A recent news story has received a lot of attention from teachers and the public alike. It seems English teacher Natalie Munroe took it upon herself to call her students out in profanity-filled blog postings in which she called the "out-of-control," disobedient, disrespectful oafs," and "disengaged, lazy whiners." Ms. Munroe's blog has since been taken down, but the story has had broad coverage. A Google search for "teacher, blog, Pennsylvania" yielded more than enough fodder for this Flashpoints48 posting. Ms. Munroe was suspended with pay after some students discovered the blog on-line and made its contents known to school officials.
Ms. Munroe argues that the blog was intended for her friends and family and that on occasion she did use it to vent her frustration about students and teaching. She claims to have made positive comments in addition to the negative ones that have gotten all of the attention, and she did not mention specific students by name nor use her own full name. Subsequently, Ms. Munroe released a video in which she and her attorney defended her and asserted her right to freedom of speech.
Natalie Munroe is currently suspended with pay for her blogging, and the school board will at some point decide on whether she will return to her teaching position. Whether her First Amendment rights are in danger of being violated will be the subject of considerable debate, I am sure. However, a little bit of explanation about how a court might rule might be helpful as we warm up for what promises to be a contentious public conversation.
In Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a public employee's expressions can be sanctioned if they are made pursuant to his/her duties. The question in Ms. Munroe's case then will be whether her blogging comments were made as part of her duties as a teacher. If so, her suspension and any subsequent sanction could be upheld. When she is doing her job, her constitutional right to free speech does not come into play. On one hand, her blog was about her work as a teacher; the students were her students; and she was writing about the travails she encountered on the job. On the other hand, her comments were not intended to be public; she didn't mention any names; and as far as we can tell, no decisions were made about students on the basis of her blogging.
Another consideration is whether teachers' First Amendment rights apply to their expressions when they speak out on matters that are important to the public. In Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that teachers could speak out on matters of public concern without fear of sanction. In Connick v. Myers (1983), the Court ruled further that content, form, and context of the employee's expression can be considered when determining whether the matter is of public concern. This gives employers a wide berth, since not only what an employee says but how and where s/he says it can be taken into account. In the Munroe situation, not only what she said but the forum that she used would need to be considered. While it may be true that the motivations and attitude of high school students is a matter of public concern, were Ms. Munroe's comments expressed in a manner and setting appropriate to the concern? That she was writing semi-anonymously in a blog intended to be read only by a small number of friends might indicate that she was merely blowing off steam about personal gripes--and for that she can be sanctioned. If her motive was to inform the public about high school students, then her blog is protected free expression and she cannot be sanctioned.
And we have to consider one thing more. Even if Ms. Munroe was within her rights to write a blog lambasting her students (and their parents) for their lack of motivation, attitude, and appearance, should she have done so? Is it appropriate for a teacher to express her sentiments in the form Ms. Munroe used? Is this the kind of behavior in which a responsible professional would engage? While she may have had the right to express herself in this way, shouldn't she be using her time and creativity more productively to seek out ways to teach students that are more motivating, more engaging, and more positive?
Natalie Munroe is giving us all a chance to learn a thing or two about what freedom of expression means for teachers and how to deal ethically with the problems of schools and the profession. I'll leave it to you, the Central Bucks school board, and probably a judge to decide whether Ms. Munroe was within her rights or whether she missed a good opportunity to keep her opinions to herself. Here's hoping this incident sparks some discussion about students, schooling, and what our soiety teaches when it considers issues such as this one.
