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.
If members of the Kansas Board of Regents have a low tolerance for unkind online speech, they'd best keep their browsers closed.
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.
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.
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."
--Derek Bok, Harvard president, 1971-91Unjustly 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.
A reporter for the Long Island daily, Newsday, figured she had a colorful human-interest story: Elementary-school music teacher falls and breaks her ankle backstage on opening night of the school musical -- but calls off the ambulance so the sirens won't disrupt the show.
An Ohio accounting professor who joked about mowing down his students with an AK-47 rifle after one of them arrived late to class was improperly suspended, a state court of appeals has ruled.In Eckel v.
A federal appeals court has recognized a heightened right of First Amendment protection for college instructors rooted in the doctrine of academic freedom, addressing a question that the U.S.
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.