Do Teachers Have First Amendment Rights?

Here is a case of a public school teacher getting fired for expressing political views. The teacher, Deborah Mayer, said in response to a student question, "I honk for peace," and "People ought to seek out peaceful solutions before going to war." Apparently some students (or their parents, more likely) were upset that Mayer was "bashing Bush," and Mayer lost her job.

This is a tricky topic, because it is difficult to say that public school teachers have complete free speech rights; they obviously shouldn't be politically or religiously indoctrinating children. But, can they express opinions in response to questions? The lawyer for the school board certainly doesn't think so. He argues that, "teachers don't have First Amendment rights in the classroom because they teach a curriculum decided by state and local officials."

This is also too extreme. This would imply that teachers are, more or less, robots that simply enforce the will of those who determine the curriculum. The only speech that is protected is that which supports the curriculum. The lawyer for the board noted, "If they disagree with the curriculum, they can go somewhere else." Real mature. That sounds like a redneck who says "hey you lib'rals! If you hate America so much, why don't you just leave!?" Of course, I don't think teachers should be able to ignore the curriculum, but teachers aren't just robots to enforce someone else's will (at least good ones aren't). They want to teach children, not just deliver government-approved information (the distinction is subtle, but I think the ability to see it is important for anyone interested in education/academia).

Again, this is tough. We don't want teachers to simply do whatever they want (although, a select few teachers would certainly put this freedom to great use), but at the same time, they shouldn't just be information spewing machines. I don't know where to strike the balance, but I definitely don't think Mayer should have been fired for simply responding to a question with her honest opinion.

So, anyway, the lower courts have so far sided with the school board, and now Mayer is appealing to the Supreme Court. It has not yet determined whether or not it will hear the case. Here's hoping it does, because while there are famous cases outlining students' speech rights in school, the area of teachers' rights is rather ambiguous.

Evangelicals and republicans: strange bedfellows?

I was reading this very long (but very interesting) article about Ron Paul in the Times, and one passage really struck me:

“I was annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian,” he recalls. “The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”

We hear the "this is un-Christian" argument all the time in American politics, but rarely is it directed at the evangelicals. Indeed, it is typically left to the evangelicals themselves to throw that argument around. But, it's refreshing to hear someone say it like it is, and it raises an important question. How much of the Republican party's platform really is Christian?

Now, I should note that I am no religion scholar. I was born and raised a true-blooded agnostic. The only times I have attended Church have been weddings and funerals. I have never read the Bible, but I still think I have a relatively decent grasp of the kind of vision Jesus Christ had for the world, and despite my religious leanings, I agree wholeheartedly with that vision, because here's the deal: it's a liberal vision.

Let's consider, say, taxes. While I cannot point to a specific passage, it seems that Jesus would have generally supported a Robin Hood style "take from the rich and give to the poor" type class system. I have a hard time believing that Mr. Christ would have been a hard-nosed free-market Capitalist. So, it seems to me that the "Christian" system of taxation would be a graduated tax, taxing the rich at a higher level than the poor, for the improvement of the whole community, not a flat tax.

By the way, I realize how silly it is to think about what sort of taxes Jesus would have supported, but I think it's a worthwhile endeavor anyway.

Along similar lines, I don't think Jesus would have supported the "Get a job!" mentality that so many Republicans have when it comes to the existence of the welfare state. The welfare state (while it may very well have flaws) seems to be a shining example of Christian charity.

Abortion. While Jesus may very well have been "pro-life," the definition of "pro-life" has to extend beyond the moment a baby is born, or for that matter, the moment someone sinks into a coma. It seems that the only time Republicans want to "protect life" is when a fetus is in the womb or someone is in a vegetative state. What about all the time in between? Is it pro-life to see to it that a baby is born, but then to kick the mother and newborn out of the hospital for wont of insurance? Is it pro-life to allow poverty to thrive? Is it pro-life to send young men and women off to a foreign country to die for no real reason?

I don't think so, but hey, I'm just a stupid agnostic, right?

Gay rights. I think it's funny that Christians (I'm generalizing, of course, so I apologize to all of you progressive/liberal/sane Christians out there) put so much emphasis on homosexuality being a sin. I'm not arguing that it isn't, but there are plenty of things that are sins that are not as despised as homosexuality. Adultery, for instance. Senator David Vitter has admitted to being an adulterer, but I have yet to hear of evangelicals clamoring for his resignation. But, can you imagine how they would've rallied if he had announced he was gay? The point is this: Jesus taught tolerance, not just for some people, for everyone.

Immigration. "Love thy neighbor."

Free speech. Jesus was a revolutionary. He was counter-culture. To think that he would support the silencing of a vocal minority for the "comfort" of the majority seems absolutely absurd.

This all shows why I am so fundamentally opposed to organized religion. This guy Jesus (or the authors of the Bible) had some marvelous ideas, but once they got mixed in with power and politics, they got corrupted. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Democrats are by any means above this kind of twisting. My point is this: religion and politics have to mix, because people's opinions are informed by their religion. However, people need to take a long hard look at what their religion truly stands for. I don't mean that they need to listen to their priest when he says that pro-choicers can't take communion. I mean that they need to seriously look into the core of their religion and see what the fundamental goals and values are. They need to trust themselves as interpreters of the Bible; not their priests or pastors, and certainly not politicians running for President. They might be surprised what they find.

