MS: Parent’s objection to letters of support should not lead to harmful new policies
When several school officials in Mississippi wrote letters of support for a colleague convicted of a sexual offense, the public backlash was swift. Parents protested, students were pulled from classes, and calls for new policies erupted. But outrage over this situation does not justify policies that silence educators and public officials from exercising their First Amendment rights.
Teachers and school board members are still citizens. They don’t surrender their right to free speech when they take a public job. Courts have long recognized that public employees retain the right to speak on matters of public concern in their personal capacity (see Pickering v. Board of Education (1968)). Writing a character reference or letter of support—whether for a co-worker, a friend, or even someone facing criminal charges, is a form of personal expression protected under the First Amendment, so long as it’s not done on official letterhead or as an official act of the school district.
While the public’s reaction is understandable, we should be cautious not to let outrage drive policies that chill speech. Free speech sometimes protects unpopular opinions, and that’s exactly when it matters most. FAC urges lawmakers and school districts alike to resist reactionary policy changes that would terminate people from their positions or suppress constitutional rights in the name of damage control.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is more than one issue here. 1) Educators and school boards and teachers’ associations are at fault for doing away with civics in school curricula. Students need to study the Constitution, Political Science, and the Founding Fathers if we expect parents to participate as educated voters and the public in the exercise of just governance. Shame on educators. 2) People in the community need to educate themselves or be educated in freedom of speech and the injustices to former offenders. Educators in their official capacity need to be free to act in ways consistent with their jobs as educators, including supporting injustices and recommendations they see fit making. It is only when their views degrade their institution or act in ways inconsistent with their institution that they might be censored. 3) Laws made irresponsibly that separate parents from their children need to be done only when safety or risk is an issue. It should default in favor of family and parents when there exists no real evidence to the contrary. Remember that those on the sex offender registry include those breaking a myriad of laws from nonviolent ones to violent ones. Few create risk, as most new sexual offenses are committed by strangers, family, or friends. Lawmakers are at fault for not cleaning up the list to narrow the list to those that actually are threats. Shame on lawmakers. Remember that scholars and their studies have debunked all the rhetoric about recidivism risk, about proximity to places where children gather – they gather everywhere, signs on lawns are shameful. We need more exposure to public media to expose the draconian laws and policies that continue to unjustly plague this population of American citizens.
I didn’t know Mississippi had it in them.