Home > Teacher Awaits Day in Court

Teacher Awaits Day in Court

by Open-Publishing - Friday 3 February 2006
3 comments

Demos-Actions Movement Wars and conflicts School-University International

By Matthew Rothschild

Deb Mayer was a teacher of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders at Clear Creek Elementary School in Bloomington, Indiana, during the 2002-2003 school year.

On January 10, 2003, she was leading a class discussion on an issue of “Time for Kids”-Time magazine’s school-age version, which the class usually discussed on Fridays and which is part of Clear Creek’s approved curriculum.

There were several articles in the magazine that discussed topics relating to the imminent war against Iraq, and one that mentioned a peace march.

According to Mayer, a student asked her if she would ever participate in such a march.

And Mayer said, “When I drive past the courthouse square and the demonstrators are picketing, I honk my horn for peace because their signs say, ‘Honk for peace.’ ” She added that she thought “it was important for people to seek out peaceful solutions to problems before going to war and that we train kids to be mediators on the playground so that they can seek out peaceful solutions to their own problems.”

Mayer claims in a pending federal lawsuit that the school chilled her First Amendment rights because of this one conversation in class, which she says took all of about five minutes, and that the school district refused to renew her contract because of it. (The quotes above are taken from court documents.)

I spoke with Mayer on January 24-more than three years after this incident took place.

“It didn’t dawn on me that people would object to me saying peace was an option to war,” she says. “I didn’t even think it was controversial.”

But it sure turned out to be.

“One student went home to tell her parents that I was encouraging people to protest the Iraq War,” she says. “The parents called the principal and demanded to have a conference. The dad was complaining that I was unpatriotic. He was very agitated. He kept raising out of his chair and pointing his finger at me and yelling, ‘What if you had a child in the service?’ I said, ‘I do have a child in the service.’ ”

At the time, one of Mayer’s sons was a naval nuclear engineer aboard the USS Nebraska, she says, adding that he’s now an officer in Afghanistan.

She told the parent, Mark Hahn, that her son also “doesn’t preclude peace as an option to war,” she recalls. “And that made him even angrier.”

At the end of the meeting, Hahn insisted that the principal, Victoria Rogers, make Mayer refrain from talking about peace again in the classroom. “I think she can do that,” Principal Rogers responded, according to Mayer’s deposition. “I think she can not mention peace in her class again.”

“I was just floored,” Mayer says, “but I said OK because we had a parent out of control, and I didn’t want to be insubordinate. I thought that would be the end of it.”

It wasn’t.

At the end of that day, Principal Rogers circulated a memo, entitled “Peace at Clear Creek,” that said: “We absolutely do not, as a school, promote any particular view on foreign policy related to the situation in Iraq.” And she cancelled the annual “peace month” that the school had been holding.

On February 7, 2003, Rogers also sent Mayer a letter telling her to “refrain from presenting your political views.”

Mayer and her lawyer, Michael Schultz, contend that this illegally infringed on Mayer’s First Amendment rights.

At the end of the spring semester, the school district did not renew Mayer’s contract, and she and Schultz allege that this was in retaliation for her political expression.

“This is a classic First Amendment free speech case,” says Schultz. “It involves, for the first time as far as I can tell, the right of a teacher to express an opinion in a classroom while teaching approved curriculum.”

The school district, the Monroe County Community School Corp., takes a different view.

While neither Principal Rogers nor anyone at the school district would respond to my phone calls because the case is pending, the district is mounting an aggressive legal defense. Represented by the law firm of Locke Reynolds in Indianapolis, the district is seeking summary judgment, asking the judge to throw out the case.

I called Heather Wilson, one of the Locke Reynolds attorneys on the case, but she would not comment, suggesting only that I examine the court documents.

“Ms. Mayer’s one-year contract was non-renewed after ongoing parent complaints about her and her teaching style, and five students being transferred out of Ms. Mayer’s classroom at the parents’ request,” says the brief for the school district. And it summons affidavits from parents finding fault with Mayer’s teaching style.

The brief does not deny the Iraq War discussion took place, or that the Hahns got upset by it. In fact, it acknowledges that Mayer was instructed to refrain from discussing her opinions on the war. But the brief says that during the parent conference on the subject, “according to Principal Rogers, Ms. Mayer was borderline unprofessional.” And it states further that the Hahns alleged that Mayer continued to talk about the war in class, a charge she denies.

The gist of the district’s case, as outlined in its brief, is this: “Ms. Mayer’s speech on the war was not the reason for her ultimate termination. Instead . . . the motivating factor for her termination was her poor classroom performance, the ongoing parental dissatisfaction, and the allegations of harassment and threats towards students.”

