Q1
a).
Below is a list of cases that can help
predict a decision in the South Carolina teacher’s case:
i.
Pickering
v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S. Ct.1731.
ii.
Connick
v. Myers, 461 U.S.138, 103 S. Ct. 1684.
iii.
Cockrel v. Shelby County School District
iv.
Garcetti
v. Ceballos,547 U.S.410,126 S. Ct. 1951
v.
Stroman
v. Colleton County School District, 981 F.2d 152.
b).
A body sitting to decide on the South Carolina case may
be persuaded the reasons for the decisions in the cases cited in (a). The
principle of judicial precedent presupposes that courts and tribunals are to
follow earlier decisions where the facts are similar. Besides, all cases relate
to First Amendment free speech rights.
In Pickering v.
Board of Education, the court sought to make a distinction between speech
made by teachers in their capacity as employees on the one hand and their
speech made as they would have otherwise made as any other ordinary citizen. School
authorities would have significant latitude in limiting the former. In so
restricting such speech, the school authorities must show that their interest
in discharging efficient public service outweighs the right of the teacher to
express himself. There is no doubt that the conduct in question in South
Carolina (S.C) was done in the course of employment (Barnett, 2013). This would
provide the school authorities with the necessary latitude to dismiss the
teacher as they had a greater interest in avoiding disruptions in school
activities. This position is further amplified by the decision in Connick v. Myers.
It is also possible for speeches otherwise made in the
course of discharging the duties of a teacher to receive a different treatment
by the courts. Thus, in Cockerel v.
Shelby County School, the court ruled that a teacher in choosing what to
teach is not just teaching as a mere employee. It follows from this that the
S.C teacher who stomped the U.S flag as a way of demonstrating an aspect of his
curricula was not just doing so as a mere employee (Barnett, 2013). Rather, he
was also a citizen elevating that act as a matter of public concern. The Shelby
court nonetheless ruled that this alone may not obviate the application of the
Pickering analysis.
From the exploits of the foregoing, the decision on the
S.C case will mostly depend on how the courts treat the cited authorities. The
balance is, however, tilted towards the teacher. These are just suggestions as
it is the courts that will make that decision.
c).
Educational leaders stand in the unique position of
having to make decisions with the potential to infringe on First Amendment free
speech rights. An understanding of the judicial interpretation the First
Amendment as it pertains to public education is goes a long way in avoiding
mistakes in these areas. To the extent that the S.C case will help clarify the
law in this area, then it is very important to education officials.
d).
The Florida statutes relevant for this decision Title X,
Chapter 110 which authorizes the public school authorities to establish
discipline in the respective areas of jurisdiction. With this power in hand, it
is in the discretion of the school authorities to determine what aspects
constitute indiscipline so long as that determination remains within the
purview of law. In the present case, the S.C teacher can argue that his conduct
did not amount to an act of indiscipline while the school authorities would
like to see it in that light.
Q2
1).
I disagree with the ruling for the reasons that are to
follow. I think the distinction that the court made between speech made in the
course of performing employment duties and those made in any other contexts are
is too simplistic (Alexander & Alexander, 2013, p.831). It is true that
that the memoranda by Williams were done in the course of performing his
duties. It does not, however, make sense to deny First Amendment protection to
all speeches made in the course of employment given that some of those speeches
are mixed. It would have been proper for
the court to extend its analysis beyond merely distinguishing the context in
which the speech was actually made.
2).
Like all other cases of superior courts of record, this
case creates a legal precedent. Educational leaders have to make crucial decisions
on a day to day basis. A great deal of those decisions border on First
Amendment free speech clause. The case clarifies the law regarding the aspects
of speech by an employee which can be the subject of First Amendment
protections. Specifically, it clarifies that only those aspects of an
employee’s speech made outside the course of his/her duty may merit First
Amendment protection.
3).
Title X Chapter 112 of Florida statutes would be relevant
for the determination of this case. This statute places empowers the management
of public schools to establish discipline in the schools under them.
References
Alexander, K., & Alexander, D. (2013). American public school law (8th Ed.).
Belmont,
CA: Wadswoth,
Cengage Learning
Barnett,
R. (2013). S.C. teacher may lose job
over flag-stomping. Retrieved April 2,
Title
X.Florida Statutes. Retrieved April 8, 2013 from, http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request =X#TitleX
0 comments:
Post a Comment