Teachers and the First Amendment, Take 2

Here's a news story about another teacher's collision with the First Amendment. See what you think:

Teacher wouldn't pledge allegiance:

Woman has filed lawsuit against school

seacoastonline.com

October 12, 2007 6:00 AM

SEABROOK — Seabrook Middle School teacher Dianne Dunfey is suing the school district and Principal Stan Shupe for alleged retaliation for her refusal to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Dunfey, a Rye resident, claims that since the 2004 incident, Shupe and the district singled her out for disciplinary action and created a negative public controversy. She claims she was unfairly disciplined for leaving the building without signing out and mandated to submit lesson plans when no other teacher was required to do so.

Dunfey brought suit in federal court in Concord in May, and the case is scheduled for trial in October 2008. Dunfey declined comment Thursday at the school, where she teaches seventh-grade social studies.

In the suit, Dunfey claims her First Amendment rights were violated. She seeks relief against retaliatory interference in her teaching duties and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs...

Dunfey's choice to remain seated during the pledge was unpopular with parents, who complained to the Seabrook School Board...

The controversy began in the fall of 2004, when Shupe learned Dunfey and some students in her homeroom class remained seated during the Pledge of Allegiance. Shupe, according to Dunfey's court records, called each student one at a time into his office and "falsely accused the Plaintiff of attempting to persuade her students not to participate." Shupe denied that claim in court records.

Dunfey said at the time she did not instruct students to remain seated during the pledge.

At subsequent School Board meetings attended by parents upset by Dunfey's actions, members approved a policy urging respect for the U.S. flag. The board, Dunfey said in court records, "...was barred by law from taking disciplinary action against the Plaintiff for not participating in the Pledge of Allegiance."

Dunfey claims disparaging comments about her at these meetings and the board's expressed desire to take disciplinary action created a negative public controversy that made her fearful for her and her family's personal safety.

Dunfey never stated publicly why she chose to remain seated during the Pledge. "My position is I support federal law, state law and school policy," Dunfey said at the time. "The policy in print at Seabrook Middle School is participation is optional."

Dunfey has taught at the school since 1986. She alleged in the court complaint that in March Shupe told her she was being involuntarily transferred from teaching eighth-grade 20th-century American history to seventh-grade geography.

The suit lists numerous complaints against Shupe and the district...

"It was a culmination of all of the things, going back to a difference of opinion over the pledge issue," said Steven Sacks, a staff attorney with National Education Association, which filed the suit in Dunfey's behalf. "Or the principal's perception of Dianne somehow not setting the right example for these kids."

Teaching the "sanitized" version of Columbus

During class, we discussed the article, "Teaching History so Children Will Care." It made me really think about the effects teachers have in teaching the "unsanitized" version of Columbus and who he really was. I believe that teachers should be able to teach what they want in the classroom, whether that be the real truth about Columbus, or the watered down version. What I am concerned with is, what will happen the next year with a new teacher who teaches the "sanitized" version to a student who was taught the real truth the year before? How will the student react to this?
I think the student will be flustered about the whole subject and not know which teacher to believe. Will this make the student start to doubt texts, and lose interest in the subject altogether? After all, if I were told two different stories, I would not know which one to believe.
As the teacher in this situation, what would you do? I think the teacher would need to have a plan on what actions to take for this child.

The Boston Massacre

While preparing for the teach-in about the Revolutionary War my group and I found some interesting information about the different perspectives of the Boston Massacre. One book I found had a quote from Captain Thomas Preston who was in charge of the British troops involved in the Boston Massacre. Here is the statement he gave in court while being tried for ordering his soldiers to fire at the colonists:

