In my opinion, the cases in our reading require teachers to behave in a professional manner and to exercise good judgment in choosing methods of teaching. The readings also indicate that when the public does not agree with material or political views, that in itself is not justification to suppress information in the school.
In Pickering v. BOE, a case demonstrating freedom of expression, the teacher had the right to express their concern over how the BOE was handling public funds. Pickering’s letter did not implicate someone he would need to work with on a daily basis so it didn’t disrupt the harmony of the school or work with his colleagues and he conducted himself in a professional manner. Furthermore, his letter was an opposing opinion to the BOE, not an attack. The court recognizes the right of teachers to participate in debates of public concern; therefore, Pickering’s 1st Amendment rights were violated.
Conversely, in Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, another case demonstrating freedom of expression, Doyle did not conduct himself professionally, and was dismissed with cause even though he was a non-tenured teacher that the BOE could have just not renewed. Since they stated reasons, he was entitled to due process and his call to the radio was a major factor of his nonrenewal so the lower court found that it violated his 1st Amendment rights. However, the Supreme Court reversed that decision based on the other factors that Mr. Doyle had several occasions where he was argumentative and inappropriate. Giving lewd gestures to students in public illustrates that point. The court recognized that some employees may purposely engage in activities using 1st Amendment rights to avoid dismissal. This is called Mixed Motive. The court was clear that ‘total performance’ can outweigh that activity and ruled that taking his call to the radio out of the picture, the BOE would have reached the same conclusion not to renew his contract. In the case of Wilson v. Chancellor, a case demonstrating academic freedom using political speakers, the teacher taught a political science class and to demonstrate multiple points of view, Wilson had political speakers approved by the principal and BOE. After students heard from a Democrat, Republican, and member of the Birch Society, the public was in an out roar over a Communist speaker attending and wrote letters to the paper stating that they would vote down school budgets unless the decision was reversed. When they presented a petition to the BOE, all political speakers were banned. The Supreme Court ruled that Wilson’s 1st Amendment rights were violated because the speakers were the method of instruction and the restriction placed by banning all outside political speakers was not reasonable. The other speakers did not cause a disruption so there was no fear that the 4th speaker would do so. Moreover, the BOE was discriminatory since the other 3 speakers were already allowed. The court was adamant that …show more content…
BOE, another case of academic freedom, this time using appropriate materials, the teacher did not exercise good judgment. She allowed an R rated film with nudity, sexual innuendo, violence, and foul language to be played for non-instructional purposes. Her 1st Amendment rights were not protected because she did not use the movie as an educational tool and exercised lack of judgment and misconduct; therefore, she was not supported by the court and she was
In Pickering v. BOE, a case demonstrating freedom of expression, the teacher had the right to express their concern over how the BOE was handling public funds. Pickering’s letter did not implicate someone he would need to work with on a daily basis so it didn’t disrupt the harmony of the school or work with his colleagues and he conducted himself in a professional manner. Furthermore, his letter was an opposing opinion to the BOE, not an attack. The court recognizes the right of teachers to participate in debates of public concern; therefore, Pickering’s 1st Amendment rights were violated.
Conversely, in Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, another case demonstrating freedom of expression, Doyle did not conduct himself professionally, and was dismissed with cause even though he was a non-tenured teacher that the BOE could have just not renewed. Since they stated reasons, he was entitled to due process and his call to the radio was a major factor of his nonrenewal so the lower court found that it violated his 1st Amendment rights. However, the Supreme Court reversed that decision based on the other factors that Mr. Doyle had several occasions where he was argumentative and inappropriate. Giving lewd gestures to students in public illustrates that point. The court recognized that some employees may purposely engage in activities using 1st Amendment rights to avoid dismissal. This is called Mixed Motive. The court was clear that ‘total performance’ can outweigh that activity and ruled that taking his call to the radio out of the picture, the BOE would have reached the same conclusion not to renew his contract. In the case of Wilson v. Chancellor, a case demonstrating academic freedom using political speakers, the teacher taught a political science class and to demonstrate multiple points of view, Wilson had political speakers approved by the principal and BOE. After students heard from a Democrat, Republican, and member of the Birch Society, the public was in an out roar over a Communist speaker attending and wrote letters to the paper stating that they would vote down school budgets unless the decision was reversed. When they presented a petition to the BOE, all political speakers were banned. The Supreme Court ruled that Wilson’s 1st Amendment rights were violated because the speakers were the method of instruction and the restriction placed by banning all outside political speakers was not reasonable. The other speakers did not cause a disruption so there was no fear that the 4th speaker would do so. Moreover, the BOE was discriminatory since the other 3 speakers were already allowed. The court was adamant that …show more content…
BOE, another case of academic freedom, this time using appropriate materials, the teacher did not exercise good judgment. She allowed an R rated film with nudity, sexual innuendo, violence, and foul language to be played for non-instructional purposes. Her 1st Amendment rights were not protected because she did not use the movie as an educational tool and exercised lack of judgment and misconduct; therefore, she was not supported by the court and she was