The Bell Ringer

Issue date: 11/19/08 Section: Opinion

Students do not, as the Court tells us in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

However, because K-12 teachers appear to speak for the school district when they teach, the content of their messages can be far more limited by administrators.

The Bell Ringer, like most newspapers, is firmly for freedom of speech and does not believe that this should be the case.

The recent presidential election has turned everyone's thoughts political, but K-12 teachers are among the few who were not allowed to express themselves even in peaceful ways, such as wearing buttons endorsing a candidate.

The New York City teachers' union filed a federal lawsuit last month claiming that "a policy banning political pins and signs in schools violates teachers' First Amendment rights by blocking them from political expression," according to an article in The New York Times.

There should be no problem with teachers endorsing candidates, as long as they clearly label their opinions and do not disrupt the classroom or interfere with learning.

These are the main concerns against teachers displaying anything but complete neutrality, and they should definitely be avoided:

No student should be intimidated because he might hold a different belief than the teacher, nor should this opinion be disguised in the classroom as fact or take away from time that should have been devoted to the curriculum.

In the landmark case, Tinker vs. Des Moines, the U.S. Supreme Court established that public school students have the right to wear armbands in class as an expression of their views on topics of public concern.

This right may be limited only if proven to cause a substantial and material disruption in the classroom or violating the rights of others.

Teachers were allowed to protest the Vietnam War with black armbands as well, but are not allowed political buttons.

Although Washington courts have not considered the question, other courts have differed over relenting in these instances.

To do so would only make sense.

Cutting back on freedom of speech will limit the marketplace of ideas.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools