I don’t approve of stepping on the flag or burning it, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court ruled that burning the flag is a form of speech and is protected under the First Amendment. There are many things and many kinds of speech I don’t like, but the First Amendment protects the speech I don’t like, even the speech I hate.
A history teacher in North Carolina tried to illustrate his lesson on the First Amendment by stepping on the flag, and he was suspended without pay.
Ironic to be teaching the lesson, then suspended because you thought that the Supreme Court ruling was in force.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
Your rights change when you’re employed and in front of students.
The students have rights to an education, and for it to be non-political. You encourage students to develop their own ideas but if you’re going to engage in radical speech that could be construed as possibly stepping on students that would oppose it, you have the right to say it, but you don’t have the right to your job if you’re violating any of your professional ethics or students’ rights.
The other part being, you can do something radical under the belief that the courts protect it, but, that won’t stop someone from hauling you to court (or removing you from your job) and forcing you to fight for it because they think you’re not protected under that ruling.
That’s why Supreme Court rulings, you need to look at circumstances of those who got people that “right” because your rights in some situations may change. You have all the rights in the world to shout “FIRE!” but if you do it in a theater full of people, your right to free speech changes.
Similarly here, the flag burners might be protected speech, but, I bet you they didn’t do it in front of a class of students being compelled to be in front of them.
LikeLike
There’s nothing “radical” about exercising one’s rights. If teachers don’t have a right to teach free speech, then it’s not a right at all. Your complacent acceptance of this explanation (whether or not it’s even true) is frightening.
LikeLike
Dienne
Although I may agree with you . He is correct your free speech rights apply to rights as a citizen to vs the Government. Employment is not the same.
Picture an employee in a supermarket telling someone the meat dept sucks go to the other chain down the block .
So much so that teachers face gag orders discussing the Opt Out movement here in NY. I wonder how that applies to their own time ?
Certain contracts have provisions where for certain purposes you are always considered to be on the clock . But this was the original purpose of tenure and why it has been under assault especially in higher ed..
LikeLike
I guess it doesn’t matter if you are working for one of those nasty gov’mint schools. Even public employees can get screwed as anyone who has worked in the public schools knows. All you need is one high powered parent… I guess he chose the wrong concrete example that teachers are always encourage to use to make it relevant to the students lives.
LikeLike
All education is political.
LikeLike
My understanding is that this was part of a lesson on free speech–that the teacher was illustrating an example of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. That’s pedagogy, not politics.
LikeLike
I agree.
Teachers are political tools. When I meet a teacher who denigrates politics, I wonder how naïve that person could be. What one does in the classroom is extremely political. Never tell students what your beliefs are but teach the facts. English and history teachers are always involved with political issues, particularly as politics relates to language and historical events. Literature carries political themes as do historical incidents. How you present these depends on your ability to read the community and how far you will go to offend, anger, or patronize it and maintain your own integrity.
Personally, stepping on a flag to demonstrate my right to do so wouldn’t occur to me as ingrained as flag etiquette is in me. However, as a political message at a public demonstration against some particular policy I might just do so.
Know your audience.
LikeLike
What if I draw a picture of the flag (or I buy a flag, made in commie China), then step on it as a demonstration, I should be suspended from school without pay? You cannot burn a flag in a classroom, it would be against fire codes and might set off fire alarms. I would probably discuss it (stepping on a flag) with the principal first. By the changing colors on his face and the steam coming out of his ears, I would be discouraged from doing such an activity. How about washing a flag in front of the kids? From the article: Whether Lee returns to his job teaching history at Massey Hill Classical High School rests with Till.
Lee has been working in the district office since Till recommended the unpaid suspension in September.
Read more at http://www.wral.com/board-upholds-suspension-for-teacher-who-stepped-on-flag/16294548/#J1UUbJf9xViVaEkd.99
He’s been suspended since September! Isn’t that enough punishment?
LikeLike
He’ll win in court. I’ll contribute to a “go fund me” for his lawyer.
LikeLike
U.S. Military Flag Code
Respect for flag
k. “The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display should be destroying in a dignified way, preferably by burning.”
http://www.military.com/flag-day/us-flag-code.html
LikeLike
Yes. The military code was on the news yesterday following the Trump bombast.