“The mob still increased and were more outrageous, striking their clubs or bludgeons against one another, and calling out, come on you rascals, you bloody backs, you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare… fire and be damned, we know you dare not, and much more such language was used. At this time I was between the soldiers and the mob, parleying with, and endeavoring all in my power to persuade them to retire peaceably, but to no purpose. They advanced to the points of the bayonets, struck some of them and even the muzzles of the pieces, and seemed to be endeavoring to close with the soldiers. On which some well behaved persons asked me if the guns were charged. I replied yes. They then asked me if I intended to order the men to fire. I answered no, by no means, observing to them that I was advanced before the muzzles of the men’s pieces, and must fall a sacrifice if they fired; that the soldiers were upon the half cocks and charged bayonets, and my giving the word fire under those circumstances would prove me to be no officer. While I was thus speaking, one of the soldiers having received a severe blow with a stick, stepped a little to one side and instantly fired.”
– American Voices from the Revolutionary War by Susan Provost Beller

Reading this was definitely a shock because I always remember learning about the Boston Massacre from only the colonists’ perspective, which made it seem like the British started killing innocent colonists who just happened to be walking down the street. This account from the British captain who was there shows us this perspective alone may not give an accurate picture of the whole story. After reading this quote I still don’t think it was right for the British troops to kill the colonists who were in Boston that day, but I feel like I have a better understanding of what caused this to happen.

In my group we also talked about how this event was covered by the press and I learned that the colonist papers never even mentioned the colonists in Boston on the day of this event were taunting and provoking the British soldiers; they focused solely on the fact that the British killed colonists. This is a clear example of propaganda and was very important in rallying the colonists to go to war with the British. Propaganda has been used like this throughout time and is still used today. This example from history underscores the importance of learning about the different perspectives surrounding events and what influences people to act the ways they do. It also reminds us that we need to be critical of how our media portrays events and help our students do the same.

Christopher Columbus

At the beginning of the year in one of our Social Studies classes, I posed a question about whether not Europeans study Christopher Columbus and if they do, what are they taught? Over the last few weeks I have had the opportunity to talk with some European natives from various countries, all of which confirmed the same thing. In Europe, educators teach Christopher Columbus like we do here. They learn the wonders of and glories of Christopher Columbus and his legend.

In some regards I'm surprised, but at the same time I'm not. I guess I assumed if anything there would be a switch in focus, but according to my informal research there isn't. Interesting!

Youth for Human Rights International

Who says you cannot learn something from watching TV? As I was watching TV this afternoon, a commercial came on (surprise surprise) ... This is the commercial I saw ...



I went on the website that was mentioned at the end of the commercial - www.youthforhumanrights.org and found that there are a total of 30 human rights advertisements produced by this company. This is the direct link to the advertisements, which you can click through on the left side of the screen (in orange) or just scroll down the page to view them all: Youth for Human Rights International.

The site also has materials that you can buy (teachers and educators get a discount), but you can view the commercials online for free. I just think that this is a really interesting tool that can be used in the classroom very easily to discuss human rights issues. The majority of the commercials seem to present the information in a way that is easily accessible and understandable for students because it relates to their experiences.

One of the human rights featured was "No Slavery" (video below). I think that this video in particular can open OUR (meaning teachers') eyes to some issues that we discuss in the past tense, but are really still a struggle for our international, world society. What I mean by this is that, in America we do not think twice of issues of being enslaved or tortured, having basic rights and being protected under law for these rights, or other rights that we take for granted in this country. In other countries around the world, these are the realities of life.



So, I just thought that I would share this site with everyone, as well as some of my insight as to the content's usefulness.

Freedom of speech: Should teachers be "neutral"?

Can teachers take stands on issues, or should they remain "neutral?" Should teachers lose their right to freedom of speech when they walk into a school building? Check out this short news article from teachermagazine.org and see what you think:

The U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to hear the appeal of a former Indiana teacher who alleged that she lost her job because she had discussed the Iraq war in her classroom.

The case was notable because it led to a fairly broad ruling by a federal appeals court that teachers have virtually no First Amendment protection for statements made in the classroom, even on a topic of such public importance as the war.

