• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teacher loses First Amendment rights

rabbitcaebannog said:
I agree, she has a right to opine, but what she is doing is not writing an opinion piece. She is urging anyone that suspects someone is illegal to report it to state/federal authorities.
Click to expand...

In other words: If you see something, say something, but only after you hire an attorney. Anyone is free to report anything to the authorities as long as it's not verifiably false information. I can call the cops and say, "I saw two people milling around the Wal-mart parking lot and something just didn't look right." If what you're asserting is the case, then sanctioning such a person would be just plain wrong. The onus is on the authorities whether to act on information.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Public teachers do NOT have a right to not educate children that may in fact be illegal because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Children are also protected from being harassed by a place that receives public federal funds ie. public schools under Title VI. A public teacher would most likely be found guilty of such crimes if prosecuted. She should transfer to a non public schools if she wants to continue such actions.
Click to expand...

As long as parents get private school vouchers or get their property tax refunded, I'm with ya' on that one. Some of us don't want to be part of a school system that turns out non-functional snowflakes.
 
SDET said:
In other words: If you see something, say something, but only after you hire an attorney. Anyone is free to report anything to the authorities as long as it's not verifiably false information. I can call the cops and say, "I saw two people milling around the Wal-mart parking lot and something just didn't look right." If what you're asserting is the case, then sanctioning such a person would be just plain wrong. The onus is on the authorities whether to act on information.
Click to expand...

If you read my posts, it is crystal clear that my position is she did this out of spite rather than good will and the consequences came back to bite her in the arse. You have a right to stir up trouble, but not a right to ignore the trouble you stir up.
 
SDET said:
As long as parents get private school vouchers or get their property tax refunded, I'm with ya' on that one. Some of us don't want to be part of a school system that turns out non-functional snowflakes.
Click to expand...

Your post speaks volumes.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Teachers aren't allowed to use their classrooms as a podium for preaching political or religious viewpoints, and rightly so. Anyway, they aren't supposed to do so, even though no doubt some do get away with it.

But this is not a case of using the classroom, but of a post made on social media.

This is wrong. Regardless of whether you or I agree with her or not, the school district is just wrong.

First-Grade Teacher Suspended Over 'Illegal Aliens' Post: School District


We've already started chipping away at the fourth and fifth amendments. Now, it appears that the first is also under attack. Will the citizenry stand up, or will we just ignore the situation until none of us have any rights left?
Click to expand...


I am not sure how I feel about this one. What you publicly say on social media can cost you your job. This is nothing new, and its not really a first amendment issue either being that the government doesn't restrict what you say or express on social media. What would be the difference in her doing this and making a bunch of posts using the N word? Or sharing posts of her engaging in sexual acts? In those cases it would still be her right to do so as freedom of expression, but it doesn't mean she would keep her job regardless of her employer.

In this case, she is a teacher in a school where 60% of the students are Hispanic. It seems like a pretty ****ty thing for a first grade teacher to do when over half her students are Hispanic. Whether she keeps her job or not is up to the district and courts.
 
Last edited:
rabbitcaebannog said:
I would also like to add along with those statics, that the teacher wrote that Facebook post at the time many of the students in the school were kept out to celebrate "A Day without Immigrants". Save your breath because I don't doubt you will come back with "Just because they are celebrating a Day without Immigrants does not mean they are immigrants." Yep, you got me! Because I don't have factual proof that a single one of those parents and/or students involved in the march were immigrants even though I can deduce some may have been. But that is not what this is about for you. It is more about playing lawyer which you cannot do on a debate board because we don't have legal documents, witnesses, her side of the story, his side of the story etc.....

Next, in a few of my PAST posts,I did say that the school may have a likelihood of having a student and/or students that are illegal, may know an illegal person, friend and/or family member. I then went on to state this could put undue stress on these students. None of that is being racist. It is an example how it can negatively impact their daily school routines and rituals including being able to focus and learn.

