Teacher fired for bumper stickers

Was she abruptly given a pink slip or had an impasse been reached on both sides? It's one thing to be blindsided, it's another to refuse a request where the consequences were spelled out.

 

There is a difference in that bumper stickers on your car end up on school property. what is posted here is in public, but we're mostly anonymous and you're not exposing your students to it.

If you want a more equal comparison, then examine this idea: instead of the bumper stickers she has on her car, she has one that says "Jesus died for your sins" or "Christianity is the right way." If she's not preaching in the classroom, then would you have a problem with this? Or, if she was dismissed from her job for it, would you be sticking up for her in the same fashion?

 

There is a big difference between the two.

A bumper sticker is an expression of opinion. You are expressing an opinion wherever you take your car. If you take your car to work you are expressing that opinion at work.

On the Internet you are expressing your opinions in a forum that is clearly not your place of work. On top of that, unless you specifically give personal information about yourself you can do so quite anonymously.

The case of a person in a public office that requires impartiality is a difficult balance between personal freedom and impartiality of service, but it's obvious to me that they should be expected to remain impartial at their place of work and that means no advocacy of their political (that includes religious) opinions to members of the public.

 

The differences are noted but you haven't said whether you'd accept employment sanction for your posts. Anyway, Facebook, blogs, Twitter & email aren't anonymous, and once you've thumbtacked your beliefs onto any facet of the infinite eternal bulletin board of cyberspace you'll have a hard time arguing that what you did can't reach some "forbidden" audience that your bumper sticker could.

I'm not persuaded political neutrality is necessary in a classroom anyway. Since when is political outlook some sacred cow? I'd much rather have a teacher who's passionate and colorful and interesting than some bland milquetoast watching his steps - especially if I disagree with most of that teacher's outlook. That's a class I'd look forward to attending every day, to spar in intellectual argument - provided the teacher is intellectually honest.

We all have our biases and to pretend we don't does more damage than discussing our differences openly. What would be a problem is grading bias, of course, or verbal abuse of students who differ, but these would be problems in any context.

And while I definitely WOULD prohibit religious prosyletizing in the classroom (for the same reason I'd prohibit teaching astrology, numerology and how to read dead goat entrails - none of them is validated by evidence), I would have no objection whatsoever to a teacher putting religious, astrological, numerological or goat entrail website urls bumper stickers on every square inch of his/her car. The car isn't driven into the classroom.

And if a teacher wanted to DISCUSS, not prosyletize, these concepts in the classroom, then I'd support it fully. In fact, I'd encourage MORE discussion of all the hobgoblins of belief that obstruct our eyes with coke bottle lenses because we'll never banish them by pretending they don't exist, or matter.

 

I think she was sacked because she lacked the skill to get all the BUMPER stickers on the actual bumper bars. Some of them were actually on the doors, that's a pretty bad shot!!

 

Isn't that about psychologists prescribing drugs to control kids? Kids with ADHD etc?

 

Perhaps, the drug industry was behind her firing. This popped up because I just recently watched Food Matters film/documentary.

 

It's a free speech issue. She doesn't drive her car into the classroom, right?

It's interesting that all the "freedom lovers" are not so shockingly against this woman. I wonder why, in this case, they've chosen not to stick to their ideals?

To them, this is about the message and not about the concept of liberty and free speech that they tout so eagerly when it's to the benefit of their cause To that demographic, free speech only applies to content to which they agree.

The fact is that free speech works across the board or not at all. This woman has the right to plaster her car with ANY bumber sticker she likes. It doesn't matter if it's an "OBAMA IS A HIDDEN MUSLIM" or a "RUSH IS BACK ON THE PIPE" bumper sticker.

That's the entire point completely missed by those blinded by their religion/politics.

-Brad

 

hmm... She's been teaching for 7 years and is probably tenured, and surprise! She's been fired! Gasp! She must not be a public school employee with union membership. Everybody seems to be so sure they can't be fired.

Oh sorry, I'm steering off the topic and heading towards FHoPolitics...