The principle of academic freedom that faculty in higher education have enjoyed ( at least ing theory) has never been in place for teachers in elementary and scondary schools.
in 2013, James Popham and Margaret DeSander, a lawyer, reminded educators that legal protections for teachers are limited, especially if the policies are uniformly applied to all teachers.
I don’t know if this is also true for school principals. Several years ago in Florida, one federal judge characterized the work of teachers as little more than “hired speech.” Teachers are thus required to follow the rules made by school boards on all sorts of matters. Principals may be under similar constraints.
See Popham, W. J. & DeSander, M. K. (2013, September 18). Unfairly fired teachers deserve court protection. Education Week, 33(4), 26-27. and Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education of Tipp City Exempted Village School District, No. 09-3775 (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 2010).public schools.
LikeLike
Good for you. We are not in the military.
LikeLike
Just because one CAN do a thing doesn’t mean one SHOULD do that thing.
LikeLike
Why not in this specific case? If the point is that we have the Constitutional right to step on a flag, why not step on a flag to make that point? Because someone might get offended?
Honestly, if no one is offended, it’s not education.
LikeLike
But do we really have to step on the flag to make the point that we have that right? Also, if one is going to do something inflammatory like step on the flag, he or she better be prepared for the consequences. I’m not saying those consequences are right. I’m not saying what happened to this teacher is right. Further, what is the point of stepping on the flag or burning the flag? What is one actually trying to say? Perhaps specifically stating beliefs or opinions would lead to a discussion and not pander to emotion which then sends any hope of discussion down the toilet.
LikeLike
Or SHOULDN’T
LikeLike
I agreed with the late Justice Scalia when he concurred in the SCOTUS decision affirming the right to burn the U.S. Flag. I also think that the punishment for this teacher was unwarranted; he should have been let off with a warning. But there was no need to perform an act that inflamed emotions; he could have noted the SCOTUS decision and provided some class time to discuss the concept. Imagine if that teacher had stepped on a copy of the Koran to visually demonstrate the concept of free expression – would everyone support his right to do something that offended religious sensibilities?
LikeLike
John,
Muslims would not approve of stepping on the Koran. I don’t think the Supreme Court has had a case like that.
LikeLike
Muslims would of course be offended by that show of disrespect for their holy book. But flag burning and stepping on the Koran are analogous: both are examples of free expression (allowed under certain circumstances), with one offending patriotic sentiments and the other offending religious sentiments. Whatever the legalities, I oppose gratuitously offending people; in the long run, you hurt your own cause. I have serious issues with how Islam is frequently practiced, but I’ll express my thoughts in respectful language rather than insulting someone’s beliefs in demeaning ways.
LikeLike
I have listened to this young teacher. He sounds wonderful, passionate, smart. He was NOT making any kind of political statement–he was actively teaching. They may pull his license and we will lose an inspiring, committed young teacher. This is SO WRONG.
LikeLike
Yes, I saw the Roland Martin interview and the young man did indeed come across as wonderful, passionate and smart. In another interview, he said that when he asked if any of the students had a lighter or scissors, he was just being facetious. It was meant as a demonstration of free speech not an act of vandalism or disrespect. He certainly does not deserve to have his license lifted. He’s now working in the school district warehouse as a laborer. He does have lawyers representing him and possibly the ACLU.
LikeLike
Here’s another incident from 2013: A public high school in Kentucky became the center of controversy this week after a teacher at the school draped an American flag on the ground and encouraged students to step on it as part of an art project.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/08/31/public-school-teacher-encouraged-students-to-step-on-american-flag-as-part-of-art-project/
There was no mention in the article about punishment for the teacher.
I wonder what disciplinary action that Trump would recommend for these teachers. Vivisection or castration with a rusty butter knife?
I personally do not have a death wish, so I would not have disrespected the flag in any way, shape or form while on the job or on school property.
LikeLike
There can be no doubt that public school teachers do not have academic freedom of the kind that, at least in principle, faculty in higher education enjoy.
James Popham and Margaret DeSander, a lawyer have reminded educators that legal protections for teachers are limited, especially if the policies are uniformly applied to all teachers ( as in written documents and contracts).
In a fairly recent case one circuit judge characterized the work of teachers as little more than “hired speech.” Teachers are thus required to follow the rules made by school boards on all sorts of matters. See Popham, W. J. & DeSander, M. K. (2013, September 18). Unfairly fired teachers deserve court protection. Education Week, 33(4), 26-27. and Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education of Tipp City Exempted Village School District, No. 09-3775 (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 2010).
Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States.
The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.
It is not clear to me whether the history teacher or the art teacher, both at the high school level, really thought about why they were addressing the issue of free speech with these activities and not others. I wonder if these examples of teaching centered on the flag were spawned from Trump’s playing up the issue.
In any case, the information in these accounts makes it easy to rush to judgment…too easy.
LikeLike
In 2015, Trump said he essentially supported flag burning….. (WHAT???)
I was just poking around reading about the flag burning issue and I happened upon Donald Trump on the Letterman show……: It was repeated on Salon yesterday:
“As The Washington Post reported on Wednesday, Trump appeared on The Late Show on Jan. 8, 2015. During his segment, Trump said that Letterman was “100 percent right” when he defended flag-burning as a form of freedom of expression. He even told Letterman that ““I understand where you’re coming from.””
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/01/reminder-donald-trump-supported-flag-burning-back-in-2015/
Watch at about the 9:40 mark.
And, this Letterman interview was LESS THAN TWO YEARS ago,.
So, what’s up? Does Trump have a sort of zelig-like quality, ingratiating himself with anyone near him -when it suits his needs?
Or, as I read recently, are all his zany antics just a way to distract us from what he’s really up to?
Later on, at the 14 minute mark, Trump is talking to Letterman about the success of his TV show, The Apprentice: “You know, it’s an interesting business…You don’t get ratings it’s over.”
WATCH HIS FACE FOR A SPLIT SECOND WHEN HE SAYS THIS. He reveals his true nature: huckster.
Wow! So that’s it. We have a guy who is our next president, the so-called “leader of the free world” and it’s essentially because he knows how to “get ratings”, to sell us crap. Our hucktster-in-chief.
I guess the teacher in North Carolina will be getting some very different sort of “ratings” on this yearly evaluation or whatever the hell they call it down there.
Trump the billionaire does outrageous stuff and wins. Some Edgar Derby-type character down south could get canned.
Welcome to America circa 2016. And,THAT’S what the flag represents now?? Talk about desecration. Trump is a living, breathing desecration.
LikeLike
Beautifully said.
LikeLike
It sounds to me like everyone should be out collecting clips of things Trump has said in the past to play on Twitter against the stances his cabinet members represent . I say do it on Twitter because that is apparently one of his main sources of info. Can he stare his own hypocrisy in the face and not wonder if he is being manipulated by forces who make nice to him because they know he craves popularity?
LikeLike
2old,
Twitter may be the only reading Trump does. Maybe the CIA should prepare intelligence briefings in 140 characters and they could pretend they are tweets.
LikeLike
Trump is an extreme (a really extreme) case. His profound inability to focus is now common knowledge. His personal pathology is certainly unique. But I’ve noticed that just about everyone’s attention span has shrunk. I see it in myself. In terms of our culture, I think technology gets the blame for this, in large part.
Wait four years for a school to improve? I find myself getting impatient if it takes a web page four seconds to load on my computer. I open my file cabinet and look at work I produced by my own hand or on a manual typewriter 25 years ago and feel, was that very human mess really me?
I like to refer back to books I’ve read about the philosophy of technology because some of those ideas provide me with the only sensible framework I can find in which to place the crazy crap we see going on. So much of what was predicted is coming true right now.
If I read Jacques Ellul correctly, technology is sort of like quicksand. The more you struggle against it, the deeper you get sucked in. Raw, unbridled human emotion only facilitates the process.
So it makes perfect sense that Donald Trump has become so enamored of using the 140 word capacity of Twitter. His ravings against globalization and science along with his paeans to some never existent golden age in the past actually make him the ideal candidate for our age. (Well, not for many of us but for enough voters flung across this country to get himself chosen to be our leader in the electoral college.)
Did Donald Trump find Twitter? Or, was it inevitable that Twitter would eventually find someone like Donald Trump?
I’m not a Luddite. I’m not about to end this comment by turning off my computer and chucking the thing out the cold window next to me here. But I think that at least some of the solutions we might need to deal with Donald Trump in the future might reside somewhere in the past, strangely enough.
More than once during the past few weeks I’ve ended up back reading about the late 1800s, the Gilded Age, in the United States: survival of the fittest, the gospel of wealth, blatant, ugly racism along with a giant dose of nativism -all amidst an era of dramatic technological change. We’re back…..