This is not a legal case being battled in a court, but a thread weighing in on if the school took away her freedom of speech. I gave incidences where that may not have been the case. No one knows, including you- ALL the facts. So, no one can really win this as a court case. Again, this is not a court case and holds very few facts.

Basically, I gave incidences and examples of where she may NOT have lost her freedom of speech, and may even receive discipline for her actions---mostly for what her action caused in the aftermath of her post. NO one here may really ever know what happened, but at the same time there are questions looming. The reality is this could very well go either way. The OP was not looking for a guilty or not guilty ruling from a judge. He was looking for opinions if this could be an open or shut case on free speech rights. The answer is no.

Twice you were dishonest in what I said on my posts. I understand people make mistakes and really didn't take much offensive, but you continue to double down. It's really unfortunate because the truth is I did enjoy our exchanges up to the point where you decided to name call.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are being dishonest. I don't mind debating different viewpoints, but to make things up really is beyond the pale. The discussion was about immigrants and why I thought the school was likely to hold immigrants. This all came about when I pointed out that this is not a primarily white school, and stated her actions won't be easily swept under the rug. This meaning there will be some kind of repercussion if ignored. You then questioned why I would even deduce there may be immigrants in that school. I first provided evidence that it was a predominately Hispanic school and backed up further evidence there may be immigrants when you factor in that there is a large population of ELL students. That more than likely means that many are newer generation immigrants btw not that they are illegal nor did I ever state such nonsense.
Click to expand...

What bull! Your point was to show "illegal" immigrants were in the school, in her class, or likely to be the case. That was your point because your argument relied on the fact they were "illegal," in conjunction with teacher's statement, resulting in fear of deportation by the students. You evidence for the "illegal" immigrant being in the school/class was A.) Large Hispanic population not very B.) proficient in English.

That more than likely means that many are newer generation immigrants btw not that they are illegal nor did I ever state such nonsense
Click to expand...

You've just destroyed your already illogical "fear argument" with the above remark. Immigrants are either legal or illegal. If you're not attempting to show illegals are in the school, and her classroom, then your argument her statement creates an atmosphere of fear of deportation in students is baseless! Showing the existence of immigrants, whose legal status is left unaddressed, doesn't support your argument of the teacher's comments creates fear of deportation in students.

So, if the demographic evidence wasn't invoked to show illegals in the school and/or her class, then you, once again, cited to evidence, the demographics, apparently not having any purpose or use in supporting your already problematic argument:

You began with an already silly argument and evolved into a sillier argument, although it didn't seem possible you could make a worse argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
t is more about playing lawyer which you cannot do on a debate board because we don't have legal documents, witnesses, her side of the story, his side of the story etc.....

Next, in a few of my PAST posts,I did say that the school may have a likelihood of having a student and/or students that are illegal, may know an illegal person, friend and/or family member. I then went on to state this could put undue stress on these students. None of that is being racist. It is an example how it can negatively impact their daily school routines and rituals including being able to focus and learn.

This is not a legal case being battled in a court, but a thread weighing in on if the school took away her freedom of speech. I gave incidences where that may not have been the case. No one knows, including you- ALL the facts. So, no one can really win this as a court case. Again, this is not a court case and holds very few facts.

Basically, I gave incidences and examples of where she may NOT have lost her freedom of speech, and may even receive discipline for her actions---mostly for what her action caused in the aftermath of her post. NO one here may really ever know what happened, but at the same time there are questions looming. The reality is this could very well go either way.

Twice you were dishonest in what I said on my posts. I understand people make mistakes and really didn't take much offensive, but you continue to double down. It's really unfortunate because the truth is I did enjoy our exchanges up to the point where you decided to name call.
Click to expand...

This is about making a lucid, sound, logical, and rational argument, which isn't exclusively reserved to lawyers and the courtroom. So, you can dispense with this non-sense diatribe the forum isn't a courtroom and the ridiculous remarks about lawyering. The facts this isn't a courtroom, and I'm a lawyer, is no excuse to make bad arguments, which you've done repeatedly.
One doesn't have to be a lawyer to make the critiques I've made to your argument. Anyone with critical thinking skills, undergraduate philosophy students, would make identical or similar objections.

