# data[].attributes.body
My professional perspective comes from the point of view of a campus administrator. The audience would be stakeholders such as campus and district staff, community members, and students. The topic I will be covering is Freedom of Expression on campus. The reason I chose this topic is that, although freedom of speech falls under the first amendment, local and state laws can overlap. Confusion can set in when defining what is and isn't protected free speech, particularly concerning teachers and students. It is up to the campus principal to ensure that Standard 1.7 of the Texas Administrative Code is being followed while simultaneously not violating the first amendment right of students and staff.

1st Amendment
(U.S. Const.  amend.  I)

# data[].attributes.body
Interview Information:
Robyn Leslie, principal, Mesquite ISD
Biography Information

Q: Why is Freedom of expression is important in education?A: It is a constitutional right. If this right is being violated by school staff it can lead to a loss of trust among students and the community, negative press, and ultimately possible litigation. Freedom of speech has always been considered a “hot topic” in the education field but more so now with modern technology and social media. Understanding how to navigate the First Amendment while remaining in compliance with school and district policies is key to creating a safe and equitable school atmosphere.

Q: What best practices can principals follow in relation to Freedom of Expression in schools.
A:

Educate staff, students, and community members on the First Amendment and the importance of creating a diverse and inclusive environment that also falls within compliance with district and state policies.

Provide resources and facilitate programs where students are invited to share their concerns and identify ways to express their first amendment right in a safe way that doesn’t disrupt student learning.

Problem-solve before acting, if there is a concern in relation to freedom of speech, meet with those involved, and come to a happy medium where all members feel validated but also aware of their rights.

What are some emerging issues that educators need to watch for concerning freedom of speech?
A: Understanding what teachers and staff post on the internet. The saying "freedom of speech does not equal freedom of consequence" resonates in this aspect as in recent years many educators find themselves in the hot seat after making a controversial post on Facebook or a blog and then finding themselves without a job or on involuntary leave due to not following district policy that is often listed on their contract.

# data[].attributes.body
The National Education Association champions itself on empowering and championing justice and excellence in public education (NEA, 2022)

This association provides many articles, presentations, and press releases that keep educators up to date on all topics related to education, in particular student and teacher rights and all current events in relation to student and teacher rights.

In an article provided by the NEA, the association covered the supreme courts 8-1 opinion in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a case that questioned whether schools can legally punish students for speech on their social media accounts, even outside of school hours and away from school campuses(Maiers, 2021).

NEA
Maiers, S. (n.d.). Supreme Court strikes right balance in student free speech case. NEA. Retrieved July 20, 2022, from https://www.nea.org/about-nea/media-center

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Student free speech suit over antisemitic Snapchat post

# data[].attributes.body
In the article, the issue of students facing disciplinary action based on an off-campus social media post was perceived as controversial. The student posted a Snapchat photo of a friend wearing a post-WWII style hat and captioned it "Me and the boy's bout [sic] to exterminate the Jews.” (K-12 staff, 2022). The photo and uploading on social media took place off campus but was circulated around campus by another student who took a screenshot as evidence. The school, Cherry Creek High School, consequently expelled the student for the post based off of a policy "around behavior that is detrimental towards the safety and well being off student off and on campus" (K-12 staff, 2022).

The parents of the student were upset and filed suit stating that the school violated the student's first amendment right to freedom of expression and due process under the 14th amendment.

In another case Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L the supreme court ruled that schools must prove that an off-campus free speech offense would potentially cause substantial disruption in order for expulsion to be valid. Appeals are still in circulation.

staff, K.-12 D. (2022, July 12). Appeals Court reinstates student free-speech suit over antisemitic Snapchat Post. K-12 Dive. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from https://www.k12dive.com/news/appeals-court-reinstates-student-free-speech-suit-over-antisemitic-snapchat/626994/

# data[].attributes.body
In 2015, a Bremerton High School Assistant Coach was fired on the basis that his post-game prayers could be seen as coercive to students (Walsh, 2022). In July of 2022, the supreme court decided that the coach's post-game prayers were protected by the first amendment freedom of speech and free exercise of religion clauses.

