Skip to main content

Teacher Views in the Classroom


Teachers hold a lot of power in the classroom as leaders for their students and as the ones who determine students’ overall grades, so what they say in the classroom or in direct communication with their students is very important. A section of chapter 12 in “Freedom of Speech in the United States” goes over two categories of Freedom of Speech rights for teachers: academic expression and extramural expression (Tedford & Herbeck, 339). According to Tedford and Herbeck, academic expression, or academic freedom, is the protection of teachers to discuss “controversial subjects, questions accepted beliefs, and propose creative solutions to social problems in doing their jobs” (340). My first concern with this is that there is no distinction listed of whether teachers are protected when sharing their stances on these types of discussions. My second concern is that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on teachers’ First Amendment rights in the classroom (Tedford & Herbeck, 341), so there seems to be no true distinction of what teachers can and cannot discuss with students.

I think teachers’ First Amendment rights to speech and expression in the classroom should be limited and defined more thoroughly in relation to personal views or beliefs in the constitution because of their power to influence students as leaders and as determiners of student grades. I am not saying that teachers should not have controversial topics in their courses, but that the inclusion of their personal views or beliefs should not be protected under the Freedom of Speech. Creating critical and thoughtful discussion on controversial topics is a good way for students to learn about the issues our world faces, but not when the students must worry if their beliefs are going to affect their grade in the class or image to the teacher.

An article by Maria Elena Baca in the Star Tribune discusses sharing teacher views in the classroom, including the view of a Chanhassen high school teacher. She says, “It’s a delicate balancing act for teachers: how to encourage lively discussions with a captive, impressionable audience without pushing their own personal views on the students” (Baca). From the teacher’s view in the article, sharing personal views is sometimes helpful, but other times is not a good idea, such as very controversial topics like abortion (Baca). He said a teacher shouldn’t tell a student “what to think, but give them more to think about” (Baca). The author and this teacher sound fuzzy about the distinction of teachers’ how much speech and influence their personal views have in the classroom. Therefore, teacher’s right in the classroom under the Freedom of Speech needs to be better defined. Also, if giving students something to think about involves them thinking about the teacher’s opinion or belief on a controversial topic, the student could be influenced into conforming to the teachers’ belief because of their power. Overall, I believe teacher’s personal views should be left outside of the classroom, not to be shared with their students.


Sources:

Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed. N.p.: STRATA, 2017. Print.

Baca, Maria Elena. “Is Classroom off-Limits to Teacher Views?” StarTribune, Star Tribune, 25 Dec. 2011, www.startribune.com/is-classroom-off-limits-to-teacher-views/136212618/.

Comments

  1. In your post, you state that “…teachers’ First Amendment rights to speech and expression in the classroom should be limited and defined more thoroughly in relation to personal views or beliefs…” My first reaction to this line of thought was concern, for some of my favorite experiences in the classroom are a result of my teachers sharing some of their beliefs and anecdotes about their life experiences. I wouldn’t have been able to experience these learning moments if teachers couldn’t express themselves in the classroom. However, as I continued to read I found that the reasons you put worth to support this policy are quite valid. One of the biggest points you mention is that a clash of beliefs between student and teacher could negatively impact the student’s grade. As a student who always tries to aim for the “A,” I can see why one would be worried that disagreeing with a teacher’s point of view might be detrimental to their grade. Furthermore, it is mentioned that students are also impressionable individuals. Since the purpose of education is foster new ideas, schools should take steps to prevent those in a position of authority from pushing their agenda on those they instruct. Based upon these reasons put forth in your post, I concur that the personal beliefs and views of teachers should not be granted the full immunity of protected speech while in the classroom.

    Although I agree that personal expression of teachers while in the classroom should not be fully protected speech, I also believe that an outright ban against a teacher’s ability to express their personal beliefs to their students shouldn’t be implemented either. As mentioned in the StarTribune article, this is a policy being considered by the Anoka-Hennepin school board in December of 2011 (Baca). The intention behind the proposed policy is genuine, but I feel that this is an instance where the use of prior restraint is overbroad. Rather than restrict the freedom of expression for all teachers, schools should treat the situation case by case. This way the great teachers can continue to educate their students through thoughtful discussion while only those who overstep these bounds are punished. Therefore, I believe the best course of action is to include a clause in teacher contracts that informs them that they are free to voice their opinions and views so long as: doing so will expand the discussion, they make it clear to their students that they are encouraged to have differing views, and they know that if they cross the line, the law won’t protect them.

    Through these conditions, I believe that school boards can promote learning through open discussion while also ensuring that students aren’t coerced into adopting a certain viewpoint. This policy would also allow teachers to fully complete their duty as an educator. In the words of Eden Prairie High School teacher Steve Cwodzinski, “I think that part of my job is to make people more accepting and understanding of the global world we live in,” (Baca). As a student, I also believe that part of a teacher’s job is to help shape their students into active members of society who can engage in discussion, debate, and decision-making. For these reasons, I support teachers who wish to further a discussion by expressing their own views, even though I also recognize that these teachers can’t necessarily have the full range of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment while in the classroom.

    Sources:

    Baca, Maria Elena. “Is classroom off-limits to teacher views?” StarTribune, 25 Dec. 2011. http://www.startribune.com/is-classroom-off-limits-to-teacher-views/136212618/ Accessed 15 Nov. 2017.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...