This is about assumptions an argument made, inferences, deductive reasoning, and logical fallacies, all of which are applicable and appropriate outside a courtroom and practices by multitudes of non-lawyers.

Twice you were dishonest in what I said on my posts. I understand people make mistakes and really didn't take much offensive, but you continue to double down. It's really unfortunate because the truth is I did enjoy our exchanges up to the point where you decided to name call
Click to expand...

You cited those demographics to show illegals are in the school/teacher's class, or it's likely the case. That was your point being made and it's evident in your posts.

If you now want to say you weren't citing those demographics to show illegals are or likely are in the school/teacher's class, then fine but the result is you interjected with demographics which apparently serve NO purpose to your argument or the dialogue.

The OP was not looking for a guilty or not guilty ruling from a judge. He was looking for opinions if this could be an open or shut case on free speech rights. The answer is no.
Click to expand...

You gave an opinion the teacher's speech crossed the line and sought to justify a suspension and/or termination. My interaction with guy argument was to show how and why your reasoning and evidence, at this point, doesn't support your conclusion. You can dispense with this silly suggestion you can make bad arguments, which you have, because this isn't a courtroom. What I've said and done isn't contingent upon or reserved to the courtroom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am not sure how I feel about this one. What you publicly say on social media can cost you your job. This is nothing new, and its not really a first amendment issue either being that the government doesn't restrict what you say or express on social media. What would be the difference in her doing this and making a bunch of posts using the N word? Or sharing posts of her engaging in sexual acts? In those cases it would still be her right to do so as freedom of expression, but it doesn't mean she would keep her job regardless of her employer.

In this case, she is a teacher in a school where 60% of the students are Hispanic. It seems like a pretty ****ty thing for a first grade teacher to do when over half her students are Hispanic. Whether she keeps her job or not is up to the district and courts.
Click to expand...
You do make a good point. If what she said or posted on social media can impact her job, then the employer should be able to sanction her for it.

If a significant number of the students are, indeed, illegal, then her posts could impact her job. The root of the problem is the school not having a choice to have or not have students who aren't supposed to be in the country attending the school.

Perhaps a significant percentage of those Hispanic students are illegal, and perhaps not.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You do make a good point. If what she said or posted on social media can impact her job, then the employer should be able to sanction her for it.

If a significant number of the students are, indeed, illegal, then her posts could impact her job. The root of the problem is the school not having a choice to have or not have students who aren't supposed to be in the country attending the school.

Perhaps a significant percentage of those Hispanic students are illegal, and perhaps not.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't think she should be fired over it, but it does seem like poor judgement on her part. I wonder if the school has a official social media policy for its faculty?
 
She could have saved herself a lot of aggravation by just reporting people she suspected were here illegally. Then those poor children wouldn't be terrorized by these offensive remarks on her facebook page.

Then again, she could just be advocating for the DHS program here: https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am not sure how I feel about this one. What you publicly say on social media can cost you your job. This is nothing new, and its not really a first amendment issue either being that the government doesn't restrict what you say or express on social media. What would be the difference in her doing this and making a bunch of posts using the N word? Or sharing posts of her engaging in sexual acts? In those cases it would still be her right to do so as freedom of expression, but it doesn't mean she would keep her job regardless of her employer.
.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, this is a 1st Amendment Free Speech issue. The government, even as employer, cannot infringe upon free speech of employees by threatening termination or discipline on the basis of the speech. The termination and/or discipline must based on some non-speech fact as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
If you read my posts, it is crystal clear that my position is she did this out of spite rather than good will and the consequences came back to bite her in the arse. You have a right to stir up trouble, but not a right to ignore the trouble you stir up.
Click to expand...

I think I understand now: It's the snitches wind up in ditches mentality!
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yeah I don't think she should be fired over it, but it does seem like poor judgement on her part. I wonder if the school has a official social media policy for its faculty?
Click to expand...
I believe most schools by now have social media policies.