LikeLike
I find myself having very similar thoughts, John. Diane, I think you are on to something with security briefings delivered to Trump in 140 character “tweets.”
LikeLike
I’m thinking that Twitter may be the only way Trump plans on communicating with the American people. It will be HIS media since he considers all print and television media dishonest, etc. It seems as though he can only think in 140 characters. Many people don’t have an attention span for longer than a tweet. And he will never have to answer any questions.
LikeLike
Free Speech Rights of Teachers?
The following are a series of excerpts from various articles concerning the free speech rights of teachers as public employees.
From the ACLU: https://aclu-wa.org/news/free-speech-rights-public-school-teachers
Teachers do not forfeit the right to comment publicly on matters of public importance simply because they accept a public school teaching position. Teachers cannot be fired or disciplined for statements about matters of public importance unless it can be demonstrated that the teacher’s speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning.
A teacher appears to speak for the school district when he or she teaches, so the district administration has a strong interest in determining the content of the message its teachers will deliver. Washington courts have upheld the authority of school districts to prescribe both course content and teaching methods. Courts in other jurisdictions have ruled that teachers have no free speech rights to include unapproved materials on reading lists.
Depending on the precise form of message displayed on the teachers’ clothing, a school may have legitimate concern that a teacher’s display of a political message is more likely than a student’s to disrupt the school’s intended educational message. This right may be limited only if there is good reason to believe that the speech would cause a substantial and material disruption to education or violate the rights of others. Washington courts have not considered the question, but courts in other jurisdictions have differed over whether teachers have the same right as students to display personal political messages on their clothing. In one case, a court upheld a dress code that prevented teachers from wearing political buttons in the classroom because school districts have legitimate authority to “dissociate themselves from matters of political controversy.”
From the New York State Association of School Attorneys:
http://www.guerciolaw.com/school-employees-right-to-free-speech-appears-limited-when-job-related/
School employees’ right to free speech appears limited when job-related.
Does a school employee’s right to free speech stop at the schoolhouse door? While the outcomes of employee disciplinary cases and other cases involving adverse job actions always depend on the facts, court rulings suggest that there has been a deterioration of public employees’ rights to free speech in the workplace. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, courts have been taking a different approach when public employees claim to be protected by the First Amendment in connection with an adverse job action. All such lawsuits now involve an examination of whether the employee was speaking pursuant to his or her job duties. According to Garcetti, if speech was made as a result of an employee’s job duties, no First Amendment protection applies (see sidebar below). For school districts, the change raises a question that is not always easily answered: What do the “job duties” of a specific school employee entail? Some New York courts have closely examined the employee’s “actual duties” as opposed to the employee’s job description in an effort to afford the most First Amendment protection. Nevertheless, the Garcetti decision appears to have made it harder for public employees to successfully assert First Amendment protection.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over all of New York State, made this ruling about free speech rights: “The general principle … is that, when a public employee airs a complaint or grievance, or expresses concern about misconduct, to his or her immediate supervisor or pursuant to a clear duty to report imposed by law or employer policy, he or she is speaking as an employee and not as a citizen.” In light of Garcetti, “the First Amendment does not protect the employee’s speech from discipline or retaliation by the employer,” the court said. The court continued: In such circumstances, the employer is free to “discipline” the employee without violating the employee’s First Amendment rights. If, however, the employee goes outside of the established institutional channels in order to express a complaint or concern, the employee is speaking as a citizen, and the speech is protected by the First Amendment.
For instance, the Second Circuit ruled that statements by a special education counselor to administrators about the lack of physical education and art classes at a satellite BOCES facility were made within the scope of employment and were not protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, conversations with other teachers about the same issues were not part of any official duty. Therefore, a teacher might be able to prevail in a free-speech defense against any alleged retaliation for critical comments about the school made to colleagues but not if the adverse job action stemmed from similar comments made in the line of duty.
From Joshana Jones, Esq. Atlanta, GA:
http://theeducatorsroom.com/2012/12/teachers-freedom-of-speech-rights/
Public school teachers are in a unique position. They are employees of the state and therefore school districts have an interest in making sure that messages from teachers are in line with the goals and vision of the district.