Deborah A. Mayer was a first-year teacher in the 11,000-student Monroe County, Ind., school district in January 2003 when she used an edition of TIME for Kids in a current-events discussion about the then-impending war.

According to court papers, the magazine reported on a peace march in Washington to protest the prospect of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Ms. Mayer was asked by a student in her multiage classroom of 3rd through 6th graders if she would ever participate in such a peace demonstration. She told them that when she had driven by recent peace marches in Bloomington, Ind., related to the Iraq situation, she had honked her horn in response to a sign that said, “Honk for Peace.”

“And then I went on to say that I thought it was important for people to seek out peaceful solutions to problems before going to war, and that we train kids to be mediators on the playground so that they can seek out peaceful solutions to their own problems,” Ms. Mayer said in a deposition in the case.

Some parents complained to the principal about the brief discussion, and the principal barred Ms. Mayer from discussing “peace” in her classroom, according to court papers. The principal also canceled the school’s traditional “peace month.”

“We absolutely do not, as a school, promote any particular view on foreign policy related to the situation with Iraq,” Principal Victoria Rogers said in a memo to school personnel at the time. “That is not our business.”

The school district decided in April 2003 not to renew Ms. Mayer’s contract for the next school year. The teacher alleged that it was because of her comments on Iraq, and she sued the district on First Amendment and related grounds.

A U.S. District Court judge in Indianapolis granted summary judgment last year to the school district. In a Jan. 24 ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago, ruled unanimously for the district as well.

“The First Amendment does not entitle primary and secondary teachers, when conducting the education of captive audiences, to cover topics, or advocate viewpoints, that depart from the curriculum adopted by the school system,” the appeals court said.

What do you think? Should teachers have the right to express their opinions in classroom discussions? Should freedom of speech for teachers be regulated? Where should we draw the line?

Discussing Gay and Lesbian Issues in the Elementary Classroom (revisited)

Hi everybody,

I'm bumping this post from Anna up because it kind of got buried amid some other topics, and I'm hoping that some of you have more to say on this issue -- especially after reading the two pieces from Rethinking Our Classrooms. Anna raises some interesting points and a few important questions as well. See what you think, then weigh in.

Anna said:

I think that the two articles we read from the "Rethinking Our Classrooms" book for this upcoming class meeting were quite interesting. They both brought up some really interesting issues regarding gay and lesbian education, particularly for elementary school teachers, and gave some really good tips on how to discuss these issues in the elementary school classroom.

For starters, I definitely agree that, like Mary Cowhey said, "When schools do get involved in promoting gay-straight alliances and so forth, it is usually at the secondary level" (173). In my own experience, I don't think that discussion about gay and lesbian rights and issues began until late middle school; and gay-straight clubs and groups were definitely not part of extracurricular activities until high school. I wonder why that is, though. I never gave it much thought until reading these two articles, but it definitely seems like although children are beginning to use hurtful words relating to gays and lesbians, like "faggot" or "dyke," at an early age (Gordon claimed even by 1st grade students are using these words to be hurtful towards one another!) the issue is not being addressed until much later in their schooling.

I think that part of the problem might be that we as educators are ourselves still a bit uncomfortable with the issues regarding gays and lesbians. I don't think that there is much of an emphasis in our preparation within the Education program that shows us how to deal with gay and lesbian issues as much as with issues of racism and intolerance. As the articles reveal, however, the issues of anti-gay language and behavior in the classroom are just as much issues of intolerance as anything else that we discuss in the classroom. This is where the other part of the reason comes in ...

Another part of the reason is that parents are also uncomfortable, especially at the elementary school level. I genuinely think that if homosexuality was discussed in the elementary classroom much like issues of antisemitism, racism, womens' rights, etc., there would be a number of parents who would be outraged. Even if the problem of children calling one another "faggot" was dealt with in the proper, educational way, much like Gordon suggested, I don't think that parents would be too pleased. I think that our society is still too deeply rooted in thinking that being gay or lesbian is "wrong" and "taboo." Therefore, until our society accepts being homosexual as just another way of life, then I don't think that we will be seeing these issues discussed as much as other issues of intolerance.

