Freedom of speech concerns emerge in schools if a student expresses an opinion that contradicts the school’s instructional aims. This might involve censorship of a school newspaper or content restrictions in a school play. It may occur when a student expresses a viewpoint in class that is discriminatory. Students’ efforts to influence the course’s content or to share their opinions through an extracurricular activity may also constitute an exercise of their Freedom of speech. Schools may opt to restrict students’ Freedom of expression to maintain an orderly learning environment, focus course content on specific themes, protect other students, minimize criticism, or ensure that all students participate in age-appropriate conversations.
Hazelwood (484 U.S. 260, 1988) is frequently used as the litmus test for determining the propriety of censorship in school media. At its heart, the view is motivated by worry about the publication’s potential for significant disruption. This balancing point is frequently used to determine whether something can be restricted or not. If there is a possibility of substantial disruption, the case might be made for not printing or publishing. If there is no credible prospect of significant disruption, there is minimal need to withhold publishing. The NEA Code of Ethics establishes a link between this Freedom and a teacher’s responsibilities by requiring instructors to encourage “independent activity in the pursuit of learning,” provide “access to diverse points of view,” and refrain from “distorting subject matter essential to the student’s growth” (Strike & Soltis, 2017, p. 38). This, however, is the point at which our difficulties begin to take shape. When our responsibility to broaden students’ perspectives and subsequent progress is paired with our need to safeguard them and others from any harmful consequences, we find ourselves firmly entrenched in a tough predicament.
In a vulnerable section of the classroom, a teacher works. There he molds young minds’ perspectives regarding the culture in which they inhabit. Children and teenagers are at essential stages in their development as human beings (McNeal, 2018). Parents and teachers are the bedrock of this age group’s educational system, and their job is vital to society’s well-being. Academic Freedom is a term that is frequently used to refer to the rights of teachers, primarily academic Freedom and research. It argues that the classroom should be a marketplace of ideas and that instructors should have the flexibility to inquire about and discuss diverse views and topics (Basharat & Ambreen, 2019). Because teachers educate sensitive youngsters, their Freedom of speech is constrained in the classroom by criteria such as grade level, age, experience, and pupils’ readiness to tackle the subject at hand. Thus, a critical role question involved in this position is the following: What form of expression is constitutionally protected in the classroom by teachers? Given the constitutional protection provided to teachers’ classroom speech, it is reasonable that courts would advise why they chose one test over the other.
It is difficult to claim that either students or instructors give up their constitutional rights to free speech or expression when they enter the schoolhouse. The court established the well-established first amendment principle that mere fear or expectation of disruption is insufficient to exclude exercising one’s right to free expression (Lutaj, 2019). The court determined that for a school to restrict speech, the school must demonstrate that the address will materially and seriously impair the school’s work and discipline. When people who have taught others are asked who benefited the most from the lessons, almost unanimously, they respond, “The instructor” (Grant et al., 2019). Those who have taught know that teaching is a more effective method of learning than being taught. Education helps the teacher to ascertain the student’s perspective on the subject being taught. Schools have been turned inside out. Students should be educators and a learning faculty.
The school leader is an amoral actors in that they act on behalf of multiple constituencies, including the students, their parents, the community, and the employing educational authority. Educational leaders have a moral obligation to take a proactive role in fostering an ethical climate conducive to the conduct of education (Driver, 2020). Proactivity is undoubtedly more likely with higher knowledge and elaboration of the school leader’s agentic function. That is why it is critical to see teachers’ perspectives as genuine for them to hear the meaning in their statements and identify their words as expressions of their grasp of the truth. Because a school leader must transform from one who views teachers as vehicles for achieving policy objectives to one who values teacher expertise and supports teacher leadership (Hasnas, 2019). A critical component of an educational leader’s moral duty includes exploring change options with teachers, recruiting colleague administrators to support teacher initiatives, and intervening on teachers’ behalf to mitigate the harmful impacts of unproductive external mandates.
Education is all about expressing one’s views on significant societal issues and embracing any changes that may arise. Individuals should be adaptable to change, as it is an unavoidable occurrence. Similarly, individuals should express their ideas to be corrected or to be corrected. The more children express themselves at school, the more willing they will be to study and participate in various educational methods. This would increase the global level of education, therefore eradicating the failed promise of education. According to studies, education has been unable to provide students with opportunities to express their fundamental views on contemporary challenges and development ideas.
References
Basharat, A., & Ambreen, M. (2019). Freedom of expression as a child right: Comparison of public and private schools (Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D. Scholar, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, Pakistan. ISSN 1026-3861).
Driver, J. (2020). Freedom of Expression within the Schoolhouse Gate. Ark. L. Rev., 73, 1.
Grant, J., Hewlett, K. A., Nir, T., & Duffy, B. (2019). Freedom of expression in U.K. universities.
Hasnas, J. (2019). Freedom of Expression at the Private University. The Values and Limits of Academic Speech, Routledge.
Lutaj, L. (2019). Freedom of Expression and the Civil Participation of the Youth. Proceedings Book, 36.
McNeal, L. R. (2018). Hush Don’t Say a Word: Safeguarding Students’ Freedom of Expression in the Trump Era. Ga. St. UL Rev., 35, 251.
Strike, K. A., & Soltis, J.F. (2017). The ethics of teaching. [Electronic Version]. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.