Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home

Judge Rules Teachers Have No Free Speech Rights in Class.

Support the Deb Mayer Legal Defense Fund. Write the ACLU and ask them why they haven't come to her defense. This is an update on a story posted nearly a year ago. The situation is desperate. This teacher needs our help.

Peace on Trial

Judge Rules Teachers Have No Free Speech Rights in Class

Read the appeal to the ruling that overturns several landmark decisions protecting free speech at school . Click on press releases to find the brief.

To Contribute by Mail:

Deb Mayer Legal Defense Fund
c/o Amcore Bank
14 West Mifflin Street #101
Madison, Wisconsin 53703

Now is the time to show your outrage! The National School Board Association has filed an amicus brief with the court supporting the School which states that school boards should have absolute control over what a teacher says in class. Please contact your local school board and tell them that you think a teacher's First Amendment right of free speech should continue to be protected.

In January of 2003, before the war in Iraq began, Deborah Mayer, a public school teacher in Bloomington, Indiana, in response to a student's question, said to her class her class of 4th, 5th, and 6th grade students that she thought peace was an option to war and that we should seek out peaceful solutions to problems before going to war. Angry parents objected to Mayer's statement and accused her of being unpatriotic and anti-Bush. They insisted that she not mention peace in her class again and that she be terminated. Peace Month, a traditional time for teaching students about civil rights and peaceful mediation, was canceled at Clear Creek Elementary School.

Mayer, who had until that time been acclaimed an exemplary teacher, and who had recently earned her administration credentials, was terminated.

Since that time, Mayer has lost not only her job, but her career, her health insurance, her home, her life savings, her independence and her community. She cannot get another job. She now resides with her son who is a doctor in Madison, Wisconsin.

In October, 2004, Mayer, through her attorney, Michael Schultz, filed suit against Monroe County Community School Corporation et al, for violation of her First Amendment right of free speech, (Cause No: 1:04-CV-1695 B/S). At first, the School contended that Mayer's speech was not protected because THE WAR IN IRAQ IS NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN. Next, the School contended that the classroom is not a public forum. Now the judge has ruled that Mayer's speech was not protected at school because she was speaking as an employee and not as a citizen.

In March, 2006, Judge Sarah Evans Barker declared that teachers have no right of free speech in class. This ruling dismissed Mayer's case and denied her right to a jury trial. According to Michael Schultz, Mayer's attorney, the judge did not rule on Mayer's case but instead issued a bright-line rule stating that no teacher has a right of free speech in class.

From Judge Barker's opinion:

"Teachers, including Ms. Mayer, do not have a right under the First Amendment to express their opinions with their students during the instructional period. . . the fact that Ms. Mayer's January 2003 comments were made prior to any prohibitions by school officials does not establish that she had a First Amendment right to make these comments in the first place. . . Ms. Mayer, and teachers generally, may find it difficult to lead a meaningful discussion without interjecting their personal opinions on important political topics; we assume that in fact, some school boards may encourage teachers to do so in a balanced fashion. The point is that whatever the school board adopts as policy regarding what teachers are permitted to express in terms of their opinions on current events during the instructional period, that policy controls and there is no First Amendment right permitting teachers to do otherwise."

Mayer thinks the judge has completely ignored law and precedent. The the Supreme Court has more than once instructed that "the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools."

On April 7th, Mayer filed an appeal in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In Mayer's words, "To think that my making an unassuming comment about peace could lead to the definitive ruling that establishes that teachers have no right of free speech in class is almost more than I can bear. The thought weighs so heavily on my mind and in my heart that I can hardly sleep. I can't let this ruling stand without a fight."

Mayer's youngest son, who has been trained as a nuclear engineer in the Navy, has recently returned home safely from Afghanistan. She is thankful for that.

This is a true to life David and Goliath story. So far, Mayer has spent over $50,000 in legal fees. Now she is facing more legal costs for the appeal. The school corporation has vast resources for legal costs and has made the process very expensive for her. In fact, this judge could have made this ruling the day after Mayer filed the complaint because her ruling has nothing to do with Mayer's case. She ruled strictly on the law. Mayer has run out of money for legal fees and hopes to raise funds for the appeal through donations. She needs your help! Please contribute if you can.

No First Amendment Rights in America's Classrooms: Teacher loses job for saying peace National School Board Association (NSBA) silences all teachers

Global Research Editor's note

We bring to the attention of our readers the case of a community school teacher who has being fired for raising the issue of the war in Iraq in her classroom. The National School Board Association is arguing that First Amendment rights do not hold in the classroom:

1.A public school teacherís curricular speech is per se not speech on a matter of public concern and therefore is not protected by the First Amendment

2. A teacherís classroom speech is part of his or her official job duties and therefore is not protected by the First Amendment.

The conclusion of the amicus brief filed by the National School Board Association with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the school district in Indiana is as follows:

Permitting K-12 teachers to express personal opinions in class under the guise of academic freedom is less justifiable, because elementary and secondary students are more likely to be a captive audience with significantly less individual choice and control over the instruction to which they are exposed than college students. Stated more concretely, college students are better able to avoid through course selection and class attendance a professor who exercises his or her academic freedom rights in a manner the student finds offensive. In the public K-12 school district context, school boards consider parental input in setting curriculum and may allow parents to opt their children out of certain classes, such as sex education. But in general, parents and students who choose to attend public schools have more limited flexibility in selecting teachers and courses than college students. School boards and administrators assign teachers to teach specific subjects to specific grades at specific schools. In many instances, school administrators assign students to particular schoolsóand often particular classes and teachers. And, as the facts of this case illustrate, schools are not always able to grant parentsí requests to transfer their children from a particular teacherís class, regardless of the parentsí reasons. It would be both impractical and impolitic for school districts to accommodate parental requests that their children only be taught by teachers who share the parentsí ideology. Not only would school districts have to spend countless hours rearranging studentsí schedules, they might also be reduced to hiring teachers based on ideological viewpoint rather than professional competence. In short, a K-12 teacher deviating from the curriculum and injecting classroom discussion with personal opinions disregards parentsí expectations and robs school boards of their authority to implement a uniform curriculum of their choosing.

To date, this court has not recognized any academic freedom rights for elementary and secondary school teachers. Palmer, 603 F.2d 1271 (holding a teacher had no First Amendment right to refuse to participate in various patriotic activities); Webster, 917 F.2d 1004 (holding a teacher had no First Amendment right to teach non-evolutionary theories of creation). Even in the higher education context, this court has stated that deviating from the curriculum is not protected by academic freedom rights. Clark v. Holmes, 474 F.2d 928, 931 (7th Cir. 1972) (denying college professorís claim that academic freedom allows him "to override the wishes and judgment of his superiors and fellow faculty members as to the proper content of the required health course"). This court should similarly decline to give constitutional significance to speech in the K-12 context where no academic freedom rights are established.


For the reasons explained above, Amici urge this court to affirm the district court decision and to preserve the authority and discretion of school boards to determine and implement curricula and ensure that teacher expression advances the adopted program of studies.

For the complete transcript click http://www.nsba.org/site/pdf.asp?TP=/site/docs/39200/39151.pdf (pdf)

The implications of this case are farreaching and we call upon people across the US to take a stand to protect freedom of speech in America's classrooms.

Support Deb Mayer

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 19 Oct 2006

I wanted to share with you an amicus brief filed by the National School Board Association with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the school district in Indiana that is trying to abolish free speech at school. It's scary.


Click on Mayer v Monroe County Community School Corporation

http://www.nsba.org/site/pdf.asp?TP=/site/docs/39200/39151.pdf (pdf)

Keep in mind that school boards across the country do not even know about my case.

This brief was prepared with considerable assistance from the attorneys for MCCSC.

Here are several things to remember when reading the brief:

1. I was teaching the curriculum.

2. The School has already conceded in court documents that I was speaking on a matter of public concern--the War in Iraq, but the NSBA insists that was not the case.

3. Garcetti v. Ceballos, which the defense relies on heavily, was decided only a few months ago. In that case the Supreme Court ruled that government workers never have First Amendment free speech rights while they are doing their jobs. For my money, it's unconstitutional. AND my case has been pending for two years.

4. NSBA (lawyers) wrote a brief in favor of free speech for Ceballos. Why the change of heart? (You can read that brief at the above web site also.)

5. There are many misrepresentations (lies) in the brief. One of my favorites is teachers do not participate in creating the curriculum. (Iím wondering what those B.S., M.S., and Admin. degrees I have are for?)

You may wonder where the National Education Association stands in all of this. I will tell you about the conversation I had with Michael E. Simpson, assistant counsel for NEA. I have been pleading for monthsósince March, with NEA through various attorneys to support me or at the very least tell teachers about the appeal. This was Mr. Simpson's final response after offering his deepest sympathy several times. He said, "What if we had a teacher who wanted to express her own opinions about gay and lesbian marriage in a K-12 classroom? What would we do then?"

Really, I'm not making this up. I said we would use the same system we have had in place for decades. We already have laws to protect kids from teachers who say inappropriate things. We shouldn't abolish the rights of all teachers because of one thing one teacher may one day say. It was a heated conversation that ended with me pleading with him one last time to publish something about my case on the NEA website. That's when he ended all communication with me.

My fellow teachers nominated me for the Defense of Academic Freedom Award given by the National Council for the Social Studies. I won. The award will be presented at a conference in Washington D.C. December 2-4, 2006. I'm not sure if I should accept it. What if I lose the appeal, and we lose free speech because I said "peace" in my class? Then I should win the Destruction of Academic Freedom Award. I'm so conflicted about this.

The day before the conference, December 1st, my attorney and I will be in Chicago at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals presenting oral arguments. We have 15 minutes at 9:30 in the morning to save free speech at school. I'm inviting anyone who cares about free speech to attend. Feel free to extend that invitation to anyone who cares about free speech.

I hope you will tell people about the NSBA brief. Basically, the NSBA has declared war on teachers. I think Garcetti v. Ceballos may be the most egregious attack on our freedoms since the Constitution was written, and virtually no one knows about it. It's crazy to me! I'm sure if I had shot a cat or dated a student it would be all over the news. This is so important, and it affects everyone. People should know when their rights are taken away!

I don't expect to win in court. The odds are overwhelmingly against me because of the political climate that pervades. But I would like people to know how hard I fought before it's over.

I'm living in Portland, OR now with family. Still unemployed. I am selling my car to pay for oral arguments. It's the only thing I have left. Free speech has been really expensive for me.


Deb Mayer

For details how you can support Deb Mayer, click here (for PayPal).

— Global Research Editor, Michel Chossudovsky, and Deb Mayer




This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.