Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities
253
9-2h Academic Freedom academic freedom A protection
permitting teachers to teach subject matter and choose instructional materials relevant to the course without restriction from administrators or other persons outside the classroom.
Academic freedom refers to the teacher’s freedom to choose subject matter and instructional materials relevant to the course without interference from administrators or outsiders. Recent years have witnessed hundreds of incidents in which parents or others have tried to remove or restrict use of public-school materials, including allegedly immoral or unwholesome works such as Little Red Riding Hood, the Harry Potter series, Snow White, Huckleberry Finn, and the Goosebumps series. There have been many thousands of attempts to ban materials from US schools and libraries. Several courts have ruled that materials can be eliminated on the basis of vulgarity but not to censor ideas. In general, teachers should have a written rationale for the materials they select, explaining how they fit into the curriculum, and they should give students a choice of alternate materials if the students or their parents object to the materials selected.13 Appeals courts have upheld a high school teacher’s right to assign a magazine article containing “a vulgar term for an incestuous son”; another teacher’s use of a film in which citizens of a small town randomly killed one person each year; school library inclusion of books involving witchcraft and the occult; and elementary-school teachers’ use of a literary anthology in which students were instructed to pretend they were witches and write poetic chants.14 On the other hand, decisions of school officials to restrict teachers’ academic freedom have sometimes been upheld. For example, a West Virginia art teacher was suspended for (unwittingly) distributing sexually explicit cartoons, an Ohio English teacher was prohibited from assigning the books One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Manchild in the Promised Land to juvenile students unless their parents consented, a North Carolina teacher was disciplined after her students performed a play containing adult language in a state drama competition, and an Ohio teacher was dismissed for inappropriate religious activities that included branding crosses electrically onto students’ arms. In general, courts have considered the following issues: (1) students’ age and grade level, (2) the relevancy of the questioned material to the curriculum, (3) the duration of the material’s use, (4) the general acceptance of a disputed teaching method within the profession, (5) the prior existence of board policy governing selection of materials and teaching techniques, (6) whether the materials are required or optional, and (7) whether actions against the teacher involved retaliation for free expression.15
9-2i Teacher Exemplars, Personal Behavior, Internet Use, and Dress Codes Decades ago, teachers’ behaviors were closely scrutinized because communities believed they should be role models and exemplars—that is, examples to their students of high moral standards and impeccable character, conservative dress and grooming,
Board of Education v. Pico, 102 S. Ct. 2799 (1982); Jack L. Nelson, “The Need for Courage in American Schools,” Social Education (November/December 2010), pp. 298–303; and “Banned and Challenged Classics,” 2015 posting by the American Library Association, available at www.ala.org. 14 Keefe v. Geanakos, 418 F. 2d 359 (1st Cir. 1969); Pratt v. Independent School District No. 831, 670 F. 2d 771 (8th Cir. 1982); and Brown v. Joint Unified School District, 42-15772 (9th Cir. 1994). See also Todd A. DeMitchell and John J. Carney, “Harry Potter and the Public School,” Phi Delta Kappan (October 2005), pp. 159–165; and Leah Barkoukis, “Victory for Academic Freedom,” March 24, 2014, posting by Town Hall, available at www.townhall.com. 15 DeVito v. Board of Education, 317 S.E. 2d 159 (W. Va. 1984). See also Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, “Who Has the Right to Choose?” American School Board Journal (March 2002); Michael D. Simpson, “Defending Academic Freedom,” Social Education (November/December 2010), pp. 310–315; “Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Teacher Fired for Promoting Creationism,” Huff Post (October 6, 2014); and Dave Bangert, “Evolution, Science Back in Bill’s Cross Hairs,” Lafayette Journal & Courier (January 21, 2015), available at www.jconline.com. 13
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
