Facebook and the Court of Public Opinion: Lessons Learned from School Law

I have thoroughly enjoyed, thus far, the experience of graduate school, in large part because I have had the privilege of focusing on topics that were of direct interest and benefit to my future career. While I can say that my current course has been incredibly informative, its practical application has been at times less clear. This is particularly true in terms of teacher evaluation and remediation. Because it has never been my intention to pursue a position as a campus principal, my focus has not been on how to develop such particular skills of personnel management as evaluation and remediation of staff. Rather, as a peer leader, I see the knowledge gained as a responsibility to lead by example. This course has, more than anything else, changed how I conduct my online personal life, and thereby the guidance that I give to others. For the 2010-2011 school year my district implemented new policies for employees regarding social networking sites. Prior to my investigation of the coursework and current case law in this area, the new policies gave me little pause. That has all changed. I now cast a much wider net as I consider the implications of any item that is posted not only on my site, but on other’s sites that reference me by name. While in certain circumstances I still maintain my rights to constitutionally protected free speech, U.S. Courts have given school districts broad discretion in governing the public perception a teacher presents. This line is generally drawn along two fronts: one, is the public speech a matter of public concern (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968); and two, have I shown competence and professionalism in other areas of my position? (Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, 1977) The implications for me are then twofold. On the one hand, a Facebook post announcing my support of the Rally to Restore Sanity is protected as a pronouncement of public concern, so long as my job performance has not otherwise be compromised. On the other hand, a tagged photo of me wearing a risqué Halloween costume will not be protected regardless of my other work circumstances. Where I falter is in the gray area of off-campus activities. (Bissonette, 2009, p. 31) Generally the advice for teachers is that for any person living in the public eye: the appearance of impropriety is as damaging as the fact of it. Much of teacher’s life is lived in the court of public opinion, and the discrepancy between what ought to be allowable conduct and what is in fact allowable conduct is a foggy hollow.
Works Cited:
Bissonette, A. (2009). Cyber Law: Maximizing Saftey and Minimizing Risk in Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Mt. Healthy Independent School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)