Teacher’s Freedom of Speech
Racial Content
Teacher Freedoms
• Teachers do not lose their rights as a
condition of accepting employment with a
public school
• Teachers are subject to reasonable
restraints if legitimate, defensible
rationale is established by the school
district.
Teacher Freedoms – due process
• Procedural – may not deprive any person of
“life, liberty, or property without due process of
law.:
• Substantive – state must have valid objective if
it intends to deprive a teacher of “life, liberty, or
poperty, and the means used must be
reasonably calculated to achieve its objective.”
• Both procedural and substantive must be met
in teacher dismissal proceedings.
Freedom of Expression – within school
• First Amendment – freedom of
expression applies to teachers
• Limited to the requirement that it does
not create a material disruption to the
educational interests of the school district
– Interference with others’ rights
– Creates negative impact on school discipline
and decorum
Freedom of Expression
• School officials may not justifiably “prohibit or penalize
the teacher in any manner for exercising a
constitutionally protected right without showing that a
legitimate state interest is affected by the teacher’s
speech or expression.”
• Districts have successfully disciplined teachers when
– Personal speech undermined authority
– Personal speech adversely affected working relationships
• Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) – expressions
regarding public concerns receive first amendment
protections but ordinary greivances are to be handled
by the administrative body without the court.
Freedom of Expression- outside of school
• Teachers may speak on issues that interest them in the
community – even if it may not be acceptable to school
district officials
• Should preface that he or she is speaking as a private
citizen rather than an employee of the district
• Teacher’s speech should be professional and not
designed to harm or injure another’s reputation or
render the teacher unfit
• Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)
– teacher dismissed for letter to editor regarding
superintendent’s statements
– Supreme court ruled that the teacher’s exercise of right to
speak on issues of public importance may not be the basis for
his dismissal
Freedom of Expression – outside of school
• May be disciplined if the speech…
– Breeches loyalty or confidentiality
– Creates material and substantial disruption
– Affects the efficient operation of the school
– Renders the teacher unfit
Scenario
Freddie Watts, principal, and Jimmy Brothers,
assistant principal, are African American
administrators assigned to administer a
predominantly black high school. Ann Griffin, a
white tenured teacher, during a heated
conversation with the two administrators stated
that she “hated all black folks.” When word
leaked on her statement, it caused negative
reactions among colleagues both black and
white. The principal recommended dismissal
based on concerns regarding her ability to treat
students fairly and her judgment and
competency as a teacher.
Group Questions
• Is Watts justified in his recommending Ann’s dismissal?
Why or why not?
• Is the principal overreacting to Ann’s statement? Why
or why not?
• Does Ann’s statement establish a basis for dismissal?
Why or Why not?
• Can Ann make the case that her statement was a
private statement that does not give rise to serious
disciplinary action? Why or why not?
• As a principal, would you have made a similar
recommendation for dismissal? Why or why not?
Is Watts justified in his recommending Ann’s
dismissal? Why or why not?
In my opinion…
Yes, because…
Ann’s opinion could create a material
disruption to the educational interest of
the school district because it creates a
negative impact on the school
Is the principal overreacting to Ann’s statement?
Why or why not?
• In my opinion…
No, because…
Making a highly racist comment, stating that
she hates people of a certain race, would
render her unfit to perform her duties which
include working with African American
colleagues and teaching African American
students.
Does Ann’s statement establish a basis for
dismissal? Why or Why not?
In my opinion…
Yes, because…
This type of personal speech adversely
affected working relationships. She was
speaking as an employee of the district. She
was speaking unprofessionally and created a
material and substantial disruption in the
school setting based on the negative reaction
of colleagues in the school setting.
Can Ann make the case that her statement was a private statement
that does not give rise to serious disciplinary action? Why or why
not?
In my opinion…
No, because…
Her comments were not prefaced by a statement
that she was speaking as a private citizen,
rather than an employee.
Even if she had stated this, the nature of her
position and the image she is expected to
project along with the harmfulness of her
statement would impose reasonable
restrictions on her right to make this statement
without resulting in disciplinary action.
As a principal, would you have made a similar
recommendation for dismissal? Why or why not?
Yes. This teacher’s statements not only
caused a material and substantial
disruption to the school environment and
negatively affected working relationships.
It was also a harmful and hurtful
statement that would render her unfit to
perform her duties.
Rationale
I believe the court would rule in favor of the school district
in this case because of the following points.
- Material and substantial disruption
- Unfit to perform duties, given the nature of her
position
- Adversely affected working relationships
- Statement was harmful and interfered with
the rights of others
- “to hold for the teacher in private expressions
would be to transform every personal grievance to
protected speech when complaints are raised about
classroom materials, teacher aids, laboratory
equipment and other related issues.” Daniels v. Quinn,
801 F. 2d 687 (4th Cir. 1986)
Case Law Cited
• Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)
• Daniels v. Quinn, 801 F. 2d 687 (4th Cir.
1986)
• Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S.
563 (1968)