Firing a Tenured Teacher Over Thoughtless Comments Essay

[The educator] Shall not on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, marital status, political or religious beliefs, family, social or cultural background, or sexual orientation, unfairly:

4- The committee and Ms Beckel decided to include a religious studies curriculum in the program. The principal approved of it. However, Ms Wright one of the community members did not. She threatened to show up at the committee meeting with the media. On the day of the meeting, Ms Wright showed up with a placard protesting the use of the bible in public schools.

v. Berkeley County Schools (Document C). K.K., who formed a discussion group online that accused a classmate of being sexually promiscuous and was joined by more than 20 other classmates, was suspended from school for 10 days and issued a 90-day “social suspension.” On July 27, 2011, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the punishment was just, stating that the “[connection] of K.K’s speech to [the high school’s teaching] interests was sufficiently strong,” and that school officials are “trustees of the student body’s well-being.” When a speech disrupts the interests of the school – that is, teaching and protecting its students, it is then not protected by the First Amendment, and schools should punish its speaker. Even though the speech was off-campus, the sufficient connection of the speech to the interests of the school means that the school has the right to punish the

Before recommending a dismissal for Alice's performance, she must undergo procedural and substantive due process. "The burden of proof resides with the board of education to show cause based on a preponderance of evidence" (Essex, 2012, p. 254), and in this case the only problem is her changing a grade for an athlete, which is not a reason for dismissal. "Teachers may be dismissed only for specified reasons that are based on objective and documentable evidence" (Essex, 2012, p.

Although the superintendent has the authority to hire and fire teachers, it would be within his best interest to do so based on appropriate legal footing rather than personal bias. The superintendent’s recommendations for Barnhart’s change of employment appears to be grounded in bias. From the beginning he was a dubious supporter of Barnhart as athletic director. He has no proof that she contacted the reporter so is basing his decision on the weak legal footing of assumption. Understandably, he is doing so to balance teacher rights and promoting harmony within the work place which ultimately supports student learning. Several court cases provide guide lines for achieving this balance. The cases of Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) and Connick v. Myers (1983) developed a two pronged test to check the balance. First, does the speech address matters of public concern? Assuming Barnhart did contact the reporter, yes, the information is a matter of public concern since it involves Title IX, a federal civil law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education activities. It is a federal law that high schools treat boys’ and girls’ sports equally. Also, can Burnhart demonstrate her speech interest outweigh the harmony of the district leadership? Again, yes, the speech is not affecting her immediate supervisor, principal Tara Hills as supported by Fales v. Garst

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).

Everyone in America should be guaranteed the freedom of speech granted by The Constitution. In 1988, the court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier that schools \could limit freedom of speech in school if they had “educational concerns” (Jacobs). The problem is that “educational concerns” is too vague and school districts are able to use this as a loophole to get away with removing articles that do not need to be removed. Often, the concern is based on perception and image more than anything else. Angela Riley’s article “20 years later: Teachers reflect on Supreme Court’s Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ruling” quotes Frank LoMonte, executive director of

The role of an educator throughout an individual’s life is often downplayed. Their position as a teacher is to help students apply concepts of math, science, etc., in a classroom setting. Despite this, they are seen as pointless and temporary. However, there is an implicit role educators have when it comes to race, and the impact is enduring. Their “silence speak volumes,” and the “students are listening” (Pitts). In Jamilah Pitts’ article “Don’t Say Nothing” from the fall 2016 issue of Teaching Tolerance, she successfully uses pathos and call to action to show the negative effect an educator's silence has on students during moments of racial tension or violence.

Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers were put in a very tough and uncomfortable situation, as principle and vice principal, when Ann Griffin made a racial comment. Watts and Brothers administered a primarily African American school. Ann Griffin is a Caucasian teacher who made a racial remark to the principle, Freddie Watts, and vice principal, Jimmy Brothers, of the school she was administered to. She stated that she, “hated all black folks.” This required them to question her ability to perform her job correctly without having a racial bias towards black students. A decision must be made regarding her removal. Ann Griffin does have the right to free speech however, discrimination could also effect her students in a negative way.

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

A parent of one of the students that were left feels the teachers should be thanked not punished.

Lately in the United States, there is tension. Citizens do or say things that others prefer not to see or hear. But, when it comes to professionals, such as professors at universities, making these offensive statements it is a whole different circumstance. Some professors are offered a contract in which they are allowed to do and say whatever they please, but others are not. Even though the amount of tenure contracts offered are decreasing, Jeanne Zaino, the author of “Offensive Speech and the Contingency Clause: Adjuncts who are outspoken are losing their jobs,” published on the website Inside Higher Ed., believes professors and their jobs should still be protected under the First Amendment. Zaino references back to the story of two professors who publicly stated very unpopular opinion. They ended up fired due to their public statements. According to Zaino, these two should have not been fired. On the other hand, the professors should have known better because they represent a university. These professors knew what the consequences would be after making their statements. Besides the fact that I disagree with Jeanne Zaino, the essay is fairly written. It is not perfect due to its poor assumptions of what the reader must already know and believe. Although, these are key components, the author did a good job by explaining what was currently happening and showed a decent amount of research to back up their credibility. Zaino did a decent job writing her persuasive piece.

This teacher should not be reprimanded as long as this attendance at the protest does not substantially disrupt the learning environment . The key here aspect is the fact that this was done outside the classroom, and the teacher was acting as a private citizen. Even though a teacher should always serve as a paragon of model citizenship in and outside of the classroom this teacher did not do anything objectively reprehensible. More importantly, she did not break the law, and she was exercising her first amendment right of free speech. According to Pickering Vs. BoE, the Standing Rock protest is a matter of public concern, and this speech is protected by the courts since the protest was done outside of the classroom. The only issue here is in

The “just cause” reasoning for possible dismissal that applies to this case is “immorality” (State of Florida, 2012). The teacher harassed and threatened other students while in the classroom. She humiliated these students and even went so far as to tell a parent about their child’s sexuality. She talked about adult things that teachers should not be disclosing to children, especially when

She was a principal and was have a hard time with a student who refused to come out from under their desk. She walked in and got down to his level and simply whispered “That’s really too bad you are under there and not learning, would you like me to call your mom or call the police.” She was fine with either option the child chose and after the child answered she walked away and did exactly what she told him she would do. Another thing that the teacher displayed in what she said was empathy and consequences. She wasn’t mad and displayed she was sorry but she also gave the consequences that would now happen because of his action. The child got out from under the desk and followed her because he was scared of her calling either one and it happened that the mom was walking in the door and she could handle the situation in the