First Amendment Right or Not Following Directions?
As I was reading the online version of my hometown newspaper, I came across an interesting article regarding an instructor who was fired because of an editorial in the school paper. The editorial was not written by the instructor, however she was responsible for editing the student newspaper before it was to be published. The editorial piece which created such a stir, projected its community in an unflattering manner as being intolerant of homosexuals. Although the newspaper does have first amendment rights, was the school justified in firing the instructor because she didn't follow directions outlined by the school? Please read the article, and share your thoughts.
posted by Max Brown at
5:46 PM
4 Comments:
I don't remember the specifics from my previous business law classes, but from what I remember, (assuming we're dealing with a public middle school) the government only has a few limited reasons for censoring the content of speech.
One of reasons is the protection of minors. This is why broadcast TV is restricted in what it can show during the day. The article didn't really give the impression that the opinion would be harmful to minors.
Another reason is to further an important government interest. It isn't clear from the article what purpose the school would have for limiting the speech.
Justin,
I agree with the points you made regarding censorship and protecting minors. However, I think the point of emphasis here is how the instructor handled the editorial as opposed to what it said. Granted, it was the content of the editorial that caused the uproar, but what if the subject had been cafeteria food instead of homosexual intolerance? If the instructor had a duty to edit this opinion piece, is the instructor promoting free speech or neglecting the orders of her superiors? While I agree that the students should have free speech, I think the school has the right to fire the instructor if she did in fact ignore the instructions of her bosses.
While I am definitely hesitant to advocate limitations of free speech, I think that we have to consider the school's responsibilities in this case. Had it been a high school, this article may not have caused much of a stir, but this principal has a responsibility to the parents of children as young as 11 to protect them while they are at school. I can see why the principal would think that sexual preference and any debate that follows would not be something that parents would be happy to hear about their children discussing in school, especially in the limited views of a student opinion rather than in an educational format from an authority figure. I also agree that if the teacher was aware of the rules and didn't follow them the school board has every right to fire her.
Note that whether the "the content" of the editorial "caused an uproar" or whether it "caused much of a stir" is a contested fact according to the article.
“It’s not as if there was a controversy about this newspaper that led to these actions by the district,” [Adam Goldstein of the Student Press Law Center] said. “There was silence from the community and then a controversy created by the district’s actions.”
Also note that the issue may or may not be one of free speech and censorship. Again, whether the teacher was fired for something like insubordination and "engaging in a campaign that portrayed East Allen County Schools and Yoder as intolerant" is a contested issue as well. That is related to the content of the article, but it's conjecture at best to say that the principal or the school system wanted to or would have censored the editorial.
I'd be surprised, frankly, if the issues weren't really that the principal and the school board are embarrassed by the episode, that they want to establish a measure of control over the student newspaper that Sorrell was not reliquishing (which, by the way, I personally find to be problematic, but may be entirely legal), and that each is now being pressured by "outraged" parents (who probably didn't read the editorial until the whole kerfuffle became a national story) to "do something." Of course, this is all conjecture and opinion on my part.
As to Justin's comments on the First Amendment. Contextual considerations, like the fact that this is a school paper, allow the government/school to exert more authority to control the content of the paper than in the run of cases.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home