The following factors will help a teacher understand if their free speech is protected:
1) The speech must touch on a matter of public concern
2) The teacher’s speech must outweigh the district’s interest in efficiency. The courts may consider any of the following:
a) The effect of the speech on the harmony of the staff
b) Whether the speech has a detrimental impact on working relationships
c) Whether the speech interferes with the normal operation of the employer’s business
The Pickering Balance Test: http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/essentials-of-pickering-balancing-test.html
Essentials of the “Pickering Balancing Test”
Pickering v Board of Education, 391 US 563
The so-called Pickering Test is applied in balancing the interests of a public employer with its employees’ right to Free Speech and requires the court’s consideration of the following:
Did the individual demonstrate that his or her speech address a matter or matters of public interest and concern?
Did the individual demonstrate that his or her speech was a significant or motivating factor in the employer’s decision?
Did the court balance the interests of the individual commenting on matters of public concern as a citizen and the public employer’s interest in “promoting the efficiency of public service?”
From Sherrod v, School Board of Palm Beach County, FL
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020101012611
Protected Speech
In determining the threshold issue of whether a public employee has engaged in speech entitled to constitutional protection, the court first asks “whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the answer is “no,” the employee’s speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection. If the answer is “yes,” “the question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public.”
In Abdur-Rahman v. Walker, 567 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir.2009), the Eleventh Circuit discussed the rationale behind the requirement that a public employee speak “as a citizen” to receive constitutional protection for his speech: First, because “government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter,” “Supreme Court precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.” Second, government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employee’s words and actions; without it, there would be little chance of the efficient provision of public services. Because of the unique trusted position that public employees occupy, they ought not to receive constitutional protection for speech that “expresses views that contravene governmental policies or impairs the proper performance of governmental functions. Third, when complaints under the First Amendment are limited to instances in which a public employee proves that he “spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” courts avoid “judicial oversight” of workplace communications and “permanent judicial intervention in the conduct of governmental operations to a degree inconsistent with sound principles of federalism and the separation of powers.”
Garcetti v. Ceballos (Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, ruling in a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy that the First Amendment does not prevent employees from being disciplined for expressions they make pursuant to their professional duties.
Kennedy’s majority opinion
The Court wrote that its “precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.” Instead, public employees are not speaking as citizens when they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job.
Though the speech at issue concerned the subject matter of his employment, and was expressed within his office rather than publicly, the Court did not consider either fact dispositive, and noted that employees in either context may receive First Amendment protection. The “controlling factor” was instead that his statements were made pursuant to his duties as a deputy district attorney. Restricting such speech, which “owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities,” did not in the Court’s view violate any rights that the employee had as a private citizen. Instead, the restrictions were simply the control an employer exercised “over what the employer itself has commissioned or created.”
LikeLike
One Wednesday afternoon, Francis met with Cumberland County Superintendent Frank Till and the Associate Superintendent for Human Resources. The pair decided against renewing Francis’ contract at the end of the year.
The 10 day suspension was also upheld by the county BOE.
Read more at http://www.wral.com/cumberland-county-schools-won-t-renew-contract-of-teacher-who-stepped-on-flag/16189466/#wG6ZMtrVyiwuRrgB.99
LikeLike
I wonder if this is why we need social emotional curriculums in secondary schools. The teacher tries to teach a point/s on free speech – I question his method – what is offensive, aggressions, Supreme Court decision etc. How do these students learn to deal with opposition, relationships to those who propose thoughts anathema to their understandings? Is this an example of why we ultimately need Babies R Us coupons for pacifiers for college tantrum-throwing college students – safe spaces, ball pits, aroma therapy, puppy huggings? As Lloyd points out the flag is suppose to be properly disposed of – by burning, but notice the statement before this – only if its not in “fitting” condition. If a teacher fears addressing issues in class that the students see daily on news stations and have questions – are we not causing future harm to these students? It’s bad enough that the PC crowd is policing language – the social tax on communications, but now we need lessons on Constitutional decisions and the impact upon us – which should/could be part of the lesson as well.
LikeLike
Whether or not this teacher had the right to step on the flag, could he not foresee that some student might go home and tell a parent who would take it out of context and scream and yell? Or a teacher or his principal or superintendent? Was this a beginning teacher or a tenured one? In any case, he either has no clue about others’ reactions or doesn’t care and wanted some attention.
LikeLike