Schultz, in his court filing in response to the request for summary judgment, rebuts this argument. He says the affidavits about poor performance are pretexts. They “were signed in the summer of 2005, more than two years after Plaintiff’s termination. . . . Those alleged complaints about Ms. Mayer were not and could not have been relied on by Principal Rogers in making her decision to terminate Plaintiff’s contract with the school.” He also cites an evaluation that Mayer received that had praised her effusively.

Schultz says that Mayer deserves her day in court not only because of what he calls the “wrongful termination” but also because her First Amendment rights were violated.

Mayer says at one time the school district did offer to settle-for $2,500. She had already spent ten times that amount, so she refused it, she says. Plus, she wants to defend the free speech rights of teachers. “If the school prevails on this, teachers have no protected speech at school and can be fired for saying anything,” she says.

The case has cost Mayer dearly, she says. “I have lost my house, my income, my health insurance, my life savings, and my prospects for employment.”

If the judge does not grant summary judgment, the case will begin on March 6.

http://progressive.org/mag_mc012506

Forum posts

  • America 2005/2006 - democracy and freedom are buried. R.I.P.

  • As a fifteen-year-old living in Wisconsin, I was embarrassed about the city where I lived, because it reacted so immaturely about a Lenny Bruce concert, the first one that the police interrupted for profanity. It was censorship. They said it was his language. Some people thought it was his honesty.

    The city leaders and law enforcement did not understand, nor cared to, that the profanity was the surface. It gave a gritty real edge to his stories; stories that were honest, straight forward and starkly revealed the hypocrisy, (back in the days when hypocrisy had meaning,) that was prevalent among the authorities, the middle class and the phony moralists. In the spirit of the Marquis de Sade’ but without the images, Lenny Bruce represented what is rather then the illusion that serves as the foundation for deceit.

    The only true moralists dwell in caves, alone, and even then, their purity is suspect. "I knew god, would forgive me. After all I was doing it with someone I love." paraphrase of Woody Allen

    There was a heady feeling to being an American when John Kennedy was president. He was brave, he was sophisticated, he was worldly, and he could not easily be bought, like so many are today. He was rich before he was president and he would be rich afterward. He could think on his feet. He was witty and like many rebels and leaders, he was a bit more desirous than the average guy. Unlike Clinton, he knew what the words beautiful and sexy meant. Each time that I saw an image of one of the presumed harlots that Clinton surrendered to, I could not help but ask, why?

    The friends joked about how horrible a place Russia must be. If anyone in authority commanded you to, "Show me your papers”. You had to stop and show I.D. in denial of your freedom of movement not harassed, unless, of course, you happened to be a suspect. The innocent were shown deference, as it is supposed to be, because that is how we want to be treated.

    I said, "Can you imagine having to live like that?” No free speech, no free press, no freedom of expression, no right to a trial, innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof rests with the state, freedom from warrantless searches and seizures, and if a warrant is issued it must be from a judge, the right not to incriminate oneself, confidentiality between a defendant and his attorney, the right to face one’s accuser, the right to a speedy trial, restrictions against cruel and unusual punishment, the right to a jury of one’s peers, women’s suffrage, one man-one vote, restrictions against discrimination based on sex, age, or race, property rights, privacy rights, the right of a woman to choose, and freedom of and from religion, all with a single intent, to strike a balance between the protection of inherent individual rights, (minority rights,) and the will of the governed. Too much "will of the governed”, and there is fascism. Too much "inherent rights" and there is anarchy.

    One of the best ways to protect the interests of both is through "the rule of law". Although the law functions imperfectly it is far better than the arbitrary nature of any individual. With regard to that nature, Cheney should have had his security clearance taken away weeks ago, when he became a suspect in a crime for the second time. One could go further back than that to obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence during a federal investigation, at least to have him arrested.

    GWB’s claim to an imperial presidency is irrational and ludicrous. There is no right for anyone to break the law, no matter what his purpose. I was taught as a child, "If you do not like the law, change it. There is a process in place. "Do not break the law; unless the law is blatantly unjust, then it becomes one’s duty to do so.” "If ordered to commit a crime, refuse to do it, but understand that one will be in mortal danger from those who ordered the crime to be committed.” "I was just following orders”, is not good enough. America is not a monarchy. George W. Bush cannot choose which laws he will obey and which he will not.

    My fear is that fifteen-year boys will not be able to joke about Russia any more. The police state does not come all at once, but through acceptance of one incremental infringement, one overlooked criminal act; the erosion of each of the concepts realized through the maturing of our constitutional democratic republic, where the people do not become more free; instead we become subjects. The teacher will be treated as if she is a subject if her exercise of free speech becomes punishable in any way. All of us will. March 6th, 2006 is an important day.

    We entrust our government to people who despise our freedom and deny the existence of our dignity. What is that all about? Do they expect congratulations for being realists?