Society, being an ever-changing world, provokes citizens to talk about crucial matters in the dominant society. The citizens’ free speech is encompassed under the First Amendment, allowing them to speak on sensitive issues erupting in society freely. However, the teachers may face speech limitations from the government and school administrators in learning schools. It affects the delivery of knowledge from teachers to students, as educators have to monitor their words constantly. Teachers play a significant role in determining the personality of the learners. The judiciary system has not clearly defined the limits of the First Amendment in learning institutions, and it’s a public concern, especially from the teachers.
Although First Amendment assures the residents of free speech protection, teachers, especially in public schools, are less protected by this law. The Supreme Court has declined to clearly define the limits to which teachers can talk about society’s sensitive issues in the classroom (Black & Shaver, 2019). These courts could not clearly define the standard that governs the tutor’s speech in the school. It has led to some learning institute management deterring teachers from sensitizing students on critical issues. The students may take advantage of this undefined protection and end up violating the school laws. The courts have not designed a protective measure for teachers’ speech when discussing sexual orientation, despite LGBTQ being a current issue (Dawson, 2021). In some states in the USA, teachers have been banned from positively correcting misconceptions about homosexuality. Teacher-free expression is currently a developing public issue within the judiciary system.
The inability of courts not determining the extent of educators’ speech is a public concern. An instructor should not lose his right to speak because of choosing to talk about a sensitive matter in a class (Moore, 2018). Teachers should not be punished for speaking on sensitive materials and issues that they think might benefit students. Some learning institutions and states sometimes limited the tutors’ speech, deeming them controversial, racist, or offensive. Limitations of educators’ speech in-class sessions may lead to failure to incorporate essential skills in students like critical thinking.
The government stresses that the curricular nature of learning institutions is to impart intellectual knowledge and skills to learners. It restrains the teachers from using limitless speech to students on societal and ethical matters (Hudson, 2017). Public employees like teachers no longer have First Amendment protection as part of their official duties. The First Amendment aims to turn the schools into democratic institutions, but its undefined extent in the judiciary’s role prevents this. The curriculum primarily emphasizes students’ focus on what is within the course with a dampened consideration of the ethical dilemma issues in society. Tutors shun away from talking about racism even though they exist because of failed protection (Walker, 2021). Educators fail to actively show some practical issues that exist in the modern world, thus affecting the students’ understanding,
The things taught and said in classes affect the ethical decisions made by educational leaders. The educators know that the knowledge would benefit the students but cannot deliver it because of punishment. The tutors face a moral dilemma, and they end up addressing some sensitive issues in society to speech limitation (Davies & Heyward, 2019). Teacher free speech in classes improves awareness levels and helps tutors develop professional and responsible behavior. The boundaries of speech can thus make teachers irresponsible in their teaching and cannot address the complex issues in society. Schools form an integral part of transmitting ideas, knowledge, and values and developing academic and other skills through teachers. The failed protection of teachers’ speech may make it hard for teachers to effectively transmit intellectual knowledge as the limitation hinders their class content delivery.
Teachers cannot balance the elasticity of ethical thinking and consistent decision-making as they avoid discussions on crucial societal issues. The restraint of dialogue in-class sessions leads to ethical tensions among the teachers and educational administrators (Gutman, 2018). The educators also fail to engage in specific conversations with the students as ethical questions would emerge and thus affect the educators’ decision-making. The court clarifies the extent of free speech protections, and therefore can effectively improve the principled thinking among the tutors and assess their decisions. The limited speech also makes it hard for the teachers to shape the personality of the learners effectively.
The First Amendment protects citizens from free speech, but it restricts teachers from talking about some matters in the world. The Supreme court has failed to provide an unrestricted view of the extent of speech protection from the tutors. Tutors could not comment on racism, homosexuality, and differences in sexual orientation because of some restrictions levied upon them. The intellectual delivery from tutors is negatively affected because of such boundaries. The ethical decision-making of teachers has been impacted as they could not engage with learners in a discussion on delicate issues. The court should clarify the extent to which the teachers’ speech is protected within the learning environment. The learners’ personalities can not be effectively shaped as tutors face restrictions on the issues they need to address.
References
Black, W. L. J., & Shaver, E. A. (2019). The first amendment, social media, and the public schools: emergent themes and unanswered questions. Nevada Law Journal, 20, 1.
Davies, M., & Heyward, P. (2019). Between a hard place and a hard place: A study of ethical dilemmas experienced by student teachers while on practicum. British Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 372–387.
Dawson, K. (2021). Issue 2 Article 1. Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy, 13(2). Web.
Gutman, M. (2018). Ethical dilemmas in senior teacher educators’ administrative work. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 591–603.
Hudson, D. (2017). Rights of Teachers. Mtsu.edu.
Moore, J. (2018). Don’t Shut Up: Why Teachers Must Defend the First Amendment in Secondary Schools. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 1(2), 23–41.
Walker, N. C. (2019). The First Amendment and State Bans on Teachers’ Religious Garb: Analyzing the Historical Origins of Contemporary Legal Challenges in the United States. Routledge.