Academic freedom in U.S. public schools
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53798/suprema.2021.v1.n2.a64Palavras-chave:
Liberdade acadêmica, Primeira Emenda, Estrutura e cenário jurídicos, Desafios curricularesResumo
In this article, we examine several of the legal issues involving academic freedom in K-12 public schools. To begin, we set the context in the United States, where each state and its respective local school boards greatly impact the academic freedom of elementary and secondary school teachers. We next describe the trends in the U.S. Supreme Court precedent related to this topic in order to provide the necessary background. After explaining how some of these landmark cases apply to public elementary and secondary schools and how legal research methods were employed, we examine several illustrative court opinions to demonstrate the legal landscape of this topic. The findings from these court decisions support our conclusion that teachers have limited academic freedom in public school settings. The article closes with some general implications and recommendations for practice.
Liberdade acadêmica em escolas públicas dos Estados Unidos
Resumo
Neste artigo, examinamos várias questões jurídicas envolvendo liberdade acadêmica em escolas públicas K-12. De início, examinamos o contexto dos Estados Unidos, onde cada estado e seus respectivos conselhos escolares locais exercem uma grande influência na liberdade acadêmica de professores do ensino fundamental e médio. Em seguida, descrevemos as tendências nos precedentes da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos relacionados a este tópico, com o propósito de fornecer o panorama necessário. Após explicar como alguns desses casos marcantes se aplicam a escolas públicas de ensino fundamental e médio e como foram empregados os métodos de pesquisa jurídica, examinamos várias decisões judiciais para ilustrar o cenário jurídico deste tópico. As análises dessas decisões judiciais subsidiam nossa conclusão de que professores têm liberdade acadêmica limitada em escolas públicas. O artigo se encerra com algumas implicações gerais e recomendações para a prática.
Downloads
Referências
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (1940). 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure.
Byrne, J. P. (1989). A “special concern of the First Amendment.” Yale L.J. 251, 251-340.
Chemerinsky, E. (2003). The segregation and resegregation of American public education: The courts’ role. North Carolina Law Review, 81(4), 1597–1622.
DeMitchell, T., Eckes, S., & Fossey, R. (2016). The marketplace of ideas in the university classroom: All views welcome. Education Law Reporter, 330(2), 1-24.
DeMitchell, T. D., & Connelly, V. J. (2007). Academic freedom and the public school teacher: An exploratory study of perceptions, policy, and the law. BYU Educ. & L.J., 2007, 83.
Fetter-Harrott, A., Irwin, C., & Eckes, S. (2016). Keep Voldemort out of our schools. Principal Leadership, 58-60.
First, P., Vines, J., Elue, C., & Pindar, L. (2015). Researching legal topics from a policy study perspective. In S. Permuth, R. Mawdsley, & S. Silver (Eds.) Research methods for studying legal issues in education, No. 72 in the monograph series (pp. 127–161). Cleveland, OH: Education Law Association.
Flarherty, C. (2018, July 9). Divided Wisconsin Supreme Court backs Marquette faculty blogger. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/07/09/wisconsin-supreme-court-says-marquette-must-reinstate-professor-it-wanted-fire (discussing professor who was reinstated after criticizing a student in a blog).
Fries, K., Connelly, V. J, & DeMitchell, T. A. (2008). Academic freedom in the public k-12 classroom: Professional responsibility or constitutional right? A conversation with teachers, Education Law Reporter, 227, 505.
Hutchens, N., Fernandez, F., & Hulbert, A. (2016). Faculty, the courts, and the First Amendment. Penn State L.Rev., 120, 1027-1046.
Magnusson, L. W. (2010). Adopted speech: Summum’s implications on government-sponsored student speech, BYU Educ. & L.J., 2010, 407.
McCarthy, M. (2010). Legal research: Tensions involving student expression rights. In W. Hoy & M. DiPaola (Eds.), Analyzing school contexts (pp. 229–253). Charlotte, NC: IAP.
McCarthy, M. M., Eckes, S. E., & Decker, J. R. (2019). Legal rights of school leaders, teachers and students (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn Bacon/Pearson.
Rogers, J. (2017, Oct.). Teaching and learning in the age of Trump: Increasing stress and hostility in America’s high schools. UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access. Retrieved from https://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/teaching-and-learning-in-age-of-trump.
Russo, C. (2006). Legal research: The traditional method. In S. Permuth & R. Mawdsley (Eds.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education, No. 72 in the monograph series (pp. 5–25). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
Schimmel, D. (1996). Research that makes a difference: Complementary methods for examining legal issues in education. Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
Spurgeon, L.D. (2013). The endangered citizen servant: Garcetti versus the public interest and academic freedom. J.C. & U.L., 39, 405-466.
Superfine, B. M. (2009). The evolving role of the courts in educational policy: The tension between judicial, scientific, and democratic decision-making in Kitzmiller v. Dover. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 898–923. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345398.
Uerling, D. F. (2000). Academic freedom in K-12 education, Neb. L. Rev., 79, 956-975.
U.S. Department of Education (2019). National Center for Education Statistics: Digest of Education Statistics, 2017 (NCES 2018-070), Ch. 2. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/ch_2.asp.
Walker, T. (2018, Dec. 11). Education is political: Neutrality in the classroom shortchanges students. NEAToday. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2018/12/11/political-neutrality-in-the-classroom-shortchanges-students/.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2021 Suzanne E. Eckes, Janet R. Decker
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