 

Was she thrown into jail for what she said? Is she not free to keep saying it? Her dismissal may or may not be justified, but this is not a free speech/first amendment issue.

BTW I'm a liberal atheist.

 

Individuals are responsible for anything publicly posted that can be associated with the poster. The only exception is for private groups with controlled access, such as member-only union websites. The Second Amendment guarantees your right to free speech, but not your right to be employed. Your employer can fire you for free speech that it finds embarrassing or inappropriate. Being fired doesn't prevent you from making this free speech, but it does alter your employment plans.

Once again, free speech works across the board. No one has suppressed this teacher's right to free speech, but they have altered her career plans. She gets to keep her bumper stickers, and she can park her car at the school, but she can't do it while employed as a teacher. As a teacher, her employers are the voters in her school district. They get to decide what is acceptable and what isn't, subject to the limits of law and labor contracts.

A school district could require uniforms for its teachers, which certainly limits freedom of expression. A teacher refusing to wear the uniform could be dismissed. This bumper sticker case is no different. While I don't like this particular case, the law is clear in this area.

Tom

 

To Conclude;

It's her right to put the stickers on her car.

It's the right of the school board to fire her.


Despite being cute she I hope she's learnt an important life lesson here.

 

One by one the classic totems of employment discrimination have been toppled: race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, physical appearance - all deemed irrelevant to job suitability (with some exceptions granted for physical fitness, e.g. a limo driving job could not be fulfilled by someone blind).

But the opinions one holds ARE suitable LEGAL grounds for job discrimination? I'm not so sure. I recall many cases that made it into the newspapers where employees fired for having the gall to give their honest opinion won redress in the courtroom.

 

Opinions are not grounds for dismissal. You are freely allowed to think anything you wish, but you better be careful about how you express your thoughts. Posting thoughts publicly can get you fired.

Tom

 

Of course, some people are easier to identify online than others, right TonyPSchaefer?

Being cute may have helped her avoid punishment in the past, so she might have thought she was immune this time too.

If the school board warned her, gave her options and told her she'd be fired if she didn't follow those options, I don't think she has any legal grounds against the school board, even if it was for morally shady reason. I don't like the school willing to get rid of a teacher because of a parent, or even a couple parents complain. Unless she's a bad teacher, they're spineless wimps.

But for her part, she could have changed her parking location or covered the sticker while she worked the issue out with the school board (and possibly parents) as an employee. But that wouldn't have gotten the attention with the press that a firing does.

 

IANAL but if you're on a public school board and that's what your counsel is telling you, I'd suggest getting a second opinion, because it really doesn't seem that clear for public employees.. in fact it seems pretty clear that it such dismissal is prohibited.

In Pickering v. Board, the Court held that a teacher could write op-eds regarding 'matters of public concern' on their own time and could not be dismissed for that, so long as there are no intentional false statements:

This decision has generally held for 40+ years now.. there have been a few clarifying decisions, but they mostly apply to conduct done as part of the employment (which is where your uniform example would fall). These clarifying decisions made clear that on-the-job conduct is not subject to First Amendment protections. The latest one of these was in 2006, where Justice Kennedy wrote at the beginning of the opinion:

Now in this particular case, the wrinkle would be whether a bumper sticker in the parking lot constitutes on-the-job speech. My personal opinion would be no, but it's up for debate. However, this school appears to be a private school, and as such the above discussion is all moot.

A suit with similar legal issues is working its way through the courts now.. NJ Transit fired a worker for burning a Koran at a demonstration in opposition to the Cordoba House proposed in Lower Manhattan. He is being defended by the ACLU.

 

Took me a minute to figure out the 'not a lawyer' acronym.

Does this apply to this case as well? She was suspended for a blog about her job but done on her own time (AFAIK). In private industry, this is pretty clearcut that you can be fired for this. She didn't name the students or the school, but I don't think that really matters too much.

 

I was just coming to post that link actually.. a private school teacher from the same area was fired for a blog last year.

But in this case, since she is talking directly about her employment, and not as a citizen on a matter of public concern, she does not have First Amendment protection. IMO.