- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Messages
- 46,230
- Reaction score
- 27,175
This would not surprise me.
Teacher who called military 'lowest of the low' is fired
- Thread starter phoenixikki
- Start date
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,874
You're moving the goal posts. Can you just admit that you were wrong, didn't know that public employees have more robust 1A protections in the workplace, and we can move on?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2013
- Messages
- 13,380
- Reaction score
- 5
They should make this guy post on sherdog for a year to learn how to talk in public
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 27,019
- Reaction score
- 18,866
Ironic because one of the brightest kids I have taught just got accepted to West Point
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Messages
- 11,284
- Reaction score
- 0
Plus, I was in the Air Force and I am friggin brilliant. Good on him, though.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 6,573
- Reaction score
- 2,015
First, since you tagged me along with some lawyers, let me say that I am not one. But since you asked......
Public school teachers are in a unique position. They are individuals and employees of the state. Therefore, school districts have an interest in making sure that the messages that students receive are in line with the district’s goals and vision.
In general, teachers rights to free speech in the classroom are limited to some degree, especially when they are not directly related to instruction. In this case, it seems the teacher had and impromptu reaction to a student's Marines Corps t-shirt. The district has an overriding interest in providing an environment conducive to education. Imagine if the students had brothers or parents in the military. Had the teacher made the comments outside of school and while commenting on a topic of general public concern (this may not qualify) they would be well protected. This was neither, so the teacher is not protected from discipline of some sort.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2017
- Messages
- 4,939
- Reaction score
- 1,129
How does it go? Play stupid games win stupid prizes?
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 38,889
- Reaction score
- 11,339
They stil can't say anything they want in class.
The same as any government employee can't say anything they want on the job or even off the job.
Just admitt in this case you are wrong.
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,874
So you shift the goal posts and change your argument again just so you can keep arguing.
The topic wasn't that this was per se protected speech and that public employees "can say anything." Obviously, that's an idiotic position. The reality was that you failed to identify that this was/is a bona fide free speech case.
You claimed, in rebuttal, that employees have no speech protections at work, completely whiffing on the 1A protection of public employees.
Now you've changed your argument to "well they can't say ANYthing."
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,874
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2017
- Messages
- 4,939
- Reaction score
- 1,129
What exactly was he teaching during the time he was on his rant? More importantly, what was he supposed to be teaching during this time that was neglected?
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 12,289
- Reaction score
- 2,689
These cases are always tough to evaluate. The Garcetti case (547 U.S. 410 (2006)) really mucked up this area, imo.
Kennedy's opinion put the onus on whether speech by a public official was made as a private citizen or pursuant to his official job duties. The former is protected but the latter is not. The fact that the teacher ranted about this during a lecture pursuant to his job duties leads me to conclude he likely doesn't have any 1st Amendment protection under the Garcetti standard.
I don't like that conclusion, but I think the school was legally entitled to terminate him.
Edit: I was wrong about the Pickering balancing test. It's still kinda used, but not here as I don't think the teacher reaches that point of the analysis. Here's the standard after Garcetti (again, I don't like it). I still think the school could fire this teacher.
1) Did the employee speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern?
a) If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on the employer’s reaction to the speech.
b) If the answer is yes, the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. See 2 below
2)The question becomes whether the government employer had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public. This consideration reflects the importance of the relationship between the speaker’s expressions and employment. The government has broader discretion to restrict speech when it acts in its employer role, but the restrictions it imposes must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect its operations.
I think this case is extremely analogous to Garcetti.
(b) Proper application of the Court’s precedents leads to the conclusion that the First Amendment does not prohibit managerial discipline based on an employee’s expressions made pursuant to official responsibilities. Because Ceballos’ memo falls into this category, his allegation of unconstitutional retaliation must fail. The dispositive factor here is not that Ceballos expressed his views inside his office, rather than publicly, see, e.g., Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439 U. S. 410, 414, nor that the memo concerned the subject matter of his employment, see, e.g., Pickering, 391 U. S. at 573. Rather, the controlling factor is that Ceballos’ expressions were made pursuant to his official duties. That consideration distinguishes this case from those in which the First Amendment provides protection against discipline. Ceballos wrote his disposition memo because that is part of what he was employed to do. He did not act as a citizen by writing it. The fact that his duties sometimes required him to speak or write does not mean his supervisors were prohibited from evaluating his performance. Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen. It simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created. Cf. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 833. This result is consistent with the Court’s prior emphasis on the potential societal value of employee speech and on affording government employers sufficient discretion to manage their operations. Ceballos’ proposed contrary rule, adopted by the Ninth Circuit, would commit state and federal courts to a new, permanent, and intrusive role, mandating judicial oversight of communications between and among government employees and their superiors in the course of official business. This displacement of managerial discretion by judicial supervision finds no support in the Court’s precedents. The doctrinal anomaly the Court of Appeals perceived in compelling public employers to tolerate certain employee speech made publicly but not speech made pursuant to an employee’s assigned duties misconceives the theoretical underpinnings of this Court’s decisions and is unfounded as a practical matter. Pp. 8–13.
