rankin v McPherson. Retrieved 10/26/2008, 2008, from

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rankin.html

Rappaport, D. (1993). Tinker vs. des moines : Student rights on trial. New York, NY:

HarperCollins.

Roth, S. V., & Bennet, B. (1997). Freedom of speech in high schools. LSC Members' Brief,

122(2) Retrieved from http://www.deadrabbit.com/lab/freedomspeech.pdf

School boards, teachers' free speech rights often at odds. Retrieved 10/26/2008, 2008, from

http://www.nsba.org/site/view.asp?CID=1793&DID=37661

Spanierman v. Hughes, 3:06CV01196 (DJS) (United States District Court District of Connecticut

2008).

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Connick v. myers. Retrieved 11/8/2008, 2008,

from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0461_0138_ZS.html

TOBY KLANG WARD, plaintiff, appellant, v. CAROL HICKEY, ET AL., defendants,

appellees. Retrieved 11/15/2008, 2008, from http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-

bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1883.01A

Stephen J. Williams v. Patricia Vidmar, Et. Al. C 04-04946 JW (PVT) (Northern District of

California San Jose Division 2005).


30/30


United states house of representatives - amendments to the constitution. Retrieved 12/3/2008,

2008, from http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html

WATTS V. UNITED STATES, 394 U. S. 705 (1969) -- US supreme court cases from justia &

oyez. Retrieved 10/12/2008, 2008, from http://supreme.justia.com/us/394/705/case.html

Wikipedia contributors. Garcetti v. ceballos. Retrieved 12/5/2008, 2008, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/garcetti_v._ceballos?oldid=248108211

Wikipedia contributors. Pickering v. board of education. Retrieved 12/5/2008, 2008, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/pickering_v._board_of_education?oldid=254674113

Williams v. vidmar, no. 04-4946 (N.D.cal. apr. 28, 2005). Retrieved 11/8/2008, 2008, from

http://www.nsba.org/site/view.asp?CID=438&DID=35934

ed820 telfer law media paperv2

Documents