Download PDF - Education Update

spotlight on schools ■ EDUCATION UPDATE ■ DECEMBER 2006Young Leaders in NYC Tryto Make a DifferenceJonathan BurkanJonathan BurkanRecently, the New York City Center for CharterSchool Excellence sponsored “A Good Readfor Kids,” a fundraiser to support libraries inNYC public charter schools. Jonathan Burkan,Senior Financial Advisor for Merrill Lynch, hostedthe event which featured presentations byRenaissance Charter School students and an auction.Proceeds from the fundraiser will benefit thedevelopment of library resources at RenaissanceCharter School (Queens), KIPP Academy CharterSchool (Bronx)and Carl C. IcahnCharter School(Bronx).Paula Gavin, theCEO of the Centerwas present.Jonathan Burkanbelieves deeply inthe “value of givingback to the community,to the peoplePaula Gavinwho need it most.”Nigel PerryErica Jong & Molly Jong-FastMolly Jong-FastMolly Jong-Fast, the writer-daughter of EricaJong, is on the board of the New York Public LibraryCubs. She recently held a gathering along with hermother and David Patrick Columbia to increaseawareness of the organization with supportersJudy Collins, Naomi Wolf, Bill and Judith Moyers,Amy Sohn, Billy Norwich, Dave Itzkoff, DaphneMerkin, Vicky Ward, Amanda Foreman, CynthiaRowley, Hannah McFarland, Susan Cheever, GigiLevangie-Grazer, Shirley Knight, Darius and JillBikoff, Patti Kenner and Ann Brashares present.Paul LeClerc made a guest appearance.The Cubs is a children’s membership programfor families who annually contribute $1000 to thebranch library. The New York Public Library Cubsis a board of philanthropic-minded young womenand men with children who raise money to buybooks for libraries in New York that are insufficientlyfunded—libraries in Spanish Harlem, theSouth Bronx and other neighborhoods. The focusof the Cubs is bringing books to children. MollyJong-Fast says, “The point of this program is tosupport the neediest branch libraries.”#Another Constraint on PublicEmployees’ Expression Rightsby martha mccarthy, ph.d.In 2006, the Supreme Court rendered a significantdecision, Garcetti v. Ceballos, which narrowsconstitutional protections afforded to publicemployees, including educators, in expressingtheir views about agency operations. An assistantdistrict attorney, Ceballos, alleged that he sufferedretaliation for writing a memorandum suggestingthat an arresting deputy sheriff may havelied in the search warrant affidavit in a criminalcase. Ceballos informed the defense counsel ofhis belief that the affidavit included false statements,and the defense subpoenaed Ceballos totestify at the hearing challenging the warrant. Thecourt denied the defendant’s motion to invalidatethe warrant, and the prosecution proceededwith the trial. Ceballos was removed from thecase, and he alleged that he suffered retaliation,including undesirable work assignments, hostiletreatment by supervisors in the district attorney’soffice, and denial of a promotion.The Ninth Circuit ruled that the retaliationimpaired Ceballos’ free speech rights, but theSupreme Court reversed in a five-to-four decision.Reasoning that Ceballos was speakingabout an assignment he was paid to perform, theSupreme Court majority adopted a bright-linerule excluding from First Amendment protectionpublic employees’ expression pursuant to officialresponsibilities.The four dissenting justices faulted the majorityfor excluding all job-related expression fromFirst Amendment protection, arguing that thebalancing test articulated in Pickering v. Boardof Education (1968) should have been applied.Under this test, a public employee’s expressionTHE LAW & EDUCATIONon public matters cannot be the basis for adverseemployment action unless the expression jeopardizesthe employee’s relationship with immediatesupervisors or harmony with coworkers, impedesjob performance, or interferes with agency operations.Justice Souter declared that the majoritychose an odd place to draw its line, concludingthat a teacher complaining about racist hiringpractices would be protected whereas a schoolpersonnel officer making the same observationwould not be shielded by the First Amendment.The Ceballos ruling is not the only decisionduring the past quarter century that has narrowedpublic employees’ free speech rights. In 1983,the Supreme Court in Connick v. Myers held thatthe content and context of expression should beconsidered in deciding whether it pertains to aprivate grievance and thus is not constitutionallyprotected. Subsequently, lower courts havebroadly interpreted expression that falls in thecategory of private grievances in contrast to publicissues. Now, employee expression pursuantto official job responsibilities is not protected, sopublic employers do not have to establish that theexpression pertains to a private grievance or has anegative impact on performance or agency operations.The Ceballos holding calls into questionlower court decisions in which educators haveprevailed in First Amendment claims of retaliationfor blowing the whistle on wrongdoing intheir schools. Educators in the future may be hesitantto expose unethical school district practices,and if so, their students may be the real victims.#Martha McCarthy is the Chancellor Professorand Chair, Educational Leadership & PolicyStudies, Indiana University.