"Free" Speech on the Taxpayers' Dime

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. That protection includes everything from re-publication of cartoons Muslims find offensive to ignorant Holocaust denials, expressions that have been prosecuted in some countries. Free speech should be protected no matter how rude or stupid the speech in question may be.

We must keep in mind that the First Amendment guarantees freedom from prosecution by the government. It does not apply to employer-employee relationships even when the employer is the government. For example, federal employees who are privy to classified information are required to maintain confidentiality. In cases of on-the-job rants, the employer decides whether or not to discipline the employee. This brings us to Jay Bennish a public school teacher in Colorado. Bennish frequently used his high school geography class as a platform for his political opinions. A student, Sean Allen, recorded a 20 minute in-class speech by Bennish in which he compared this year’s State of the Union address to “things Adolf Hitler used to say,” blamed the U.S. for the 911 attacks, said that to some native Americans the U.S. flag is “no different than the Nazi flag,” referred to capitalism as “at odds with human rights” and called the U.S. “probably the most violent nation on planet Earth.” A full transcript is available on Michelle Malkin’s website.

Bennish’s diatribe violated the policy of his employer, the Cherry Creek School District, to present a balanced view of material and that the information presented be within the context of the class.

For something to truly be educational, all sides must be presented. One-sided views limited to select information are indoctrination rather than education. Not only was Bennish’s presentation one-sided, he and his audience were not equals. He is not only an authority figure, but is also older, more sophisticated and better educated than the 10^th graders he teaches. His students presumably look up to him. Young people often believe teachers are knowledgeable and truthful because they are teachers. Teachers also grade students. Some have suggested that Bennish’s rant was intended as a way to promote debate. Yet, many students fear that expressing views contrary to the teacher’s will result in lower grades. If the diatribe was intended to stimulate debate, it wasn’t very successful: Allen was the only student who argued with Bennish on the 20 minute tape. One or two short statements may promote debate. A long, impassioned lecture is more likely to stifle it.

Bennish’s lecture appears to have been presented as fact rather than opinion. At one point, Bennish said, “Make sure you get these definitions down.” In our public education system, students are generally encouraged to simply listen and take notes. This does little to encourage them to think critically or question information. Some math and science classes require students to prove theorems and hypotheses, but many courses are limited to the absorption of information. When this is combined with the impressionability of young people, it is little wonder that Bennish could express his opinions with few facts to back them up and no references to the sources of much of the information presented. For example, Bennish said, “Do you see how when, you know, when you’re looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism as an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity?” Bennish neglected to enumerate what he sees as basic necessities, (Is home ownership a necessity? How much health care is “basic”?). He did not explain how other economic systems provide them. He also failed to demonstrate that any economic system could meet the needs of “everyone in the world.” No student asked him to explain shortages, substandard health care and other problems that occur in communist or socialist systems.

After Allen argued with Bennish’s opinions about 911 and anti-Israeli terrorism, Bennish said, “But what I’m trying to get you to do is to think, right, about these issues more in-depth, you know, and not just take things from the surface.” His comment would have been more convincing if Bennish made it earlier in his speech. It also would have been more convincing if Bennish had provided more data and in-depth analysis.

The main problem with Bennish’s rant is that he was supposed to be teaching geography, not political science. If he had made a couple of offhand remarks, it might have been acceptable, but this lecture was approximately 20 minutes long. That is more than one third of the instruction time in a typical high school class. Whether a teacher lectures on his or her political opinions or reviews movies, he or she is not teaching the course content. Parents send their kids to school for an education. When that isn’t provided in a public school, the taxpayers are being ripped off.

If Bennish had expressed his political views on his own time in letters to the editor or by blogging, his employer would have no right to complain. When a teacher uses the classroom as a platform for personal opinions, he or she is abdicating the responsibility to teach. In this case, the school district and the taxpayers are not getting what they paid for. Instead of geography lessons, Bennish’s students got opinion and misinformation.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 03/05/06, all rights reserved