What I wonder is - -
If we are to teach about gay and lesbian issues in the elementary school classroom, when do we do it? Do we make it part of our tolerance curriculum like any other issue, or do we wait until it shows up in our own classroom by a student calling another student an anti-gay or lesbian term that is intended to be hurtful?

(If you want to read a few responses that have already been posted on this topic, scroll down to Anna's original post below.)

Does Zinn matter?

We've spent quite a bit of time so far this semester with Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (that's him to the right). So I'm wondering: Do you think Zinn is relevant for elementary teachers? Is there anything -- in terms of his approach to history, the content of the chapters you've read, the voices that are heard in his text -- that will be useful for you as a teacher of social studies? Even if you wouldn't use A People's History with your students, has it taught you anything worthwhile? Or do you think the class time we've spent on Zinn would have been better utilized reading about/discussing methods or strategies that are specifically geared for elementary teachers?

Whatever your opinion, be honest. Don't just say what you think I want to hear.

The world in which you were born...

What, if anything, does the quote on this poster have to do with teaching -- and teaching social studies in particular?

Teaching Values in the Classroom

As the Wolk article states, there is much controversy in teaching values in the classroom. This is a concept that I have many mixed feelings about. I believe that many values should be instilled in the home. Parents have their own values and beliefs; it is their right to pass these on to their children. Furthermore, parents may have beliefs that contradict those of the classroom teacher. In teaching contradictory values, the teacher is inadvertently telling the child that his or her parents are "wrong." This can be very confusing for the child and may also introduce feelings of discomfort in the child.

My uncertainty comes about when a child is making decisions that are considered "poor" in a school setting. For instance, if a child is showing signs of violence or gang relations, schools often intervene in order to try and place the child on a different path. However, what happens if the child has parents who are in a gang? By interfering with the child, he is also being told to go against his parents' values. While it is obvious from a teacher's perspective that gang involvement is wrong, who are we to judge? I'd be interesting in hearing other people's perspectives on this subject matter.

"One nation under God"

Our Pledge of Allegiance states: "One nation under God;" and "In God we trust" is printed on our currency. Removing these phrases has long been debated. I am interested in what types of questions and discussions will follow this vision:

“Foundations can’t be moved, without destroying ability. If the foundation of this building we’re in right now were removed, what would happen to the building? It would collapse. Now you can move the building and put it on another foundation, but that foundation…it’s there, because foundations are secure. Because this nation we know what the foundation is. It’s all over the constitution; it’s all over the walls of the Jefferson Memorial, Lincoln Memorial. It’s written throughout history. Regardless of what the politicians believe, regardless of what you and I attest to, treat this truth; the founding fathers built it on the truth of the word of God. Everything about the laws of this land were taken from the scripture of the Old Testament. They were right from the Old Testament books of the law. And so, you can’t move away from that foundation without destroying the nation. And so this whole debate and argument over what’s truth and what’s not truth, the only truth I found of this nation is we left a country of tyranny, for religious freedom to worship." -Sonic Flood

In response to the reading, do you believe these phrases should be removed from our Pledge of Allegiance and/or our currency?

Columbus Day

As Columbus day approaches, many teachers are beginning to teach a little bit on the explorer. I wanted to see how teachers are currently teaching this subject and if you agree with the way it is taught or disagree. I know that my teacher is going to shed a little light on this topic and mention moreso the voyage and who Christopher Columbus was. I am in a first grade classroom and I thought that the way my teacher was going about this topic was just right for this age. She was going to focus on how long the trip was and what kind of ship he traveled with. She was also going to talk about explorers and other famous ones in the United States. She felt that it was important to talk about who he was since we do have a day just for him. I wanted to see how other teachers were going to portray this man and the whole topic of Columbus.