Many teachers are also aware that there are some risks for expressing certain views in public. The ACLU of WA has a primer for teachers: https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/free-speech-rights-public-school-teachers-washington-state
 
NotreDame said:
To the contrary, this is a 1st Amendment Free Speech issue. The government, even as employer, cannot infringe upon free speech of employees by threatening termination or discipline on the basis of the speech.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Government employees do not have carte blanche to say whatever they want, whenever they want, with no fear of being fired. It is plausible (though not certain) that the teacher's suspension in this case is valid, if her comments were disruptive to the school environment or her ability to perform her job.

As a reminder: For private employers, political speech outside the workplace is protected in most states, but not others.

From a practical perspective, ultimately I don't think government employees have significantly expanded protections for their speech -- nor am I sure that they should.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You do make a good point. If what she said or posted on social media can impact her job, then the employer should be able to sanction her for it.

If a significant number of the students are, indeed, illegal, then her posts could impact her job. The root of the problem is the school not having a choice to have or not have students who aren't supposed to be in the country attending the school.

Perhaps a significant percentage of those Hispanic students are illegal, and perhaps not.
Click to expand...

You do realize that probably most of the Hispanic students in the school ARE NOT illegal but are US citizens.. born here. They however, probably have friends or relatives.. perhaps a parent that is Illegal..

So maybe even if they aren't illegal.. now they worry that the teacher will treat them different because she THINKS that they are illegal. Maybe they now feel they have to be careful around this teacher because having your Tio (uncle) picking you up from school might make her suspicious and call police on him. Or maybe.. since they are elementary school kids.. they really don't know the legal status of themselves and their parents.. and now they are fearful of a teacher that might call the cops on their parents or family.

The question is whether the public school is the proper place for law enforcement activities.. and whether school teachers should see themselves as extension of law enforcement.. or whether they should see themselves as educators of elementary school children.
 
NotreDame said:
To the contrary, this is a 1st Amendment Free Speech issue. The government, even as employer, cannot infringe upon free speech of employees by threatening termination or discipline on the basis of the speech. The termination and/or discipline must based on some non-speech fact as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't know if its quite as cut and dry as you think. For example, if a teacher was publicly participating in neo-Nazi rallies, I doubt you would find a court that would rule against the school if they fired the teacher. Just because you have a right to say what you want, does not mean you have a right to keep your job.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't know if its quite as cut and dry as you think. For example, if a teacher was publicly participating in neo-Nazi rallies, I doubt you would find a court that would rule against the school if they fired the teacher. Just because you have a right to say what you want, does not mean you have a right to keep your job.
Click to expand...

What is "cut and dry" is the fact public school teachers do have 1st Amendment free speech rights, and they cannot be terminated, disciplined, and/or suspended on the basis of the constitutionally protected speech. More is needed to result in discipline, suspension and or termination of a public school teacher because of the teacher's message.

For example, if a teacher was publicly participating in neo-Nazi rallies, I doubt you would find a court that would rule against the school if they fired the teacher.
Click to expand...

I am quite certain no court, following the law, would find the school's termination lawful if the termination was based on nothing more than "participating in neo-Nazi rallies."

Just because you have a right to say what you want, does not mean you have a right to keep your job
Click to expand...

A public employee has a "right" not to be terminated only on the basis of their constitutionally protected speech.
 
visbek said:
incorrect. Government employees do not have carte blanche to say whatever they want, whenever they want, with no fear of being fired. It is plausible (though not certain) that the teacher's suspension in this case is valid, if her comments were disruptive to the school environment or her ability to perform her job.

As a reminder: For private employers, political speech outside the workplace is protected in most states, but not others.

From a practical perspective, ultimately i don't think government employees have significantly expanded protections for their speech -- nor am i sure that they should.
Click to expand...

Taking my remark out of context is a rather illogical form of argumentation. Here is my entire commentary:

To the contrary, this is a 1st Amendment Free Speech issue. The government, even as employer, cannot infringe upon free speech of employees by threatening termination or discipline on the basis of the speech. The termination and/or discipline must based on some non-speech fact as well.
Click to expand...

