Teachers’ Rights

 

The United States of America is home to an increasingly litigious society. Lawsuits, and in some corners the lawyers who file them, are often seen in a negative light. No longer is the judicial system, and the use of it by American citizens, seen as the great equalizer between classes and the guarantor of equality and justice. Because it has been clogged with what is often referred to as frivolous, meaningless, or financially based lawsuits, its stature in our society has been diminished. With this seemingly constant flow of lawsuits swirling through our legal system, it’s sometimes hard for individuals to recognize, utilize, and benefit from the rights that have been afforded them as American citizens. Classroom teachers, as a smaller part of the overall education system in this country, are no different.

 

          The long held perception of classroom teachers’ rights as indistinguishable from the average American citizen may no longer be accurate. More and more teachers are finding themselves as the targets of litigation, be it community or school district generated. And more and more of this litigation directed at teachers centers around individual rights once thought sacrosanct, such as freedom of expression and dress and grooming. Where in the past it was perceived that teachers need not check their individual rights at the school house door, this perception may not be entirely based on reality anymore.

 

          In the same manner that other citizens of the United States have their speech protected, classroom teachers are afforded the same right within limits, under the First Amendment to the Constitution. The key part of this sentence being “within limits”. Free speech by classroom teachers is guided by the principal that such speech does not create a “material disruption” to the educational interest of the school district (Essex 2008). Just what constitutes material disruption is periodically up for debate, with the courts providing interpretations and resolutions. As an example, criticism of school officials and or policies has not been found to be a material disruption. On the other hand if those criticisms should be personal in nature or can be considered humiliating to the recipient, material disruption may apply. It may also apply if the teacher’s speech urges others to ignore said policies. Either way, a school district is required to show that a legitimate state interest is affected in order to restrict a teacher’s speech in any way. Some school districts have been successful in their efforts to restrict teacher  speech. The burden of proof lying with the schools, it is necessary to show that such  speech has undermined authority or created problems in the working environment. Yet, in the instances where school districts have outlined policies against the aforementioned types of speech, the courts have overturned them (Valente, W., Valente, C. 2001). Clearly, teacher expression, and the protection of it, is not a black and white matter. Seemingly, teacher freedom of expression rights are protected but are also subject to considerations regarding its impact on the school environment. Even with First Amendment protection, if a teacher’s overall job performance does not meet the school’s standard, then debatable speech may still lead to dismissal. A case that the United States Supreme Court recently declined hearing illustrates as much.

 

          Deborah A. Mayer was a teacher in Monroe County, Indiana who ran into trouble after discussing her views on protest in relation to the then impending United States invasion of Iraq. As part of a current events discussion Mayer responded to student inquiries by saying that she would participate in “peace marches” and that she thought it important to find peaceful solutions to problems before resorting to war. Parent complaints led to a discussion between Mayer and her principal which resulted in Mayer being barred from discussing peace and a traditional month-long celebration of peace being dropped. The school’s reasoning was that they are not in position to promote any views on foreign policy, and as a result, Mayer’s comments were inappropriate. Subsequently the school district declined to renew Mayer’s contract for the upcoming school year. With Mayer just completing her first year of teaching and thus still in a probationary period, the school district was well within their rights to do so. However, Mayer believed her dismissal stemmed from her utilizing her First Amendment protected right to free speech. Consequently, Mayer filed suit against the school district.

 

          The initial hearing found the school district victorious and the appeal filed by Mayer went to the school district as well. The appeals court stated that “The First Amendment does not entitle primary and secondary teachers, when conducting the education of captive audiences, to cover topics, or advocate viewpoints that depart from the curriculum adopted by the school system” (Walsh 2007). Evidently, according to this appellate court, Mayer’s speech was materially disruptive to the educational system in which she was employed. Also, because the speech itself veered away from the board approved curriculum, her speech that day was less than free or protected.One wonders if Mayer had been teaching a science lesson instead of  social studies and had prefaced her remarks with the indication that she was speaking as an individual citizen and not a teacher, that her speech might have fallen under First Amendment protection. If so, she might still be employed by the aforementioned school district today.

 

          Personal appearance issues, or issues of dress and grooming, have been fodder for litigation through the years as well. Not surprisingly school districts see teacher dress code regulations as a way to promote professionalism amongst staff and subsequently improve the classroom learning environment. Teachers, on the other hand, see such policies as an infringement upon their right of free expression. The courts have generally and  frequently been in favor of a school district’s right to govern dress and appearance so that the educational process avoids disruption. As long as such policies on dress and grooming connect themselves to a specific educational purpose (such as promoting the image of teachers as professionals), they have been largely free from judicial interference. When a policy governing such matters is found to be unrelated to the protection of the educational process, the courts have frequently not supported it. Similar to teacher expression, teacher dress and grooming is more gray than black and white due to the interpretation necessary in navigating the important issues surrounding them. Dress code policies, while reflecting an educational purpose, are also effected by community and societal standards. With the size of a country like the United States, and the widespread differences that such a country presents, finding one policy to govern the dress and grooming of any one field is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Which is why the district court system in this country, so much more apt to be in tune with the standards of the jurisdictions they serve, is a much better choice to make such decisions on a case by case basis than the utilization and reliance on a one-size fits all policy on dress and grooming.

 

          Not all litigation involving teacher appearance deals with the appropriateness of school district issued dress codes or policies. Some cases involve the material disruption that may or may not occur due to the dress and grooming of a specific teacher or teachers. One such case involved a Michigan high-school  teacher who frequently wore a shirt with an inflammatory message relating to a teacher’s union and school district disagreement. The teacher wore a t-shirt with the phrase “working without a contract” and at times, confronted other teachers for not doing so (Thompson, Hartmeister, and Mead 2007). It was the aforementioned confrontations, and not the message itself, that the court cited in its decision to stand with the school district on this matter. Once again the court cited the material disruption clause in stating that the confrontations caused by the speech on the shirt were disruptive to the school district’s task of delivering services to its community. Thus, the speech on that specific t-shirt was not covered by the First Amendment.

 

          In conclusion it can be said that teachers’ rights differ only slightly under the First Amendment than those of other American citizens. This minimal difference is due, says legal precedent, to the important and public nature of the position of teacher. Whereas other American citizens might find more leeway in the overall judgment of their speech, teachers are held to a higher standard due to the important societal role that they inhabit. Decades ago the courts consistently found in favor of teachers in regards to issues of expression (both speech and appearance). Recently (the past two decades), court decisions have gone in the opposite direction (Stader, Francis 2003) more frequently. It is because of this recent trend and the somewhat ambiguous nature of First Amendment protected expression, that teacher due diligence regarding these matters is more important than ever. School districts have solicitors and at times employ law firms to operate in their best interests. Teachers have union representation, but more often than not are the ones most interested in protecting themselves and their livelihood. With this in mind it is vitally important that teachers do not blindly believe in the blanket coverage of their speech and appearance under the First Amendment, but rather that they think long and hard about these matters before they act upon them.