Introduction
The right to free speech is granted to citizens by Constitution and should be executed across the various spheres of life. However, since the school environment in general and teachers’ educational work, in particular, are characterized by purposeful influence on learners, teachers’ freedom of speech is particularly important to address. When free speech reaches its extremes, it might interfere with the rights of other individuals to dignity and self-expression. For example, when tackling such issues as political views, religious affiliation, or opinions about controversial topics, teachers are not expected to pursue their subjective opinions onto students. Thus, despite the granted right to speak freely, there are some limitations to free speech, which are validated by the prevention of propaganda of one’s subjective opinions. In this essay, the term propaganda as a risk of uncontrolled free speech in the classroom will be used to denote the promotion of one’s biased opinion among others to influence their worldview.
Since education implies teachers’ intentional influence on students’ socialization, educators’ freedom of speech should be subject to control to minimize the risks of propaganda.
The Problem of Free Speech’s Risks for Propaganda in School Setting
Freedom of self-expression, which is inherently connected with the freedom of speech, is a substantial part of life in schools for both students and teachers. According to Hutchens and Fernandez, students’ communication of their opinions in the school environment implies the possibility of public representation of biased opinions that might hinder the rights of others, which is why students’ freedom of speech should be balanced (103-104). Nonetheless, classroom communication and curriculum materials delivered by teachers to students convey socializing messages that further standardize particular opinions and views that might be biased if not controlled properly. The problem under investigation in this essay is the gap in the practical achievement of balancing the rights to freedom of speech and ensuring an unbiased propaganda-free educational environment.
Overall, freedom of speech is essential for a democratic society to function; however, researchers argue that freedom of speech is not the only value or right that should be prioritized. Indeed, “commitment to free speech must be balanced when its demands conflict with other normative commitments, such as the social equality, dignity, or security of historically marginalized citizens” (Howard 94). On the other hand, when tackling other aspects of life outside the concerns of marginalized populations, propaganda might occur in the form of the promotion of political or religious views that might hinder students’ right to autonomy. Thus, since the school environment is characterized by influential interactions, the manifestations of free speech in this setting should be controlled.
Moreover, while the issue of controlling free speech in a school environment is applicable to both students and teachers, the focus of this essay will be teachers’ conduct in the classroom. Such prioritization is validated by the ultimate role of educators in learners’ socialization which occurs in the context of the communicated messages transmitted through curricula and classroom management methods (Magarian 553). In such a manner, it is essential to identify ways to balance free speech in schools to prevent bias in the learners’ social life that would predetermine society’s development in the long-term perspective. Furthermore, the problem of free speech regulation in a school setting is intertwined with international law precedents, which signify a more in-depth practical challenge. According to Leiser, this challenge is commonly associated with the lack of a clear understanding of the main stakeholders’ responsibilities and duties in the cases of propaganda regulation (219-220). Thus, the identified issue requires a multifaceted solution that would address its ethical, legal, educational, and practical implementation-based concerns related to minimizing propaganda as an antecedent of free speech in schools.
Possible Solution One: Policy Development and Implementation
One of the practical solutions to the problem is the development and implementation of a comprehensive policy for balanced free speech in the classroom. The new policy should be based on ethical and legal principles and have clear, practical guidance on the creation of curricula and the tackling of controversial issues in communication with students. According to Fenwick and Fenwick, it is essential to promote democratic values of respect and tolerance in the school environment, which should be incorporated into the free speech regulation strategies (662). Similarly, Howard argues that the policies and rules for free speech regulation should be based on moral principles and interdisciplinary cooperation (94-95). For that matter, when developing the new school policy on controlling the manifestations of free speech in teachers’ classroom conduct, the representatives of several fields of expertise should be engaged in a multi-disciplinary team. In particular, these representatives should include legislators, psychologists, ethical advisors, and educators who would inform the necessary steps for proper supervision of rules abidance.
A significant aspect of the implementation of the new policy is the development of professional skills in managing controversial issues in the classroom. According to Maxwell et al., the main challenge to biased free speech of teachers is the lack of proper competencies and skills for identification of controversial issues and balanced communication of proper educational messages to the learners (3). For that matter, practical workshops, training, and evaluation of teachers’ conduct in the classroom will be initiated as a part of the policy implementation strategy.
Works Cited
Fenwick, Helen, and Daniel Fenwick. “Prevent, Free Speech,‘Extremism’ and Counter-Terror Interventions: Exploring Narratives about Chilling Expression in Schools.” Public Law, 2020, pp. 661-679.
Howard, Jeffrey W. “Free Speech and Hate Speech.” Annual Review of Political Science vol. 22, 2019, pp. 93-109.
Hutchens, Neal H., and Frank Fernandez. “Searching for Balance with Student Free Speech: Campus Speech Zones, Institutional Authority, and Legislative Prerogatives.” Belmont Law Review, vol. 5, 2018, pp. 103-128.
Leiser, M. R. “Regulating Computational Propaganda: Lessons from International Law.” Cambridge International Law Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, 2019, pp. 218-240.
Magarian, Gregory P. “When Audiences Object: Free Speech and Campus Speaker Protests.” University of Colorado Law Review, vol. 90, 2019, pp. 551-592.
Maxwell, Bruce, et al. “Teachers’ Freedom of Speech in the Classroom.” Encyclopedia of Teacher Education, edited by Michael A. Peters, Springer, 2019, pp. 1-6.