I read the headline; Teacher’s Free Speech Case Denied and then perused on.  After my probe, I can offer no authentic assessment.  I, as do we all, only have my impressions, biased as they may be. 
As I read the title of this article, I was appalled.  Might First amendment Rights be threatened beyond what I imagined.  I recognize much has changed since September 11, 2001.  As the Twin Towers fell so did our right to Privacy.  The Patriot Act has defined each of us as potential or possible terrorist.  Telephones are legally tapped without warrants and people are herded through airports, scanned as they go. 

In the name of Protection, the President has invoked Executive Privilege and Americans have lost theirs.  We remove shoes and stroll barefoot through metal detectors.  Liquids are confiscated, and do not dare say the word bomb, be it in an airport, a library, or a school.  Even mention of the war might cause chaos.

However, as I read on, my mind was filled with memories.  Teachers, Preachers, Accountants, and Property Assessors, all demonstrate questionable performance in their chosen profession.  Managers and subordinates alike can be cruel, calculating, conniving, and competent.  An individual worker can be wondrous as a person and less than profound in their career.

Perchance, the Monroe County, Indiana School District had numerous concerns in regards to Deborah A. Mayer and her performance.  Possibly, her discussion of the Iraq War did not prompt her dismissal.  There seems to be much to consider.  The Supreme Court chose not to hear the case; therefore, we might never know what the District, the parents, the Principal and all others involved might have said or done. 

Actually, even when information is shared, we must be sensitive to interpretations.  Our own history shades our truth.  Nevertheless, Teacher’s Free Speech Case Denied.

For details, please see the submission below.  The details are scant.  Still, the subject stimulates much thought and perchance discussion.

Teacher’s Free Speech Case Denied
By Mark Walsh
October 5, 2007

The U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to hear the appeal of a former Indiana teacher who alleged that she lost her job because she had discussed the Iraq war in her classroom.

The appeal was one of hundreds turned down by the justices on Oct. 1, the first day of their new term.

The case was notable because it led to a fairly broad ruling by a federal appeals court that teachers have virtually no First Amendment protection for statements made in the classroom, even on a topic of such public importance as the war.

Deborah A. Mayer was a first-year teacher in the 11,000-student Monroe County, Ind., school district in January 2003 when she used an edition of TIME for Kids in a current-events discussion about the then-impending war.

According to court papers, the magazine reported on a peace march in Washington to protest the prospect of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.  Ms. Mayer was asked by a student in her multiage classroom of 3rd through 6th graders if she would ever participate in such a peace demonstration.  She told them that when she had driven by recent peace marches in Bloomington, Ind., related to the Iraq situation, she had honked her horn in response to a sign that said, “Honk for Peace.”

“And then I went on to say that I thought it was important for people to seek out peaceful solutions to problems before going to war, and that we train kids to be mediators on the playground so that they can seek out peaceful solutions to their own problems,” Ms. Mayer said in a deposition in the case.

I understand and have no problems with this posture.  As an educator, I often shared my personal views, each time with a qualifier, “I am extremely biased.  My opinion is my own.”  I invite students to share their beliefs and impressions.  Indeed, some of the best and broadest conversations, instructive experiences were the result of calmly discussions.  Our differences helped pupil and professor to learn and grow. 

I often muse, if I know only what is within the limits of my own mind, I understand nothing at all.  As a mentor, I appreciate  . . .

Some parents complained to the principal about the brief discussion, and the principal barred Ms. Mayer from discussing “peace” in her classroom, according to court papers.  The principal also canceled the school’s traditional “peace month.”

“We absolutely do not, as a school, promote any particular view on foreign policy related to the situation with Iraq,” Principal Victoria Rogers said in a memo to school personnel at the time.  “That is not our business.”

Parents question and that is good.  This can be expected and is as it must be.  Parents have concerns and must express these.  Moms and Dads are the primary instructors.  Nonetheless, I believe to bar talk of peace is far more serious than a violation of Free Speech.  If we as a nation to not  consider and verbally exchange our thoughts than we are ignorant by our own accord.  Do not discuss peace at a time of war, for me, promotes the combat.

Every individual says they long for domestic tranquility; our constitution affirms and avows this commitment; yet, if we act aggressively to quell all possibility of peace then what might we truly advocate.

The school district decided in April 2003 not to renew Ms. Mayer’s contract for the next school year.  The teacher alleged that it was because of her comments on Iraq, and she sued the district on First Amendment and related grounds.

On the surface, this dismissal seems reprehensible, without reason.  Indeed, it appears the Right to Free Speech was denied.  However, as I read on, I realized there was more to consider.  How might the teacher communicated in the classroom.  What might she have said separate from her sentiments as they pertain to war and peace.

A Captive Audience
A U.S. District Court judge in Indianapolis granted summary judgment last year to the school district.  In a Jan. 24 ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago, ruled unanimously for the district as well.

“The First Amendment does not entitle primary and secondary teachers, when conducting the education of captive audiences, to cover topics, or advocate viewpoints, that depart from the curriculum adopted by the school system,” the appeals court said. . . .

While an observer may surmise, students, seated quietly in a classroom, are a “captive audience,” in my experience, this cannot be true.  Even a teacher that commands her class to be still cannot close a mind.  A pupil, fearful of punishment may not orally challenge a teacher; however, in his or her mind, he or she argues when they disagree.

An academic in a room with an instructor open to dialogue, will share aloud each and every thought.  I actually invite and welcome disparate comments.  I think it is best for young minds to understand that my opinion is mine alone and need not be theirs.  Apparently, the Justices acknowledged such a possibility.

The justices had expressed some interest in the case.  When the school district initially declined to file an answer to the teacher’s appeal, the high court requested a response.  The district’s brief may have convinced the justices that the case would not be suitable for deciding the teacher-speech question.

According to the Monroe County district, some parents had complained about Ms. Mayer’s “demeanor, conduct towards students, and professional competency” even before the discussion of Iraq.  During the second semester, the principal had placed Ms. Mayer on an improvement plan, but the teacher’s “job performance progressively deteriorated,” the district said in its court papers.

“Ms. Mayer’s speech was not the motivating factor for the nonrenewal of her teaching contract,” the district said.

The justices declined without comment to hear the teacher’s appeal in Mayer v. Monroe County Community School Corp. (Case No. 06-1657).

Perchance there was much to consider, most of which remains hidden.  The casual comment cannot be made with certainty.  Circumstances are complex, as are the individuals involved.  I suspect there are numerous problems with this case on both sides.

For the District to forego “Peace Month” activities.  To forfeit all discussions of foreign policy, particularly as these relate to global harmony, this is a frightening paradox.  If there were grounds for dismissal separate from the classroom comment, why were these not highlighted consistently so as to leave no question.

I cannot answer any of these concerns.  I know too little.  With thanks to the Courts refusal to hear the case, I, we have access to less information.

I invite you to feel free to share your thoughts.  If you are an educator, might you empathize with the instructor or the implication.  As an employer, what might you surmise.  Parent, please ponder, and share your experience.  May we each contemplate, cogitate, and conclude.  Without sufficient evidence to the contrary, we must accept that our opinions are merely moot.

References . . .