Chapter 5 Jennifer L. Marks/Carol McMillan
EDLE 669 – C06 March 3. 2006
When Can Schools Restrict Freedom of Expression?
Marvin Pickering a high school teacher from Will County, Illinois published a long, sarcastic letter in the local newspaper about the way the superintendent and school boards raised and spent school funds. He voiced his objection to the “excessive” athletic spending and he accused the local builders of taken the taxpayers to the cleaners.
1. Initial claim: The board of education filed a claim that the letter published in the local newspaper contained false and misleading statements “damaged the professional reputations” of school administrators and the board and was detrimental to the efficient operation and administration of the school. Pickering argued that his letter should be protected by his right of free speech which should be protected by the 1st Amendment.
2. Legal path: The Illinois ruled against Pickering since, as a teacher, he “is no more entitled to harm the schools by speech than incompetency.” He still believed his letter was protected, so he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On behalf of the Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall searched for a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern and the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. The court found that. Pickering’s letters consisted mainly of the school board’s allocation of funds and of both the board’s and superintendent’s method of informing or not informing the taxpayers. Since such statements were not directed toward the people Pickering worked with, the Court “unequivocally” rejected the board’s decision that critical statements made by a teacher should be grounds for dismissal. The Court also found that even though Pickering unintentionally made several incorrect statements on current issues that ere critical of his employer it did not impede his teaching or interfere with the regular operation of the school. The Court concluded that the teacher’s right to discuss public matters outweighed the interests of the Administration and were protected by the First Amendment. Pickering ruling applies to private as well as public criticism.
3. Administration process to avoid legal repercussions, litigation and potential human resources:
· Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- mediation
- arbitration
To avoid legal action an administrator could settle out of court through an alternative dispute resolution program. One way is to sit down with a mediator, a neutral third person to negotiate an agreement. The other basic type of ADR is arbitration usually used to resolve labor management disputes. A trained arbitrator acts as the third party. The arbitrator’s decision could be binding or nonbinding depending on the State law.
4. Legal Process: The First Amendment protects the rights of teachers to participate in political activity as citizens in the community.
Initially look for cases that have similar situations at
· Illinois State Courts
· Illinois Supreme Courts
· Law Library @ the courthouse
· Law Schools, Universities, or Colleges
· United States Reports
· Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions www.supremecourtsus.gov.
· Decisions of the federal appeals court www.findlaw.com.
· Court of appeals
The process to create a case for the plaintiff
· File a complaint which must include the law or constitutional provision violated
· Wait on an answer within 30 days
· Discovery begins – interrogatories, depositions and document requests
5. The impact this case would have on a school district:
· School district should be aware of First Amendment rights
· Concerns for the interests of the teacher, as a citizen
· School district should realize that retaliation is against the law
· School district should also realize the importance of free and open debate to foster growth and development of a district
6. Key vocabulary
· First Amendment
· Absent of proof
· False statements knowingly
· False statements recklessly
· Grounds for dismissal
· Allegedly
· Arrive at a balance