1940 Statement Of Principles On Academic Freedom

that student or teachers may not use schools as a platform to exercise free speech and in the case

Giving students freedom in their academic lives encouraged students to form their own opinions. Teachers had biased feelings towards those who denied students the right to the whole truth because of specific religions, because it raises an uneducated generation. Fundamentalists needed to realize that as times changed9 modernization of education is necessary, regardless of religious beliefs so students receive the full truth and become liberated people. If students are restricted from certain topics and are only taught one view on a few subjects then there will be no new or different ways of thinking, rendering education pointless. “Without freedom in the intellectual life, and without the inspiration of uncensored discovery and discussion, there could ultimately be no scholarship, no schools at all and no education.” The American Federation of Teachers expressed their fear for the future of education and how it would be constrained due to traditionalism, in contradiction of Sparks and other creationists.

It can be concluded Teachers are held to a higher standard then non-educational occupations, as “The Supreme Court has acknowledged that a “teacher serves as a role model for…students exerting a subtle but important influence over their perceptions and values” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 251). Teachers must be conscious to the ideology their actions, words, and mannerism can directly influence their student audience. The 1st amendment freedom of expression offers protection to teachers as it applies to the following clause, “Public employees’ comments on matters of public concern are protected expression if they are made as a citizen and not pursuant to official job duties” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 233).

In his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.

In order to better interpret this scenario, we first need to look another case that resembles this scenario. The case related to this scenario, Pickering v. Board of Education (1983) upheld that teachers’ speech, just like that of any other citizen, is protected when the interest of the speech does not cause harm or create false statements. Overall, the

On this day, we have been overcome by our grievances against all those who have claimed superiority over us. For years, the youth of this country have been dominated by others feeding their ideas of work and desires onto those who they perceive as below them. It is unfair that we, as a human race, must obtain these unwanted obligations. We should be using the time we have to enjoy our life, rather than being weighed down by work and misery, cast onto us by our fellow human beings. On this day, we are declaring our independence from the modern education system, in favor of a reform.For these obligations are taking away the precious time that we could be spending with those we love, doing what we love. These tasks

A public school teacher was terminated for writing and publishing newspaper a letter criticizing the board’s and superintendent's methods of informing on funds allocation between academics and athletics program (Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 1968). The school board stated the letter contained false statements detrimental to the administration and the integrity of the school system. The teacher filed charges against the school board claiming that the letter was protected by the First and Fourteenths Amendment (Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 1968).

Students everywhere should not be restricted from learning because of the connotation of a subject or teaching device. Students should be able to rightfully learn and be taught what has occurred in our history. This being said, there are concerns for teachers if they start to share their belief and support a controversial subject, or if they are hanging

Although the First Amendment is not that vague, schools have struggled to define what its limits are for the past 40 years. One may argue that a student’s Freedom of Speech should not be limited because of our First Amendment rights, the fact that so many schools struggle to define their limits and that they all have different limits, also, limiting a student’s Freedom of Speech brings totalitarianism to schools.

In the pursuit of education, students strive to learn and develop their understanding of the world that surrounds them. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of the school administration to provide the means to that end. Yet, there is a polarized divide among schools and their interpretation of freedom of speech. This occurrence is experienced primarily at the university level but can be seen at all levels of education. At the epicenter of this dispute is the notion of censorship, specifically whether or not it is feasible to restrict what can and cannot be said by faculty and students alike. Advocates of freedom of speech assert that censorship violates our First Amendment right, a liberty that is inalienable. Proponents also argue that

In the well-known case of of Tinker Verses Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court remarked, “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” While shedding your thoughts and freedom of speech or expression at “the schoolhouse gate” can be difficult, the district did have the right to not renew the teacher’s contract. I think that it is important to keep my mind what the judge stated in the facts above, “teachers … do not have a right under the First Amendment to express their opinions with their students during the instructional period.” The teacher gave her opinion and an idea of her political view by stating

There are a lot of controversial topics that professors have to talk about to their students. Due to this law, professors are being discouraged from talking about controversial topics in the classroom. Putting limitations on what professors can and cannot talk about can jeopardize the essence of education. With all the things going on in the world today, it is important that controversial topics are brought to attention no matter how uncomfortable the subject matter may be. Professors should not have to feel uncomfortable for their life solely because they brought up something controversial in

In late 1787, our founding fathers of the United States developed a new democratic government system that balanced power between the government and its people. In addition, they wrote the Bill of Rights to give the general public a voice; ensuring “freedom of speech”. Today, however, freedom of speech has taken an unexpected turn in education by creating a professor watchlist on the web. Truthfully, the Professors Watchlist denies the right of a teacher to express his/her opinions in the comfort of their own classrooms, and as a result, may not feel at ease with their teaching tactics.

According to Essex (2006), one of the requirements placed on schools is that they remain viewpoint neutral. This means that if the literature was suppressed because it was religious in nature, the suppression violated her First Amendment rights, even in the school setting. In all court cases, the real message has been that schools are responsible for making sure parents and students are aware that the schools are merely sending messages indiscriminately from religious and non-secular sources and that they are not in support of any of them (Essex, 2006). Really the essence of the article is that sound policies must be in place, well documented, and consistently followed for a school to be able to regulate what a student says or distributes and there must be no endorsement of any particular ideas from any group or student.

In Teachers in the Law, chapter twelve elaborates on schools’ limitation freedom of expression. Policies are set into place to prevent controversial groups in the educational setting. In addition, educators’ freedom of expression is very limited. Although, there are guidelines are established students and teachers feel that restrictions upon organizational activities are violated and numerous of individuals are only guilty by association. Students organizations, political and social affiliations, and oath of loyalty are imperative topics discuss when school can limit freedom of association.