Monday, October 06, 2008 Bendigo: When to blow the whistle By Raul B. Bendigo Under My Hat
THE Board of Education in the US, needing to raise the amount of $4,875,000 to build two new schools in the state of Illinois, thought of issuing bonds for the purpose.
So, in February 1961, it asked the voters of the school district to approve the measure. The proposal was defeated.
In December 1961, the Board submitted another bond proposal to raise $5,500,000 to build two new schools. This time the proposal was approved and the new schools were built from the money generated from the sale of the bonds.
Then, in May 1964, an increase in the tax rate to be used for educational purposes was submitted to the voters. The proposal was defeated.
Finally, a second tax increase proposal was submitted in September 1964. This was likewise defeated. In connection with this last proposal of the School Board, a high school teacher wrote a letter to a local newspaper.
Basically, the letter was an attack on the Board's handling of the bond issue proposals and its subsequent allocation of financial resources between educational and athletic programs. The letter also said that the superintendent of schools was attempting to prevent teachers from opposing or criticizing the proposed bond issue.
The Board found, after a full hearing, that the publication of the letter was "detrimental to the efficient operation and administration of the schools of the district" and ruled that the "interests of the school required his dismissal."
After the teacher's claim that his letter was protected by the First (freedom of speech) and Fourteenth (right to equal protection) Amendments was rejected, he went to court.
A circuit court affirmed the teacher's dismissal on the ground that the Board's determination that his letter was detrimental to the school system's interests was supported by substantial evidence and the interests of the schools overrode his First Amendment Rights.
The Illinois State Supreme Court, in deciding the teacher's appeal to it, affirmed the circuit court's decision.
The teacher went to the US Supreme Court. This time, the teacher obtained a ruling that his dismissal was not justified. The Court held that in the absence of proof that the teacher knowingly or recklessly made false statements, he had a right to speak on issues of public importance without being dismissed from his position.
The Court observed that since the teacher's statements to the press were neither shown nor could be presumed to have interfered with his performance of his teaching duties or the schools' general operation, they were thus entitled to the same protection as if they had been made by a member of the general public.
The Court's decision in this case, however, does not mean a field day for whistleblowers. The teacher's statements made by the teacher were found to have been made by him as a member of the general public as it did not relate to his duties.
Statements made by public employees pursuant to their employment have been held to enjoy no First Amendment protection.