The supreme court's opinion states coach was engaging in brief personal and private practice of religion.

The majority opinion overrules  Lemon v. Kurtzman, the 1971 Supreme Court decision that set forth a three-part test for examining government action regarding religion (Walsh, 2022)

Walsh, M. (2022, June 27). Supreme Court says High School Coach's post-game prayers protected by the First Amendment. Education Week. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/supreme-court-says-coachs-post-game-prayers-were-protected-by-the-first-amendment/2022/06

# data[].attributes.body
The 1st amendment in the U.S. Constitution prevents the government and its entities from establishing laws that regulate or prohibit the use of free speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (U.S. Const. amend. I)
The Texas Constitution states "FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS; LIBEL.  Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press." (T.X. Const. art. I, § 8)

1. Freedom of speech does not stop at the schoolhouse doors. The first amendment protects students from losing their right to exercise freedom of speech and expression.

2. Since public schools are considered government entities they cannot prohibit free speech but can regulate it. School officials may prohibit free speech if it substantially disrupts the school environment or the rights of others (Freedom Forum Institute, 2022)

U.S. Const. amend. I.
Link
Texas Const. art. I, § 8
Link

Freedom Forum Institute. (n.d.). What rights to freedom of expression do students have? Freedom Forum Institute. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-rights-to-freedom-of-expression-do-students-have/

# data[].attributes.body
Protection of student speech and association rights is a federal statute that is directed more towards students in higher education. Students participating in free and protected speech should not be excluded from institution activities nor denied financial assistance due to the execution of practicing free speech (20 USC § 1011a).

Texas Education Code 37.124 focuses on the disruption of student learning due to "emitting noise of intensity" that could potentially intervene with student learning (TEC § 37.124a). The state statute also emphasizes that "This section may not be construed to infringe on any right of free speech or expression guaranteed by the constitution of the United States or of this state" (TEC § 37.123e)

This means that if students or staff choose to participate in free speech on campus that may cause a disruption of learning and disciplinary action must take place, then the campus principal must review the state statutes and section 37.123a  of the Texas Education Code for reference.

Tex. Educ. Code § 37.124
Tex. Educ. Code § 37.123
Link
United States Code § 1011a
Link

# data[].attributes.body
There have been many federal court cases that have reached the U.S. Supreme court involving the use or violation of free speech on public school campuses. One in particular that set a precedent on how administrators take action when concerns about students' use of the expression are brought up in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Ahead of the Vietnam War, students who did not agree with the war planned to wear black armbands in a show of protest against the war. Consequently, the school had previously banned armbands and used that policy as the means for suspension of the students.

The students and families sued the school district and won the case because their actions did not "substantially cause a disruption of school activities or infringe on the rights of others"  (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969).

In the state of Texas, a high school student and her peers were asked to transcribe what the pledge of allegiance meant to them. The student in question refused to write and drew a scribble as she does not believe in the pledge of allegiance and does not participate in standing during the pledge at events, in class, etc. The next day the teacher told the students that anyone who did not participate in the assignment would get a zero and went on a personal rant about students needing to go to other countries and that they are most likely communists. (Oliver v. Arnold, 5th Cir., No. 20-20215)

The student's mother sued several parties including the teacher who assigned the assignment, the superintendent, and the school district. Stating that her daughter's 1st amendment right was violated because she was punished for now reciting the pledge.

A judge dismissed all defendants except for the teacher directly involved.

According to West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943, the first amendment forbids the compelling of saluting or pledging allegiance to the flag. (W. Virgina SBOE v. Barnette, 1943)

The teacher settled the case in 2021 and it was dismissed.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Link

West Virginia State Bd. of Educ.
v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Link

Oliver v. Arnold, 5th Cir., No. 20-20215
Link

# data[].attributes.body
A federal administrative agency that can set guidance and influence educational practices for freedom of expression in public schools, is the United States Board of Education. The Office of Civil Rights released a "Dear Colleague" or guidance letter in 2003 reviewing and distinguishing the protection of free speech within federally funded programs, not private ones. The letter pinpoints that the "OCR has consistently maintained that the statutes that it enforces are intended to protect students from invidious discrimination, not to regulate the content of speech" (Reynolds, 2003)

The U.S. Board of Education works diligently to follow and provide information on policies that align with the U.S. Constitution and other laws.