What a Day at the Court: On Morse v. Frederick

The Supreme Court announced some rather important decisions today, three of which I vehemently disagree with. I will post at length about all three within the coming days, but first, I will deal with Morse v. Frederick, AKA the "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" case.

A bit of background: During a school-sponsored event in which the Olypmic torch would pass by the high school, Morse and his cohorts unveiled a large banner that read "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS." Principal Frederick ordered the students to get rid of the banner; Morse refused; Frederick confiscated the banner and suspended Morse.

To the ruling: The ruling was 6-3, although given that Justice Stephen Breyer joined the majority's ruling, but completely and utterly disagreed with their (rather unfounded) logic, it is more rational to call it 5-4, or perhaps 5-3-1 (one with no opinion, that is). I'll explain more about that later on. First, though, the majority ruled that Frederick acted constitutionally and that she did not take away Morse's First Amendment right to free speech.

It has been well established that one's rights in school are not equal to one's right out of school. Given the unique school setting, administrators need to have the power to restrict certain kinds of speech, particularly speech that either works to impede the school from properly doing its job or causes a disruption. Using this logic (which I think, on its own, is completely legitimate), the five conservative Justices (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) make the strained argument that the banner worked against the school's goal of promoting an anti-drug message by promoting "bong hits." Given that the only "reasonable" interpretation of the banner is to either promote or celebrate marijuana use, the principal acted reasonably, given her duty to "safeguard those entrusted to [her] care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use."

Yes, what would these little high schoolers do if wonderful Principal Morse hadn't confiscated that banner? They'd all probably go out and become stoners and hookers and bums and terrorists.

This may have been a disruption in the sense that students (and news reporters covering the event, who Morse was actually trying to incite) said "Hey, what's that!?" but it was not a large enough disruption from the school's message to legitimize suspension. Justice Souter noted during oral argument:

It's political speech, it seems to me. I don't see what it disrupts, unless disruption simply means any statement of disagreement with a position officially adopted by the school.

Indeed, it was a political statement, perhaps of the lowest kind, but political nonetheless. It wasn't saying "Hey students, smoke marijuana!" It was saying "Look at me! I have the freedom of speech!" The kid was, to put it bluntly, an attention whore. Obnoxious? Yeah, probably, but I think it is a stretch to suggest that he was actually promoting drug use. He was promoting himself; he wanted to be on TV, for Christ's sake!

And as Justice Stevens so eloquently notes in his dissent, this suspension actually worked against the school's broader goal of creating bright, intellectually astute students.

Even in high school, a rule that permits only one point of view to be expressed is less likely to produce correct answers than the open discussion of countervailing views.

Indeed, "Shut up!" "Why?" "Because I said so!" is no way to create good students.

Back to Breyer for a bit of explanation. Breyer agreed with the ruling on a more technical grounds: Morse shouldn't be able to collect damages from Frederick. He argued, however, that the Court should have decided the case on that limited basis and not even touched the First Amendment issue. He points out that this ruling manages to muddy up the waters of school speech even more than they were before. Indeed, it raises a set of new questions. If schools can ban speech that promotes illegal drug use, can a group of students discussing medicinal marijuana be punished? What about if they're having a debate about the legalization of marijuana? Can the "pro" side be reasonably accused of promoting illegal drug use? These are all questions Breyer asks, so it seems pretty clear that he doesn't buy into the majority's logic, and thus including him in the majority count seems odd.

Boy oh boy, what is our world coming to when stupid high schoolers have to think twice before being stupid high schoolers? Actually, that sounds kind of nice, but that isn't the point. The First Amendment isn't supposed to make us more comfortable; it's supposed to allow controversial speech. Indeed, it exists so that the argument "this speech makes us uncomfortable" cannot be used. Of course, this sort of nonsensical "speech" may not have been what the framers had in mind when the First Amendment was drafted, but it seems clear to me that they would approve of the spirit behind that speech.

Tomorrow: My take on Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation.

Wednesday: My take on National Association of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife.

Free Speech? Only if We Approve of It!

I worry about the future of free speech. Liberals continue to fight for flag burning, for instance, to stay legal, but at the same time, they fight for so-called "hate crime" legislation. Take this case, for instance. A girl had been distributing anti-homosexual fliers at her high school aimed at one particular boy "with whom she had been feuding." Stupid? Sure. Immoral? I think so. Illegal?

Apparently.

She is facing a felony hate crime charge, and is being held without bail, as if she is a danger to society. Now, I am against making fun of people because they're gay or a certain color or anything else like that. But, at the same time, I don't think it should be illegal. Certainly, I think the school should punish her in whatever way they see fit (schools are more free to limit the rights of students than is the government), but this should not be a crime.

After all, if I say to an enemy "I hate you. You are a *insert insult here*," I will not be punished by the legal system. But, apparently, if I say "I hate you because you are gay. You are a *insert insulting term for homosexual here*," I can be punished. Doesn't something seem wrong here?

People are free (or should be free) to hate whomever they want for whatever reasons they want, and to express that hatred. I am by no means condoning bigotry in the moral sense. Bigotry is wrong. Homophobia is wrong. But, expressing wrong opinions should never be illegal.