Those remarks, taken together, are correct. You chose to not include the last sentence.

Government employees do not have carte blanche to say whatever they want
Click to expand...

Irrelevant as I did not say otherwise.

whenever they want, with no fear of being fired.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant as I did not say otherwise.

It is plausible (though not certain) that the teacher's suspension in this case is valid, if her comments were disruptive to the school environment or her ability to perform her job.
Click to expand...

This is correct but I have made this point, and certainly never denied the veracity of this remark, in post after post in this thread.

So, thanks for, well, two irrelevant remarks and a point I never disagreed with but have made previously.

ultimately i don't think government employees have significantly expanded protections for their speech -- nor am i sure that they should
Click to expand...

They should and they do in those states where no laws exist protecting private employees speech outside the work place. Whether public employees have "significantly expanded protections for their speech" in relation to those laws protecting private employee speech will be contingent upon the exact protections offered to private employees under the law of the state.
 
Last edited:
AliHajiSheik said:
She could have saved herself a lot of aggravation by just reporting people she suspected were here illegally. Then those poor children wouldn't be terrorized by these offensive remarks on her facebook page.

Then again, she could just be advocating for the DHS program here: https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something
Click to expand...

Her real mistake was forgetting to be in CYA mode for even a minute. It's pretty sad when CYA mode is even necessary outside the workplace. The teacher could have communicated quotes from public officials that have the same message which leaves the door open to say "blame the public official, I'm just passing on government information".
 
NotreDame said:
What is "cut and dry" is the fact public school teachers do have 1st Amendment free speech rights, and they cannot be terminated, disciplined, and/or suspended on the basis of the constitutionally protected speech. More is needed to result in discipline, suspension and or termination of a public school teacher because of the teacher's message.



I am quite certain no court, following the law, would find the school's termination lawful if the termination was based on nothing more than "participating in neo-Nazi rallies."



A public employee has a "right" not to be terminated only on the basis of their constitutionally protected speech.
Click to expand...

You should look up the case law on this one. The courts have generally ruled that the government as employer must have more authority over government employee speech than the government as sovereign has over citizen speech.

Government retaliation against government employee speech violates the First Amendment if:

1. the speech is on a matter of public concern, and

2. the speech is not said by the employee as part of the employee’s job duties, Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and

3. the damage caused by the speech to the efficiency of the government agency’s operation does not outweigh the value of the speech to the employee and the public (the so-called Pickering balance). Connick v. Myers (1983) (p. 567).

Thus, if the speech is on a matter of private concern, or the speech is said as part of the employee’s duties, the government can do what it pleases. Likewise, if the government prevails on the Pickering balance, it can do what it pleases.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mployee-speech-rights/?utm_term=.cd0010c1c9c8

The fact remains though that if the school has a social media policy for its faculty, and she violated that policy, then she could be fired on that basis alone.
 
Last edited:
NotreDame said:
Taking my remark out of context is a rather illogical form of argumentation. Here is my entire commentary....
Click to expand...
I didn't miss any context at all. That additional sentence doesn't matter, because as best I can tell, it's not even remotely correct.

As best I can determine, the phrase "non-speech fact" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever in American jurisprudence.

Pickering v Board set up two tests for public employees to qualify for 1st Amendment protection:

1) The speech must address a matter of public concern

2) The employee must demonstrate that their 1st Amendment interests outweigh the employer's efficiency interests -- e.g. it cannot impede discipline or harmony among co-workers; and it doesn't damage close work relationships where trust and confidence are critical; it can't interfere with daily operations.

3) After Garcetti, public speech pursuant to the employee's work duties is generally not protected.

In this particular case, the teacher passes the 1st and 3rd points, and plausibly (but not certainly) fails the 2nd. If students, parents or teachers had a reasonable expectation of being reported to ICE by this teacher, that would very likely fail the 2nd point above.