(c) Exposing governmental inefficiency and misconduct is a matter of considerable significance, and various measures have been adopted to protect employees and provide checks on supervisors who would order unlawful or otherwise inappropriate actions. These include federal and state whistle-blower protection laws and labor codes and, for government attorneys, rules of conduct and constitutional obligations apart from the First Amendment. However, the Court’s precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job. Pp. 13–14.
(c) Exposing governmental inefficiency and misconduct is a matter of considerable significance, and various measures have been adopted to protect employees and provide checks on supervisors who would order unlawful or otherwise inappropriate actions. These include federal and state whistle-blower protection laws and labor codes and, for government attorneys, rules of conduct and constitutional obligations apart from the First Amendment. However, the Court’s precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job. Pp. 13–14.
I think a history teacher ranting about the military during class would be interpreted as pertaining to his official job duties and therefore is not afforded 1st Amendment protection. Lame, but I'm fairly certain that's the case under Garcetti.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,874
(I agree) But I don't like that the new wave of free speech enthusiasts don't even realize/care that this is an actual free speech issue.
Also, Garcetti is one of the worst Supreme Court precedents, logically and legally speaking, in recent history. Also, whatever that stupid Kennedy abortion decision was.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 12,289
- Reaction score
- 2,689
Yep. Kennedy has been the writer of some really murky decisions. I think the teacher would still lose under a basic Pickering balancing test, but it's clearly a big free speech issue. Unfortunately, most of our legal precedent gives the government significant discretion on punishing speech if its somehow related to the job duties of the position of the speaker. Kennedy simply didn't care that for many public employees (DAs, teachers, etc), the scope of one's job duties can be exceptionally broad in scope.
Garcetti literally complained in a memo that a warrant contained so many inaccuracies that the DA's office should drop the case. The arguments were those that any citizen concerned about abuse of police power would have made. However, since his position encompassed evaluating the legal validness of warrants, anything he wrote in that memo was not protected. He'd have been better off publishing his concerns in a letter to his local paper. Ironically, the latter would 'harm' and disrupt his employer more than privately voicing his concern in a memo. An absurd result.
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,874
Yeah, I believe I made my opinions about Kennedy clear in the SC thread. He's an awful jurist.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 3,953
- Reaction score
- 1,473
Big nose Wellington called his soldiers the scum of the earth and still got to be Prime Minister , people weren't such pansies back then .
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 38,889
- Reaction score
- 11,339
"11. I am a high school teacher. Can the school censor what I teach my students?
The speech of teachers in the classroom represents the school's educational product. Most courts apply to teachers' speech the more deferential standard that asks whether there is a legitimate educational reason for the school board's policy.
One federal appeals court determined that any form of censorship must be reasonably related to a legitimate educational reason. However, many courts are highly deferential to employer interests, especially public school officials. For example, in Fowler v. Bd. of Education of Lincoln County, Ky.,
"As a result, teachers should understand that the traditional First Amendment rights of academic freedom generally accorded to university professors are much more limited in public primary and secondary schools."
https://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-public-employees#3
Yes they can be limited so he's chance of winning any court case is almost none.
"As this case indicates, many courts are highly deferential to employer interests, especially public school officials. As a result, teachers should understand that the traditional First Amendment rights of academic freedom generally accorded to university professors are much more limited in public primary and secondary schools."
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=13021
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 31,936
- Reaction score
- 34,268
Are military personnel "all dumb shits" and "the lowest of our low"? Doesn't sound factual to me. Going on a rant inspired by a students clothes seems like compromised performance as he's talking in the present tense. The occasional rant isn't that big a deal to me, but he's all out telling lies about a group of people he clearly doesn't like. He's supposed to educate on facts, not disseminate his opinions to a captive audience.
All democrats are X
All republicans are X
All Muslims are X
All teachers are X
No. Just no.
