Kansas Regents are backpedaling on controlling employees’ off-campus online lives. Why should they even want to try?

I've got a column on today's Inside Higher Ed that looks from a constitutional-law perspective at how badly the Kansas Board of Regents overreached in trying to make just about anything an employee says on the Internet grounds for disciplinary action, including firing.As I explain in the essay, the Supreme Court made what should have been understood as a minor exception to the First Amendment in a 2006 case called Garcetti v.

Chicago teacher’s “teachable moment” about racial slur leads to favorable “academic freedom” ruling

Federal courts rarely afford much weight to the "academic freedom" of public school teachers when they're disciplined for what they say during class, but an Illinois district court has made an exception in a rather unlikely factual setting: A Chicago teacher suspended for saying the "n-word" in front of sixth-graders.In Brown v.

Ninth Circuit latest to exempt publicly employed teachers from Garcetti speech restrictions

It’s illegal for public agencies to discipline teachers for statements they make, if those statements are a "matter of public concern," a federal appeals court ruled last week.Most public employees can be disciplined for making statements their bosses don’t like, even if it might seem like they are protected by the First Amendment.

The price of censorship? For Chicago State, try $213,231.98

"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

--Derek Bok, Harvard president, 1971-91

Unjustly firing a newspaper adviser and running off its editor-in-chief wasn't just costly to Chicago State University's reputation.A federal court ordered the university to pay $2,502.48 in court costs and $210,729.50 in attorney's fees after finding that professor Gerian Steven Moore and student editor George Providence II were unlawfully fired in violation of the First Amendment.U.S.

Virginia approves revised, journalism-friendly social media guidelines for teachers

The Virginia Board of Education unanimously approved guidelines for the prevention of sexual misconduct March 24.The original proposal—brought forth in November—underwent months of debate, resulting in the approval of a drastically reduced version.Although intended to deter school employees from engaging in inappropriate relationships with students, the initial proposal could have been detrimental to student journalism in Virginia.The November proposal included communication restrictions such as:

  • No text messaging between students and teachers.
  • No communicating with students using non-school platforms, including popular social media sites Facebook and Twitter.
  • No “ongoing” meetings with a student without notifying the principal and obtaining written parental consent.
The approved guidelines do not include those restrictions, but instead call for transparency, accessibility to parents and administrators, and professionalism in content and tone.The guidelines also indicate administrators should develop local policies and practices that deter misconduct and provide guidance for educators.The initial restrictions were criticized by journalism advisers and strongly opposed by the Student Press Law Center.SPLC Executive Director Frank LoMonte said the board did a good job of listening to Virginia teachers’ needs and changing the guidelines accordingly.“I think it’s a real testament to the power of teachers’ voices that the board of education has throttled back on the most severe restrictions,” LoMonte said.