Additional settings for Safari Browser.
Teaching and the Impact of Law
Teaching and the Impact of Law
Lillee Martin
It is widely understood that educators, especially those of higher education, are required to remain politically neutral/unbiased in the classroom environment—but what does this mean, or insinuate for schooling, anyway? Is this a direct response to an ever-evolving and intensifying political system in our country? What is the precise source of this educational implementation? After speaking with a few teachers here at Flagstaff High School, as well as accumulating research, I have come to a few conclusions.
Some interesting points of infringement upon curriculum restrictions began in 1968 with two of the most crucial Supreme Court cases regarding education, with the case by the name of Pickering v. Board of Education. Within the case report syllabus, the following claim is made: “The Board contends that ‘the teacher by virtue of his public employment has a duty of loyalty to support his superiors in attaining the generally accepted goals of education and that, if he must speak out publicly, he should do so factually and accurately, commensurate with his education and experience.’” This is following legal action made regarding a “reckless and false” newspaper publication made by Pickering, an educator, “criticizing the Board’s allocation of school funds between educational and athletic programs,” as well as “exposing” information to readers about taxation and its correlation to the issue. The Court eventually ruled that his termination by the district was unconstitutional and violated his rights to freedom of speech. This leads to the contradictory case of Garcetti v. Ceballos in 2006–a case that ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the rights to freedom of speech in situations regarding governmental positions when it is “made as part of their official duties, therefore, disabling freedom of speech in classroom environments being that they are reflections of their responsibilities as subordinate governmental workers. These situations are not always (and are often not) insinuations of negativity within teaching environments, but are crucial to understanding the longstanding relationship between teachers, the Board of Education, and the government.
In recent years, the resurgence (or surgency, really) of what are categorized as “pedagogical gag laws” have swept the United States’ education system into disarray with what was once tangible in terms of legality. These pedagogical gag laws remain as standing restrictions and guidelines regarding “sensitive content” in classrooms—things along the lines of race, gender, identity, and the existence of marginalized communities like queer and transgender individuals. During my conversation with one of the Flagstaff High School educators, we spoke briefly about the insinuation of these policies and the implementation of such idealism in other education systems in the country, and how it differs from Flagstaff. He said, “I don’t want to get sued because, again, I’m using the example of Florida specifically because this is a problem—if I say ‘slavery is bad,’ and don’t give any qualifiers to that, I could get in trouble for that. I couldn’t here, I don’t think, but I also don’t want students assuming dramatic and contrary beliefs.” With the changing political climate and the persistence of defensiveness regarding political opinion, as well as the heightened essence of politics from all sides, there develops an aggravated perception of what is political, and what is not. This exists within spaces of marketing, pop culture, media, finances, in ways that have never been necessary before, further provoking the idea that conversation is inherently political, and therefore infiltrating the education system.
Another example of this phenomenon, beyond pedagogical gag laws, I spoke about with another educator. When asked how the required non-biased approach to teaching potentially hinders the fluidity and thoroughness of curriculum exploration, she said, “I think coming out of a college education program they advocate for political neutrality, which I agree is important—helpful for the classroom, and for the students to feel safe. My purpose when teaching is to let my students know that I don’t have any alternate agenda, and that my goal is for them to be able to participate and be able to be engaged politically. I want to teach them to think like them, not think like me. However, I think the definition of political neutrality is definitely changing with polarization; where it’s not even neutral for some statements. I think with the federal government defunding certain aspects of the education industry, the idea of ‘neutral’ is up for the states to define—the state’s decisions to fund English Language Learners, or IEP (Individualized Education Programs), 504s, things like that, where if they’re left up to the states it becomes a political decision to implement them in the states. I don’t know, I would like to say that it is politically neutral to say that you are going to teach all of your students no matter IEP, 504s, and accommodate for English Language Learners, but I know that topic is political as well and has always been political. I think once it’s left up to the states and the districts, the teachers are left to fend for their own to decide how far they are willing to go to provide certain resources for students, and that’s a political decision. I think neutrality in terms of sharing your political opinion in class, I would like to see it remain neutral, but as far as how we teach, I think, has always been a little political, and becoming more political.”
Overall, it is very interesting to observe, from the perspective of a student, the complicated nature of speech freedom and its corresponding benefits and consequences—as well as the inherent prominence of politics within our society—and its influence on the educational workforce. Topics such as these, in their nuanced nature, are incredibly important in nurturing the ability to conceptualize the tumultuous relationship between legality, politics, and sociocultural standards, and its impact on everything that exists around us.