Column: Freedom of speech and schools
Retired superintendent Curt Dubost.
– Controversy is common when it comes to the issue of the extent to which free speech may be restricted in the school setting. This was especially true during COVID when teachers were forced to teach from their private homes, and during highly partisan political campaigns and the concomitant Culture Wars.
Courts have held since the 1969 Tinker decision that students do not surrender their constitutional right to free speech while at school. Hence, unless the school can show that student speech “materially and substantially” is disruptive to school operations, it is permitted. Advocacy for violence, such as gang signs, attacks on other students, drug abuse, and obscenity, is hence able to be legally restricted. Restriction of free speech is not, however, permitted simply because the school disagrees with what the students are saying or anticipate without substantial evidence that it might possibly provoke disruption if permitted.
School personnel understandably, but somewhat surprisingly, have more restrictions on their free speech than do students for the simple reason that they are being paid and are on the job. This is especially true of classroom teachers who are encouraged to allow discussion of controversial subjects when related to the approved curriculum but are expected to present both sides of the issue and not advocate for one or another. A concrete example of the distinction is that students may display in a classroom their advocacy for a particular position or candidate, but school staff may not.
This became an issue during my tenure as superintendent when a group of high school students displayed flags and banners in the student parking lot in support of America, its military, and a presidential candidate. That was permitted by students but would not have been permitted on campus if done by school staff. Unfortunately, some students went too far and displayed flags opposed to another candidate using the “ F bomb.” This was clearly orchestrated and included the impermissible flags being quickly videotaped and posted online before they were removed.
A teacher at another school saw these videos and posted online from her classroom that the group of students presumed to be responsible for the improper flags should go “jump off of a bridge.” Regardless of what her intentions were, this clearly could be easily be interpreted as an invitation to student self-harm and to incite violence against those students. This was also a violation of both school policies and the law as outlined in the 2006 Garcetti decision. Hence, she was immediately placed on leave, and after a lengthy and expensive process, never again taught in the district, and her conduct was reported to the state teacher licensing authority.
More recently, a school employee has posted online statements that can easily be read to suggest that the victim of a recent assassination somehow deserved it. It was not directed at students, not done from school using school technology, nor on school time. Despite the fact that I find the statements totally improper and reprehensible, it is not related to her employment and hence is not actionable by the district administration. As is often the case when the board is encouraged to violate the law, the end result of termination would likely be an unfavorable ruling and a return to employment with back pay. There would also be the very real possibility of loss of district insurance coverage and undeniably huge legal fees, with the district likely paying attorneys’ fees for both sides.
The individual involved is and has been one of my severest critics. She felt I could and should have done much more than I did to protect students from racially motivated bullying and verbal abuse on our campuses. She is passionate and is tired of hearing why more hasn’t been done to protect minority students, particularly black students, on campus. She has also undeniably done a lot of good for a lot of kids for a lot of years. I understand her frustration while disagreeing completely with both what she said and how she said it.
I am reminded of a quote mistakenly attributed to Voltaire ( It was actually coined by biographer Evelyn Hall in 1906, more than a century after his death, but is something he certainly believed ).
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Restricting our basic freedoms under the Bill of Rights is a very slippery slope, regardless of one’s political affiliation.
– Former Paso Robles Joint Unified School District Superintendent Curt Dubost
Editor’s note: Opinion pieces and letters to the editor are the personal opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Paso Robles Daily News or its staff. We welcome letters from local residents regarding relevant local topics. To submit one, click here.
Based on her opinion, there is no way Ms. Perkins can be fair and impartial with my white student. Maybe it’s too expensive to fire her for what she said, but her racist attitude and victim mentality should disqualify her from working in any public school. If she’s still employed at PRHS when my son attends in two years (and I hope she’s not), she absolutely will not be teaching/coaching him, that’s something I will guarantee.
Based on her opinion, there is no way Ms. Perkins can be fair and impartial with my white student. Maybe it’s too expensive to fire her for what she said, but her racist attitude and victim mentality should disqualify her from working in any public school. If she’s still employed at PRHS when my son attends in two years (and I hope she’s not), she absolutely will not be teaching/coaching him, that’s something I will guarantee.