Freedom of Speech: 'Honk for Peace' gets Teacher fired

I find this one very scary and do hope that the Supreme Court of the United States might visit this one and clarify their earlier decision enough to get us back on a sensible path.

While I understand that Teachers may give an impression that they are speaking for their employers (the school systems that they work for), I don't see that the words that the teacher used -- assuming that we're getting the whole story here and that the words "I honk for peace" were all that got the teacher fired -- I don't believe we need to be that overly sensitive about what Teachers say, and I really don't believe that the government has that much right to step in and take away a Teachers freedom of speech.

Are there times when I would give the government the benefit of doubt about being able to restrict the right of free speech?  Yes.  But I don't believe the incident here rises to that level.

From the article, it seems that she also added that people should seek peaceful solutions before going to war. The student told daddy, daddy told the principal.

My biggest surprise is the idea that a teacher can not have his or her own idea and still teach the curriculum. If the curriculum is about ideas and not ideology then one person's opinion should not interfere with conveying that to the students. In fact, I thought one of the points of an education was to learn how to listen to other people's opinions, to understand them and to evaluate them. In Alberta, the highschool curriculum states that students should "develop critical and creative thinking and inquiry skills."

I think it would be hard to do that if a teacher said, when asked about something, "well, I'm not allowed to have an opinion. Here's what the textbook says." As a student, that teacher would lose all credibility with me. My attitude would be "shut up and let me read the book." But a book will not challenge you to perfect an argument, give you feedback or listen to you.

Having an opinion and expressing it is something I think that students need to be able to see. Correctly modled, it is invaluable. If she had said, "Anyone who doesn't honk for peace is a bad person" or "anyone who doesn't look for a peaceful solution first is a war-mongerer" is something that I would agree would be inappropriate for the classroom. Given the scope of the article, I don't know if that is the case.

However, her statement, "People should find peaceful solutions before going to war" would seem to support the anti-bullying policies that most schools have. If that kind of policy isn't to be supported as a societal value outside of school, then maybe we should just let kids battle it out in school? Hardly.

Now on to teaching something that goes against your personal values, for example, creationism vs. evolution. If schools have decided that evolution should be taught. So a teacher has to teach it. If asked, I think a teacher has the right to express that she doesn't beleive in it, but not to cast judgements on those who do. Examining the other side of an arguement can be invaluable to helping a student to understand. It's kind of like looking at a picture and understanding it by the negative spaces, not just the object itself. The teacher would not have the right to give students lesser points for creating an argument and backing it up that a teacher doesn't agree with. The point is NOT the student agrees with the teacer, but is able to understand the information, create a thesis and back it up. This is one reason why teaching is hard. You have to get your head out of your own space.

In elementary school, fourth grade, the curriculum contains the following:
"These skills [critical thinking skills] help students to understand the relevance of an issue by guiding them to develop informed positions and respect the opinions of others. This process enables students to question, to validate, expand and express the understanding; to challenge their presuppositions; and to construct their own points of view."

"Controversial issues are those topics that are publicly sensitive and there is no consensus of values or beliefs. They include topics on which reasonalbe people may disagree. Opportunities to deal with these issues are an integral part of social studies education in Alberta."

"Studying controversial issues is important in preparing students to participate responsibly in a democratic pluralistic society. Such study provides the opportunities to think clearly, to reason logically, to open-mindedly and respectfully examine different points of view and to make sound judgements."
WWW Link
You have to open a PDF file to get to this part. Check out page 6 if you want to see this. There is also a good one about getting students to learn to differentiate between opinions and facts.

This is my favorite part: "Controversial issues that have been anticipated by the teacher, and those that may arise incidentally during instruction, should be used to promote critical inquiry and teach thinking skills."

This is pretty much how I was educated (at home as well as school)and what happened when I was teaching. It's pretty much why I don't "get" the whole issue in the US of creationism vs. evolution theory in school. Neither point should be one that is indoctrinated and it's easier for someone to form their own world view if they have both sides of the coin. I'm not saying Alberta is perfect, because of human error, somebodys probably fluffed up somewhere. But given the guidelines I read in the curriculum (which seem pretty reasonable to me) the teacher would not have gotten fired.

Having an opinion is not indoctrination. Stating it without judging others is not indoctrination.

It amazes me that she also got labeled as a "rogue teacher" for something like that. Either the article is missing something or people in America must be very afraid and I don't know of what.

I don't think we're getting the whole story. I mean after all we "are" talking about the "San Fransico Chronicle" here. This paper is one of the most liberal, government bashing rags there are. I'm pretty sure the article is missing something. Just my 0.02 cents.

I don't think we're getting the whole story

Good call.  I am still digging, but it appears to be a trumped up case.  I still have not found the actual ruling yet, but would be very surprised given the facts below, that it is being judged a Free Speech case, and not a "right to work" one.  As we have already read here on JU, untenured teachers can be let go for just crossing their eyes. (i.e., their contracts not renewed).

Deborah Mayer worked for one year as a probationary elementary-school teacher in Monroe County, Indiana. When the school district did not renew her contract for a second year, Mayer filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, maintaining that the school system let her go because she took a political stance during a current-events session in her class, thus violating the first amendment.

There is a huge difference between not having your contract renewed and being fired. Once again a member of the press twists the facts to fit their own agenda.

I personally believe that teachers would do well to stick to teaching the subjects they are paid to teach and keep their personal opinions to themselves, especially when it involves politics or religion.

I'm sure there is more to this story than that simple statement. School systems are hurting for qualified teachers and if this one wasn't able to find a position for three years there is something seriously wrong here.

As Doc thought, and the actual court ruling shows, this has nothing to do with free speech.

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on all Counts. IT IS SO ORDERED

The reason for the summary judgement was that simply put, she was a lousy teacher.  The (initial) court ruling is quite informative in that regard: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:j6FzYKc-qXYJ:indianalawblog.com/documents/MonroeSchool.pdf+%22honk+for+peace%22+%22Deborah+Mayer%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=100&gl=us

So Doc Miler is correct.  This is a non-story by a supposed objective member of the MSM that is nothing more than a hatchet piece.

Conclusion:  Google is your friend.

Bingo. There's the unreported twist.

I thank you for bringing this article to our attention, terp, but as Mason said, not having your contract renewed is NOT the same as being fired. She has no legitimate beef.

It was not even a free speech issue if you read the court record.