Court rules teachers don’t have free speech rights in school

[WaTcHeR]

A teacher's in-class curriculum in primary and secondary schools is not protected by the First Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.

"Only the school board has ultimate responsibility for what goes on in the classroom, legitimately giving it a say over what teachers may (or may not) teach in the classroom," writes the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in its decision (.pdf).

The decision came in a case where an Ohio teacher, Shelley Evans-Marshall, did not have her contract renewed after numerous parents complained about reading selections she assigned to her high school English classes.

Evans-Marshall, who taught English to 9th and 11th grade students and a creative writing course to 11th and 12th grade students, distributed a list of banned books to students in her 9th grade class. The students were required to form groups, pick a book from the list, examine the reasons the book has been banned, and lead an in-class debate about the book. Two groups in Evans-Marshall's class chose Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman, a children's book about a girl with two lesbian parents.

Some of the parents of the students in Evans-Marshall's class complained about Heather Has Two Mommies and Evans-Marshall was told by the principal to have the students choose another book. She complied with the principal's request, noting her students had "actually experienced censorship in preparing to debate censorship."

After completing the banned books assignment, Evans-Marshall had her class read Siddhartha by the German author Hermann Hesse. The book, about the spiritual journey of a young man in India during the times of the Buddha, contains descriptions of sex and has references to the Kamasutra.

At a meeting of the school board in October of 2001, about twenty-five parents complained about the curricular choices made by Evans-Marshall. At a subsequent meeting in November, nearly one hundred parents complained about her curriculum.

"You should be embarrassed," one parent told the school board in regards to the sexual themes found in Siddhartha.

In 2002, the school board voted unanimously not to renew Evans-Marshall's contract, claiming she had problems "with communication and teamwork."

A year later, Evans-Marshall filed suit against the school board, alleging the board retaliated against her "curricular and pedagogical choices" by refusing to renew her contract.

"When Evans-Marshall taught 9th grade English, she did something she was hired (and paid) to do, something she could not have done but for the Board’s decision to hire her as a public school teacher," said the court. "As with any other individual in the community, she had no more free-speech right to dictate the school's curriculum than she had to obtain a platform—a teaching position—in the first instance for communicating her preferred list of books and teaching methods."

The court affirmed Evans-Marshall's right to discuss matters of public concern and concluded that her exercise of free speech rights was "a motivating factor" behind the school board's decision to not renew her contract.

"That large segments of the community disagreed with Evans-Marshall's speech—her class assignments and teaching methods—is beside the point," said the court. "The question is whether the topics discussed are "of . . . concern" to the community not whether the community approved of the teacher’s position on each topic."

But, "pursuant to [her] official duties" as a teacher at a public school, the court ruled that Evans-Marshall was "not speaking as [a citizen] for First Amendment purposes."

"As Evans-Marshall does not dispute, she made her curricular and pedagogical choices in connection with her official duties as a teacher."

"The Constitution does not prohibit a State from creating elected school boards and from placing responsibility for the curriculum of each school district in the hands of each board."


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/cour ... ed-speech/

[lewis1946]

No American has free speech! I have seen so many sites with how to deal with the cops, and here is proof that you can remain silent and still go to jail. First time in 64 years of my life I ever been arrested. Why? Not wanting to talk, plus was in a lousy mood, but still on my property.
Part#1: November 22, 2010-Part #1 of a three part video of Bentonville sheriff officer refusing to take no for an answer. This all takes place on private property, and this bad cop even starts off with name calling no matter how many times I tell him I have nothing to say. This starts from my home all the way into the booking room of the Bentonville Sheriff's office booking area. How did I do this? That doesn't matter, what matters is your rights you no longer have with bad cops running a muck!

Part#2:November 22, 2010-Part#2 of the video of Bentonville sheriff officer refusing to take no for an answer. As you can see when I enter this bad cop’s paddy wagon, he continues to want to talk even after a false arrest is made. Doesn’t matter how many times I tell this eleven year veteran that I have nothing to say. He does show concern of a big fat guy in a small space with hand cuff’s so tight that my hands were numb for sometime. But, at sixty-four years of age. It is not right for a bad cop wanting information when I told him I had none. But, continue to view the video’s and let me know what you think.


Part#3;November 22, 2010-Part#3 Ok, this is the final part as wanted to be sure that I could not have any problems. Well no more than I have already! The comments have been for as well against me. But, I have to admit that I was not polite and I could give a very good excuse. I will just say that I have been keeping track all over the USA and the more you read of dirty cops then you say as well as do things you should not. Such as showing a bad attitude to maybe a good cop. Wait! I don't believe anyone should have to continue to speak after you already gave them the reply as well as two people before had already stated the subject this policeman wanted was not there. Many complaints as to maybe went out back window or door. Sorry! as I said one of the outside people had already spoke to this officer and told him who he was looking for was not here. I believe in up holding my liberties and Constitutional rights. If I don't have the right to tell people I have nothing more to say or I ask them to depart my property then how can you say you’re a free person? Sure I agree he showed concern for my comfort on the way to the jail. But, I was more concerned with why I don’t have the liberty not to talk or give more information that had nothing to do with the suspect he was seeking. I am accused of being nasty. Wait here. He called me a jackass. I never called him a thing until he was in his car. I did not be little him in front of people as he did me. Maybe I am wrong! But, if I am sitting on a lawn chair on my property and enjoying my peace and quiet and someone comes upon me and states hey I want this I also want to be addressed as so and so etc. Then I am going to say drop dead and get off my property. No matter who it is. This is a bad cop unless I am shown why I was illegally arrested for not answering questions that I had already stated with Subject is no longer there. Even if I knew where he lived I am not going to disclose that information as I know the facts of the case. Since when do you have to tell or fink or finger someone because someone else wants to talk to them. I know I don’t tell anyone my business unless I want them to know. I never ask anyone to address me in any matter as this crooked cop did. It’s none of my business why people move and I could care less. Same as it’s no one’s business what I do daily! I will agree I was RUDE! Only after I knew he knew the subject was not here. I answered the questions that he wanted and he wanted more than I could even give without of course lying should I have been beaten for any answer as many of you say. Of course I would have come up with a reply of some type, but I have no idea where he went. Also, he is my grandson’s friend and I know he isn’t living with my grandson or his family. But, why must I get other people involved when I know what they want is the subject. I answered and the video states this. My taking of video was out of my hands after all I was handcuffed. Yes, I could have told him he was being video taped, then he would not have shown his true colors. Think about it! I was finger printed, photo taken as well as passed around the world as I am now doing with this bad cop. So, it’s fine for them to get all the information they wish on me and I am not to get none on them? Get real folks this is why so many people now do what I do. We want honest cops not those that want to be able to order you as to call me Officer so an so. Now say it with me. Or go to jail and I’ll teach you. Look at the videos again folks as it is complete now. Complaints as well as advise accepted: lewis1946@cox.net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEpp31DmB8 First meeting on my property.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuNWfVbcDAc Ride in paddy wagon to keystone station


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_kYkKJ7 ... =geosearch Booking area jail-end of trip.