Guidance letters provide maps to ensure that the rights of students, staff, and parents are not being violated.

Texas Administrative Law is categorized into different sections, one in relation to the first amendment would be
19 TAC § 4.4, protects students in higher education from unexcused absences due to religious reasons.

This particular code is often also followed by school principals in K-12 schools in collaboration with parents and local administrative law.

Reynolds, G. (2003, July 28) Dear Colleague: I am writing to confirm the position of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education regarding a subject that is of central importance to our government, our heritage of freedom, and our way of life: the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution...
Link

19 Tex. Admin. Code § 4.4 (2004)
Link

# data[].attributes.body
MISD 057914 STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FNA STUDENT EXPRESSION (LOCAL) DATE ISSUED: 8/28/2018 2 of 5 LDU 2018.03 FNA(LOCAL)-X  Creates reasonable cause to believe that the speech would result in material and substantial interference with school activities or the rights of others;  Promotes illegal drug use;  Violates the intellectual property rights, privacy rights, or other rights of another person;  Contains defamatory statements about public figures or others, or  Advocates imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

This policy lets students know their rights to freedom of speech on campus and essentially will let them know what is “off-limits” when expressing their ideas. As long as students abide by the handbook and district policy their First Amendment right is protected on campus.

Link

# data[].attributes.body
The state of Texas Administrative Law provides the
Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators. School principals should reflect on these ethical principles when making difficult decisions concerning students and their right to free speech.

(1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices, and Performance.

(G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws.

Possible Scenario: A student chooses to share their opinion on the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade during their government class. The educator must comply with Standard 1.7 of the TAC and ensure they are not violating the rights of the student.

(3) Ethical Conduct Toward Students.

(B) Standard 3.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor.

Possible Scenario: A teacher retaliating against a student who chooses to exercise their first amendment. Refer to Oliver v. Arnold, 5th Cir., No. 20-20215.

19 Tex. Admin. Code § 247.2 (2018)
Link

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #12 Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #12 Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.body
My own personal experience with freedom of expression takes me back to 9th grade when a well-liked history teacher was placed on leave because he provided students with protest information in regard to (H.R. 4437), an immigration bill. I exercised my right to protest on campus and did not face disciplinary action because our peaceful protest did not disrupt the learning of others. School officials and administrators were in compliance with standard Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws of the Texas Administrative Code.

As a current educator, I believe it is important to adhere to federal, state, and local policies concerning free speech. Having this constitutional right has allowed me to advocate for students in the past. Students and staff should feel comfortable and safe when expressing themselves on campus and it is up to educators to encourage that expression in a legal and ethical way.

# data[].attributes.body
In conclusion, understanding the law and how it applies to education is key in protecting students and staff from negative actions such as suspension, litigation, extermination, etc. Reviewing articles and court cases can help the school administrator and school district avoid potential legal issues.

School Principal Recommendations regarding free speech:

1. Educators at the K-12 level should recognize and receive annual professional development that reviews the most common legal issues in education.

2. Educate teachers and administrators that they only have the power to censor student speech if: the speech will disrupt materially and substantially the activities of the school and there exists a good educational reason for censoring student speech.

3. Recognize that violating students right to free speech is wrong based on a teacher or administrators personal beliefs and violates local and state administrative law.

4. Have teachers and students sign waivers that specifically address their first amendment right but also highlights scenarios or examples where they are not free to exercise that right.

5. Transparent dialogue about freedom of speech and the rights and responsibilities associated with it should be encouraged to take place by the campus principal.

6. Behave proactively and be respectful of students and their freedom of expression, most controversies can be avoided if concerns are brought up with a problem solving mindset vs. a disciplinary mindset.

7. Educators are role models and should be aware of what they post on social media and say in public. Exercising free speech should remain in compliance with district policy.