|
In very brief: Under the "government speech"
doctrine, a state may require its teachers, in their official
capacities (i.e., while teaching), to hue to the state's prescribed
curriculum. This is the majority view in the courts of appeals -- that
there is no Free Speech Clause right of indivdual teachers to teach what they
wish in the classroom -- although there is some recent caselaw going the other
way (principally in the Sixth Circuit, IIRC).
Of course, the state is not entirely free to teach
whatever it wishes -- the Establishment Clause imposes some constraints.
And, from all that appears (see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/weekinreview/05murp.html), the
interesting question in this case is an Establishment question, not a free
speech question -- namely, not whether the school may restrict Mr. Williams'
preferred mode of teaching, but whether it must.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:08
PM
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
Mr. Henderson-
I disagree with your characterization of
the situation. The title of the press release was "Declaration of Independence
Banned from Classroom". But that isn't the reality. The reality is that a
series of fliers that included excerpts from the Declaration of
Independence were not allowed by the principal. Now, whether that decision is
reasonable or not depends on the exact content of those fliers, what was
intended by them, and several other factors. But it is still an exaggeration
or oversimplification, at best, to portray that as banning the Declaration of
Independence from the classroom. Do you think if he had just hung a copy of
the Declaration on the wall, it would have been taken down? Highly unlikely.
In order for it to be "banned from the classroom", that would need to be the
case. I think this is precisely the kind of "grotesque overgeneralization and
hyperbole" that you admit is the case with the claim that prayer has been
banned in school.
But really that is neither here nor there. I did not
intend for that to be the focus of the discussion. I was hoping, and still
hope, for some discussion of the legal issues surrounding the case. Do
teachers have a right to free speech while acting as teachers? Not an absolute
one, I'm sure we would all agree, so what are the limitations on it? If those
limitations are determined by the curriculum standards they are required to
teach to, who has the authority to determine when supplemental material is
germane to the teaching requirements, the teacher or the administration? If
the two disagree, does that mean there was a rights violation that should be
handled in court or should some other body handle such disputes? These are all
interesting questions and they only scratch the surface. Any thoughts on
those?
Ed Brayton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The facts in the Steven Williams case, concededly relevant to the
analysis to be applied and the likely outcome of that analysis, do not
support the charge that the Alliance Defense Fund has made any
misrepresentation of the facts whatever.
It appears that a single (meaning only one, not a marriage
reference) complained about a handout given to the students as an
exemplar: a two-sided piece with George Washington's
proclamation of a day of prayer on one side and George
Bush's similar proclamation from this past May on the
other.
The upshot of the handling of the
parental complaint was an instruction from the principal: "I
must review every one of your lesson plans and supplemental handouts."
Thereafter, handouts containing references to God were rejected (these
documents are identified in the complaint linked in the original email of
this thread). None of the handouts were addressed to religious
matters except where the handout was a needed tool for meeting the
instructional content standards related to religious aspects of American
history. Among the prohibited fliers was the flier with exerpts from
the Declaration of Independence.
I also note from the press releases of ADF related to this
matter that their organization has not engaged in the sort of grotesque
overgeneralization and hyperbole of the "prayer being banned in school"
ilk. Instead, the lawsuit papers and the releases are perfectly plain
and to the point that the ban was with respect to Mr. Williams' classrooms
and classes.
Now, given that state of affairs, perhaps the discussion of
constitutional principles can proceed free from the rancor that might
otherwise accompany a discussion of such a case where accusations of
misrepresentation are part of the lead off.
By way of disclosure, I do not work for ADF, although I have
enjoyed a warm and mutual friendship with several of their attorneys for so
long a time that it predates that organization's existence.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
not specifically "on religious matters"
except those specifically needed to teach the content standards dealing with
religious matters, i.e. the motivations for founding the colonies, the
ideas behind the Bill of Rights, the impact of the Great Awakening,
etc. So, the Declaration HAS been banned from Stephen's
classroom, but not from the entire school district. We never said it
was. I've made that very clear. The principal is rejecting
HIS handouts because he is a Christian, on the logic that a Christian who
hands out a document with the words "God" or "Supreme Judge of the Universe"
in it must be attempting to proselytize.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note
that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
|
