Supreme Court Will Not Decide Whether Teacher May Advocate Viewpoint On Antiwar Demonstration During Classroom Session
The United States Supreme Court has denied
certiorari in a case in which the Seventh Circuit held that the First Amendment
did not entitle a public elementary school teacher to advocate her viewpoint on
an antiwar demonstration during a classroom session on current events. According
to the Seventh Circuit, the teacher's expression of her viewpoint departed from
the curriculum adopted by the school system, which permitted a teacher to teach
about the controversy related to the war in Iraq, drawing out arguments from all
perspectives, as long as the teacher kept her opinions to herself.
The teacher answered a pupil's question about
whether she participated in political demonstrations by saying that, when she
passed a demonstration against the military operations in Iraq and saw a placard
saying "Honk for Peace," she honked her car's horn to show support for the
demonstrators. Some parents complained, and the school's principal responding by
instructing all teachers not to take sides in any political controversy. The
teacher claimed her dismissal stemmed from the incident. The district court
concluded that, because military intervention in Iraq was an issue of public
importance, the teacher had a right to express her views on the subject, but
that the right wais qualified in the workplace by the requirement that the
expression not disrupt the school district's business unduly, thereby applying
the test of Pickering v. Board of Education. After concluding that the
school district's interests predominated, the district court gave judgment for
the defendants.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit noted that, under the
Supreme Court's decision in Garcett v. Ceballos, when public employees
make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not
speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not
insulate their communications from employer discipline. "Children who attend
school because they must ought not be subject to teachers' idiosyncratic
perspectives," the Seventh Circuit reasoned. "Majority rule about what subjects
and viewpoints will be expressed in the classroom has the potential to turn into
indoctrination; elected school boards are tempted to support majority positions
about religious or patriotic subjects especially. But if indoctrination is
likely, the power should be reposed in someone the people can vote out of
office, rather than tenured teachers. At least the board's views can be debated
openly, and the people may choose to elect persons committed to neutrality on
contentious issues." In short, the Seventh Circuit held, the Constitution does
not entitle teachers to present personal views to captive audiences against the
instructions of elected officials.
Mayer v. Monroe County Community School Corp.