If you meant "non-speech act," then you are still incorrect. Teachers can be fired for a broad range of public statements, even if there is no other act associated with the speech. E.g. a teacher who publicly supports reducing the age of consent to 12 is almost certainly going to get fired, even if the teacher has never acted at any time on that belief. The speech alone is sufficient to be classified as disruptive.


Irrelevant as I did not say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Yes, you did. You said that all speech is protected (which is not correct), and that only "non-speech facts" (or possibly "acts" if it was a typo) could be grounds for disciplinary action.


They should and they do in those states where no laws exist protecting private employees speech outside the work place. Whether public employees have "significantly expanded protections for their speech" in relation to those laws protecting private employee speech will be contingent upon the exact protections offered to private employees under the law of the state.
Click to expand...
And again, I see no particular reason why merely being an employee of the state automatically grants an individual greater 1st Amendment protections. Or, as I put it earlier in the thread: I see little benefit to providing weaker 1st Amendment protections to private employees.

Employees should be treated like employees, even if they work for the state. If we want to put in greater protections for employees -- such as protecting potentially controversial speech -- then that ought to apply to all employees, not just the ones who work for the state.
 
Visbek said:
And again, I see no particular reason why merely being an employee of the state automatically grants an individual greater 1st Amendment protections. Or, as I put it earlier in the thread: I see little benefit to providing weaker 1st Amendment protections to private employees.

Employees should be treated like employees, even if they work for the state. If we want to put in greater protections for employees -- such as protecting potentially controversial speech -- then that ought to apply to all employees, not just the ones who work for the state.
Click to expand...

You continue to ignore a crucial difference completely. The First Amendment does not guarantee the freedom of speech of any employee against his private employer at all. But it certainly does guarantee that freedom against [/I]government[/I] employers. You might want to research the Supreme Court's line of cases on state action, which is needed for the Fourteenth Amendment (and the parts of the Bill of Rights it incorporates) to apply. Government employers--public school districts are one example--have to take care that they do not unduly restrict the constitutionally guaranteed rights of their employees, because what those employers do regarding those employees constitutes state action.
 
matchlight said:
You continue to ignore a crucial difference completely. The First Amendment does not guarantee the freedom of speech of any employee against his private employer at all. But it certainly does guarantee that freedom against [/I]government[/I] employers. You might want to research the Supreme Court's line of cases on state action, which is needed for the Fourteenth Amendment (and the parts of the Bill of Rights it incorporates) to apply. Government employers--public school districts are one example--have to take care that they do not unduly restrict the constitutionally guaranteed rights of their employees, because what those employers do regarding those employees constitutes state action.
Click to expand...

nice try.. but this has been discussed already and addressed. The first amendment does NOT guarantee cart blanch immunity for all speech by public employees.
 
faithful_servant said:
Would you be OK if the teacher turned in kids who were selling crack in the school?? By your standard, that would be harassment, discrimination and a violation of their rights.
Click to expand...

Do you see a difference between selling a poisonous substance on the one hand, and not being in possession of government identification papers on the other?
 
matchlight said:
You continue to ignore a crucial difference completely. The First Amendment does not guarantee the freedom of speech of any employee against his private employer at all. But it certainly does guarantee that freedom against [/I]government[/I] employers.
Click to expand...
I am not ignoring it at all. I'm well aware that the 1st Amendment does not protect private sector employees. My point is that I don't see why it should give public employees any additional protections.

Certainly from an ethical or political standpoint, it makes no sense to do so, unless it is somehow directly job-related. If a private citizen can be held accountable for their speech by an employer, a public one should as well. The government is not using hiring and firing as a tool to restrict the speech of citizens, thus I have no problems with the withdrawal of employment for disruptive employees.

From a practical perspective, it seems like the protections for public employees are fairly thin as well. Pickering and Garcetti establish broad exemptions from protection.

Thus, what I'd rather see is all citizens getting the same protections from their employers, preferably via statutes. (There is certainly no reason whatsoever why the Constitution is the only mechanism we should use to protect rights.) All employees should be protected from disciplinary actions for certain types of speech, such as advocating for a political candidate. I don't see why that should be reserved solely for public employees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom