hypothetical case brief

Make up a case brief. This brief needs to be a scenario in which a teachers rights are violated. Make sure to include thought provoking questions at the end of the brief. Be sure to make at least 3 in text citations and to reference your work. 

This should be at least 350 words.

Attached is an example of how the brief should read. Do not use it for your own work.

As well-known and well-liked teacher of a local Elementary school, Ms. Kim has a lot of ties to the small community she works in.

 

This county is a tight knit in which many resident’s family ties trace back several generations. Including Ms. Kim who graduated from the local high school and returned to teach in the same community in which she was raised.  Ms. Kim is a 11th year teacher in good standing with no sanctions or reprimands from her administration or the Board of Education.

In 2016 the community experienced a highly charged political fight for 2 open county commissioner seats.  Ms. Kim is a childhood friend and former classmates of one candidate David Michaels who is also an educator.  Ms. Kim took an active role Michaels’ campaign and was often the face of his campaign.  Because of her connection to Michaels she was not only a staunch supporter but also an advocate highlighting Michaels’ contribution to the field of education as well as his character accolades.  At no point during the campaign did Ms. Kim’s administration ask her to put the brakes on her support of this one candidate, nor did they counsel her on how to assert her freedom to speech but at the same time express that her views were her opinion as a citizen rather than in her role as educator (Essex, 2012, p. 106).  Even during summer break, Kim had fluid conversations with her superiors and peers due to the community being so interconnected.  At no point during the campaign did anyone suggested that she publicly declare that her support was based on her personal opinion rather than that of an educator.

In the end Michaels” lost his bid to an incumbent that Kim had strong negative opinions about but had never spoke of publicly.   However, there was a push from the supporters of this candidate to sanction Kim for her work on the campaign, asserting that she used her position as a teacher to promote confidence and allegiance for Michael’s bid for election.  Ultimately, Ms. Kim was not only suspended without pay pending an administrative hearing, but she was tried in the court of public opinion as a result of media coverage and comments made by supporters of Michaels’ adversary.    Ms. Kim asserted her right to free speech under the U.S. Constitution (Essex, 2012, p. 105).   

Ms. Kim and her supporters contended that she was treated unfairly based on the fact that Kim neither declared that her opinions were that of a citizen rather than an educator, but also never declared her position as an educator.  Additionally, not only were all of Kim’s efforts in this campaign on weekends and evenings a majority of her involvement took place over summer when Kim was in effect “On Break” from her teaching duties. The opposition asserted that because Ms. Kim was not only well known in the community but also highly regarded in her position as an educator that it was implied that her support was as her professional role as an educator.

Ms. Kim’s support of Michaels did not involve defamatory comments or information about his opponent’s character (Essex, 2012, p. 106). Nor did any of the issues addressed in the campaign involve the school system or the Board of Education.  Ms. Kim’s support of Michaels’ moral character allegedly silently impugned the integrity of his opponent.  The issues at the core of the election were those of community interest, this is where the opposition found their ammunition for their fight against Kim.

Who would you support based on the facts? The district or Ms. Kim?   Does the district and administration have the right to suppress public efforts to support candidates if they do not directly involve the school system?

 In this case I used the pivotal points from Pickering v. Board of Education (Essex ,2012, p. 106).  Kim’s actions were not defamatory, were not reckless or lacking in truth.  Kim was entitled to free speech and constitutional protection to comment on matters of community concern (Essex, 2012, P. 106).  Generally, it could be seen that formally Kim should have stated that she was acting as a member of the community rather than an educator but since she was highly regarded as a teacher it would likely have not made a difference.  I find that the district is in violation of suppressing Kim’s right to free speech.

Who would you support the district or Ms. Kim? And key points do you feel strongly support your position?

 

Loriann

Reference:

Essex, N. L. (2012). The 200 most frequently asked legal questions for educators. New York, NY: Skyhorse Pub.